Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Incubate. Consensus seems to be that the article does not yet require an article (per WP:NFF), but a valid reason has been given to incubate it for future publishing. New location is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arikil Oraal. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arikil Oraal[edit]
- Arikil Oraal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFF. Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It can be inferred from the reference that the principal photography has started.Uncletomwood (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate as currently failing WP:NFF and not having enough in-depth and persistant coverage tometrit being an exception to NFF. With respects to Uncletomwood, the article's current sourcing tell us the film's title, that the blessing was held March 20, and that it will be the director's second film. None allow any inference that filming has actually commenced. Note: a pooja to bless a project is an activity that precedes actual filming. In looking for additional sourcing, we find the a series of March 2013 sources with the same predictives and nothing establishing filming having begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry schmidt,unaware of that fact,if possible can my vote be termed invalid as per my request?Uncletomwood (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may always do a
strikethroughof your ! vote ( begin with "<s>" and end with "</s>") and change to "incubate" or "delete". Any opinion based upon policy and guideline is valid.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may always do a
- Comment Sorry schmidt,unaware of that fact,if possible can my vote be termed invalid as per my request?Uncletomwood (talk) 14:25, 31 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 merge to Eternity (2012 film). —Darkwind (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Galvin[edit]
- Alex Galvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Movie director. May go far. For now, though, there's a few prizes at obscure film festivals, one (lengthy) bio at a NZ news site that doesn't really confer notability, two films that by the writer's admission were notable for being low budget, and that's it. A very promising career, but has not yet received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many reputable journalistic and other sources. The San Tropez and Cannes Film festivals are not obscure film festivals. Very few films are selected for them. Rick570 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I see is a set of near-promotional articles. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gadfium 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be inclined to delete unless secondary sources crop up to show that he meets WP:FILMMAKER. At the moment all I could find was this piece by stuff.co.nz [1] used to promote his latest film (same as the first reference given in the article, though erroneously attributed to Dominion Post). Otherwise the page references seem more suitable for the page Eternity (2012 film) than the director. Funny Pika! 05:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article appeared in the hard copy Dominion Post, a leading NZ daily newspaper, as cited. Stuff is a newsite owned by Fairfax which owns several newspapers in NZ including the Dominion Post.Rick570 (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect to Eternity (2012 film) which is the source of this coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- do not delete or merge; only part of the article is related to Eternity (2012 film)Rick570 (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Eternity (2012 film) per WP:TOOSOON. Article's subject does not meet WP:FILMMAKER; newspaper coverage is from a single source. Miniapolis 14:41, 6 April 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. J04n(talk page) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Queensmill School[edit]
- Queensmill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, and is no different from any other special school Davey2010 Talk 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We've never discussed the status of this type of school. It serves autistic children of secondary school age, and perhaps should be considered as any other secondary school. I notice it has a notable alumnus--in the old days when we considered secondary schools individually, notable alumni were a significant factor (naturally, essentially any long-established secondary school will have some, subject mainly to our bias in available sources, which is one of the reasons we stopped individually debating them.). DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- By convention we keep most articles on High Schools. I would have thought that should extend to speialist secondary schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - contains a high school and has additional claims to notability from its 'Outstanding' assessment and by virtue of its specialism. No reason to think that with careful research compliance with WP:ORG cannot be obtained. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Its true as DGG says that few special schools have been at AfD (but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit School (Queens, New York) (2009)), but I this one appears notable as well.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a high school is a high school. Being special does not negate that. That would be discriminatory--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states Queensmill School is a coeducational special school for austistic children, If it was a PRIMARY or SECONDARY School i'd of said that so I apologize if it came across discriminatory it wasn't my intention Davey2010 Talk 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The school educates to KS5, so far as the students are able to manage, the equivalent of Sixth Form, so I am not seeing a good reason to treat it differently to other high schools. TerriersFan (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states Queensmill School is a coeducational special school for austistic children, If it was a PRIMARY or SECONDARY School i'd of said that so I apologize if it came across discriminatory it wasn't my intention Davey2010 Talk 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:02, 3 April 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. KTC (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fulham Cross Girls School[edit]
- Fulham Cross Girls School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, and is no different from any other girls school Davey2010 Talk 22:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Generally, high schools are considered to be inherently notable, regardless of their individual notability. In the strictest sense, this is not a high school, but it covers at least part of the senior high age group, up to age 16, so I think it most likely falls under the "inherent" notability of high schools. Safiel (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — is there a policy stating that high schools are notable, or is it just that this has long been the accepted practice? TheBlueCanoe 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no formal policy to that effect, however, common results of AfD discussions concerning high schools has been that they should be considered as inherently notable. Safiel (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Refer to WP:HS and WP:NHS. These are Wikipedia essays and not official policy, but they describe what commonly occurs with high schools in AfD discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From those linked essays: "Opinions presented at school AfDs in general range from the claim that all schools are inherently notable to the opposite claim that no schools are notable. Between these extreme—and unsupported—opinions, lies a broad middle ground: some schools are notable, some schools are not." "An article about a high school should only be kept if it can meet the criteria in the general notability guidelines. An article about a high school should contain information which has been covered by reliable, third-party sources." So, those essays do not really support the "inherently notable" claim.--Atlantima (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Refer to WP:HS and WP:NHS. These are Wikipedia essays and not official policy, but they describe what commonly occurs with high schools in AfD discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no formal policy to that effect, however, common results of AfD discussions concerning high schools has been that they should be considered as inherently notable. Safiel (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — is there a policy stating that high schools are notable, or is it just that this has long been the accepted practice? TheBlueCanoe 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a secondary school; but this together with Fulham College Boys’ School constitute Fullam College Federation, and a joint article should be considered. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No guideline or policy that I've seen supports the notion that secondary schools are inherently notable, and my search did not turn up much in the way of notability-establishment for this one. I found local news pieces (e.g. [2], [3], [4]), some lists of schools that include this one (e.g. [5], [6]), whatever this is, and a Guardian piece that only really talks about the students' annoying behavior.--Atlantima (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found what I missed earlier WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is at the Article for Deletions "Common Outcomes" page. And it states that most AfD's involving high schools end in keep. And pretty much every AfD on high schools that I have seen or participated in has ended in keep. Safiel (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From that page: "previous outcomes do not bind future ones... Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies... While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources."--Atlantima (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found what I missed earlier WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is at the Article for Deletions "Common Outcomes" page. And it states that most AfD's involving high schools end in keep. And pretty much every AfD on high schools that I have seen or participated in has ended in keep. Safiel (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential keep -- This is a high school, which we almost invariably keep. The article implies it is still going, but I am not clear how closely associated it is to the boys school. If they operate together very closely, perhaps they should be treated as one school and merged, but that would require clear evidence of union. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Merging into a unified article on the umbrella organisation Fullam College Federation has merit but that is for post-AfD discussion. Meanwhile the planning document makes it clear that this school is an important part of H&F's education strategy. There is no good reason to delete an article on an important public institution. Careful expansion over time, to bring into compliance with WP:ORG, which is the way we develop stubs, is clearly the sensible way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, high school, appears verifiable and notable. As for history, the work I did at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs shows almost every high school (if verifiable) is kept at AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:01, 3 April 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. Deleted by User:Winhunter under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchy in the Heartland[edit]
- Anarchy in the Heartland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been PRODded, de-PRODded by original author, then re-PRODded, so bringing it to AfD. No evidence that this self-published book has any notability or meets WP:NBOOK. Original editor (and dePRODder) is author of book (see old version of User page), so WP:COI exists. PamD 21:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK as a non notable, self published book. Safiel (talk) 22:56, 28 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) 11:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Ky[edit]
- Joshua Ky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in this article is substantiated; the links do not support the information; the person appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion Haonhien (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person is also not notable, with no verifiable source. Haonhien (talk)
- Delete. Unless there are sources in another language, there just doesn't seem to be anything out there that actually backs up any of the claims in the article. Of the sources on the article, the ones that would be seen as being from a reliable source do not mention him. The others are either primary sources or are otherwise unreliable. Even under a general search under his name brings up nothing that supports the claim, which is fairly telling. Normally people who are notable for something, as in the article's claims that Ky was influential with voice recognition software, would come up with something crediting them for that. There is the possibility that he has only received coverage in other languages or that he uses a slightly different name, but we'd get at least something coming up with a search. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speedily. I just removed some of the more outrageous claims that weren't backed up by the sources. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the article is fabricated. TheBlueCanoe 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources provided either don't mention the subject, are unreliable, or don't establish notability. And I haven't been able to find any relevant sources myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Apprears to be rather hoaxilicious. For somebody who supposedly made such a big splash during the dot com boom, he is invisible to the internet. A 4.4 billion dollar cashout of Bright Networks and Communication seems have been ignored by media. The reference listed for this is the NY Times, a reliable source, but the link is broken. The link also look suspiciously similar to the second working NY Times link which is has ntohing to do with Joshua Ky. The implied headline of the March 25, 1992 article from the NY Times calls the company Worldcom, but Worldcom was known as LDDS until 1995 when they changed their name to Worldcom. -- Whpq (talk) 21:32, 2 April 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) 11:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy phone[edit]
- Fancy phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism not supported by sources whatsoever. Yes, you can find search hits for "fancy phone," but there is no evidence it is established in anyway to mean a smart phone with additional functionality. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete trivial neologism, far from encyclopedic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete page is a joke. it's not a real term Bhny (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an established neologism, completely non-notable. CaSJer (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. The references are insufficient: AliBaba isn't a reliable source but in any case shows landline phones; somebody's personal website isn't a reliable source; and the India Times article doesn't define fancy phones as a distinct category, it just calls some phones "fancy". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Smart phones are fancy, but as a term, no indication of notability. TheBlueCanoe 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of reliable sources. Widefox; talk 11:53, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Appears it is an independently notable subject after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish women in literature[edit]
- Turkish women in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable topic. Some WP:OR, an indiscriminate list of writers/poets, and just very little content generally. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not the least indiscriminate, as the list is composed , as it should be, only of those who have WP articles. This should be expanded into a proper list by giving some information about them individually, which could not be equally well done as a category. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, it's not, as there's a redlink in there, but that's being nitpicky, and easily resolved. Is there any coverage of women in Turkish literature in WP:RS? If there isn't, this is a needless content fork of any Turkish literature articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject, topic of research[7], academic journal articles[8][9], news story[10], anthologies[11][12] Division by gender is justified because of the academic focus on women's writing and women writers as a distinct topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, consider this withdrawn then! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 29 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. If anyone believes other team articles from this league should be deleted, please list them separately (individually or in a mass nomination), as there was no consensus regarding the other league articles. —Darkwind (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
San Antonio Steers[edit]
- San Antonio Steers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Notability Fnordware (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this page has trouble meeting notability guidelines and has no reliable sources, but the same could be said for pretty much every team in the National Indoor Football League. Should they all be deleted? Perhaps they should. Indeed, the page for the entire league hardly has any sources, despite an impressive network of Wikipedia pages. Fnordware (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources at all. Plus the phrase "The Steers would finish 2nd in the Pacific South Division..." is suspect. Maybe it's just editing, but it seems really strange to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG like my prod rationale Secret account 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but how do you feel about deleting the entire National Indoor Football League network? Or at least all the individual team pages? Fnordware (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that they need to be considered on a case by case basis as a few of the teams technically meet WP:GNG by playing in other notable leagues like af2. Prod (or in rare cases) redirect are the best solution to this problem. Secret account 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would rather handle each article separately. I think this one has the potential to be saved if good third party sources are found. And that is likely the case with the others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that merge/redirect is the way to go. If there is ever a reason to resurrect the articles or someone is just curious, the history will be there. Most of these teams are defunct, so not too likely. Pages with no sources should be easy redirect choices. Someone did a lot of work on this though. Fnordware (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm good with redirects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with many of these semi-professional teams is that they played in multiple barely notable leagues, leaving a confusing redirect target in many cases. And I can't see the point of redirecting one team if others probably needs to be deleted because of that confusion, not to mention the league themselves is barely passing GNG. Secret account 05:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I've improved and expanded this article in an initial rescue effort with multiple reliable-third party references. Before this, I had no idea what a rollercoaster ride the 2007 NIFL season became as the league reached its ugly end. Still, I believe that this article now crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. I will continue rescue efforts as time permits. - Dravecky (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that Our Sports Central is not and never been considered as a reliable source for anything as it's all fan based or press release contribution content without much moderation. Once in a while it is ok for a primary source as many smaller teams use it as a type of a PR release website. Still fails WP:GNG unless you can provide more sourcing why this particular team is notable. Secret account 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting to note that Our Sports Central itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. There seems to be some dedicated fans that have written a whole network of articles about this this league as well as af2, but even the articles about the overall league are lacking reliable sources. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but this is a perfect example of when someone should start their own Wiki for a subject they are interested in, not put it in Wikipedia. Fnordware (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using OSC as a primary source to support verifiability only. I'll confess that the Steers, as a league-owned team playing a very short season during the death-throes of the NIFL, are quite likely the least notable of the NIFL teams but there's enough verifiable content about an under-covered topic that I'd hate to see it simply deleted. Perhaps selective merging to a List of National Indoor Football teams article is in order for those teams which cannot support a standalone article. Essentially a fork of a parent National Indoor Football League article, the notability threshold would be more easily crossed. - Dravecky (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, assuming the NIFL is notable, I would have no objection to including a one-paragraph description of each NIFL team, either in the main NIFL article or a spinoff list article. Again, assuming the notability of the NIFL, there is nothing to stop you from doing that regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's enough reliable coverage of the league and many of its teams ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc.) that notability can be established without much concern. It's only the marginal franchises, especially from the league-fueled expansion disaster in 2007, that are at "risk". For the record, I'm not an NIFL fan but do enjoy both minor league sports and article rescue. - Dravecky (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, assuming the NIFL is notable, I would have no objection to including a one-paragraph description of each NIFL team, either in the main NIFL article or a spinoff list article. Again, assuming the notability of the NIFL, there is nothing to stop you from doing that regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using OSC as a primary source to support verifiability only. I'll confess that the Steers, as a league-owned team playing a very short season during the death-throes of the NIFL, are quite likely the least notable of the NIFL teams but there's enough verifiable content about an under-covered topic that I'd hate to see it simply deleted. Perhaps selective merging to a List of National Indoor Football teams article is in order for those teams which cannot support a standalone article. Essentially a fork of a parent National Indoor Football League article, the notability threshold would be more easily crossed. - Dravecky (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting to note that Our Sports Central itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. There seems to be some dedicated fans that have written a whole network of articles about this this league as well as af2, but even the articles about the overall league are lacking reliable sources. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but this is a perfect example of when someone should start their own Wiki for a subject they are interested in, not put it in Wikipedia. Fnordware (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that Our Sports Central is not and never been considered as a reliable source for anything as it's all fan based or press release contribution content without much moderation. Once in a while it is ok for a primary source as many smaller teams use it as a type of a PR release website. Still fails WP:GNG unless you can provide more sourcing why this particular team is notable. Secret account 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines applicable to organizations per WP:ORG for lack of substantial, non-trivial, non-routine coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Searches of Google News and Google News Archive reveal nothing more than trivial mentions in game schedules or minimalist game coverage. OurSportsCentral.com has "published" numerous press releases on-line, but OSC does not constitute an independent media organization when it functions as a conduit for press releases. BTW, what kind of mascot is the steer for a football team, anyway? A neutered bull? Someone really thought that was an appropriate mascot? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to National Indoor Football League. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 4 April 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) 07:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xu Wenkai[edit]
- Xu Wenkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a promotional stub; not obviously notable and not well sourced. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Delete I vote delete for the same reasons that I cited when nominating this page for this specific honor. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- disagree This person is very important in the young field of new media art in China
APT XU Wenkai (Aaajiao) 徐文恺 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoddd (talk • contribs) 19:08, 31 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. Courcelles 22:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imogen Binnie[edit]
- Imogen Binnie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I saw the article for this person added as a notable at North Hunterdon High School without a source. Looking at the article I could see no sources for residence or education. Searching in Google / News / Archives I could find no sources for her hometown or high school, nor could I find any news article for "Imogen Binnie". She does appear to have written a novel, but all of the other sources in the article are trivial mentions, at best, and one of the links is a blog post where she chimed in. I am often leery of nominations for deletion where there was no research done before the AfD was initiated, but there seems to be nothing here. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the sources referenced in the article are mostly worldcat.org links, which is pretty reliable. The birth place/high school info can be verified easily with both online and offline sources, it seems that on the pages for other artists/authors these things aren't required to be cited. Why this one? At the very most it seems like removing this one piece of information rather than deleting the whole article, would be prudent. Brooklynlayman 3:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. She's described as "emerging as an incisively intelligent and startlingly vital queer voice in today¹s literary landscape", i.e. not there yet as far as notability is concerned. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:58, 29 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finger Jousting[edit]
- Finger Jousting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not even sure if this is a serious page - it doesn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quite a bit on Google (how reliable is another matter), and it does seem to exist. I doubt the claim to antiquity and tagged the historical section as needing verification. The lack of beer rules out a bored student origin. Otherwise, it does say "obscure"... Peridon (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are plenty of google hits, but none really from reliable sources. Ducknish (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. Article sounds kind of jokey ("The true origins of the sport are very unclear, however some historians speculate about certain theories. Some believe the sport was created by ancient Israelites..." especially) and overly promotional of the WFJF (until I edited it down to a single mention from half a dozen) but apparently there is some media coverage. Definitely needs lots of cleanup at least.--Atlantima (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Surely you joust. Being the subject of one of the 505 Unbelievably Stupid Webpages (#133) isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Are these bouts accompanied by the sound of coconut shells? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 29 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. Decided not to salt because it was only re-created once, salting is for repeatedly re-creacted pages. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don Fraser & Detour[edit]
- Don Fraser & Detour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any support that this subject meets notability guidelines either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article was recreated without any addition of RSes after the last deletion discussion perhaps a WP:SKYBLUELOCK is on order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find much at all - nothing that would indicate suitability for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, did not find any non-primary reliable sources that give a brief mention or significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Fails WP:GNG & WP:BAND.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 29 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
L. L. Clover[edit]
- L. L. Clover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local pastor who started an unaccredited defunct seminary that itself was deleted as unnotable from Wikipedia two years ago.
This article was created for self-promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to one article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). Out of the 20 citations, Hathorn cited his one article in about half. The other references are Clover's wife's local obituary, a deadlink at geocities, the Social Security Death Index, a genealogy website that cites a census, and a link to amazon (that lists an unavailable self-published book, see below).
This article has been tagged for notability for about two years. The previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. L. Clover ended in no consensus. The basis for those who wanted to keep this was Clover started Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, an unaccredited and defunct seminary. However, WP:PROF applies to "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." The defunct unaccredited school was never a "major" academic institution, and was found unnotable and deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination).
Regarding Leander Louis Clover's authorship, there is no listing for any publication by this Leander Louis Clover in libraries throughout the world. There are four books by LL Clover listed, but on closer inspection those self-published books (published by Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary), such as Evil spirits: intellectualism and logic are not available in any library in the world. Thus, his publications aren't notable.
Clover fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), especially shown with the depths of sources Hathorn used: trivial mentions from the national census, social security death index, Hathorn's own article and a amazon listing of a self-published book you can't get from any library. It seems like this article was simply one of many articles User:Billy Hathorn created to promote his work, and is one reason the community was annoyed and led to his ban. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) Hathorn's motivation for writing about Clover could be his personal connection to the area and his religion.
There are no sources to establish notability.
Also Hathorn uploaded a photo of Clover (actually a photo of a photo), according to the summary it is from a 1966 yearbook. It is unclear how Hathorn owns the rights to reproduce content from the yearbook. Given the history he has of uploading images that aren't his, its likely another copy-vio. SalHamton (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 18:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the works authored by Clover all relate to the history of his own church and his own particular exegesis of his religious views? Or are they independent assessments of larger organizations? Can anyone who worked on this article or read the materials explain, in plain words, what Clover's significance is? Because if it's just to his church, and his church is a small, otherwise non-notable church, then I would say he is non-notable. I can be persuaded as to his notability if either (a) he has done scholarship that is influential, and is broader than expounding his own religious views; or (b) the church he was involved in and his works about it and its faith are themselves notable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The mere fact of having published a book on any subject, be it local or world-wide, is not evidence of notability as a writer. Only publication by a highly respected publisher, or multiple references in books or journals which are published by one qualifies an author as notable. Clover's writings are apparently published "in house" by small baptist presses. They are found in a couple of seminary libraries, but (unless space is at a premium) librarians tend to hold any title both to increase the size of their holdings and because it might be useful for research at some point. Clover does not satisfy Academic notability. His works appear in the second-hand listings of Amazon. In terms of general Notability a check on Google showed that there are a lot of inadequate sources of the type already given here (in some cases, probably echoes of these last. Jpacobb (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I would be happier of we had an article Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary on the institution that he founded, but that seems to have survived his passing away. It may only be a small college, possibly not of high academic standards (I do not know). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF applies to "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute was never a "major" institution. (If fact, it was deleted because there weren't even basic sources about it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination).) It is unclear, because of there are no independent sources, if Clover was "elected," "appointed" or made himself the head of it. Please also note that policy does not apply to school founders, even if were a major institution. Lastly you claim "that seems to have survived his passing away". If you go to its poorly formatted website there are no classes listed, no staff and no faculty. It's not clear if it operates or when it stopped operating, but even if it were clear, the institution's article was still deleted because it is unnotable. Simply put, this subject lacks sources to write an article about. SalHamton (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "seems to have survived" was a typo and meant to read "seems not to have survived"; that makes more sense. The fact that the religion/seminary/whatever doesn't seem to have survived its founder & chief proponent's death is further indication of its lack of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF applies to "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute was never a "major" institution. (If fact, it was deleted because there weren't even basic sources about it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination).) It is unclear, because of there are no independent sources, if Clover was "elected," "appointed" or made himself the head of it. Please also note that policy does not apply to school founders, even if were a major institution. Lastly you claim "that seems to have survived his passing away". If you go to its poorly formatted website there are no classes listed, no staff and no faculty. It's not clear if it operates or when it stopped operating, but even if it were clear, the institution's article was still deleted because it is unnotable. Simply put, this subject lacks sources to write an article about. SalHamton (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Pass a Method talk 14:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wonder if there is not an argument for being the founder of an academic institution as being its own mark of notability. It would seem the founder of an academic institution, at least if he imbued it with his philosophy, would be more notable than a later president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is can a person meet WP:GNG with non-trivial reliable sources, or not. An unnotable founder of an unnotable alleged degree mill is still unnotable, whether they call that business a "university" or not. If the school is notable then there will be sources on its founder(s), such as with Harvard University's John Harvard. In this case, the "school" was deleted as unnotable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination)). Why should Wikipedia allow the creation of unnotable articles on the basis of their connections to "schools" that themselves lack verifiable, independent reliable sources? SalHamton (talk) 14:58, 5 April 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Hassan(united states)[edit]
- Abdul Hassan(united states) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly-referenced article by single-purpose account on someone who doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Wall Street Journal article is an independent source that shows that he was really a candidate, even if he largely failed to make it to the balot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is a fringe candidate inherently notable? Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He isn't notable for being a candidate. He's notable for the court case. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Political candidates are not inherently notable, let alone unofficial ones that don't make it onto the ballot - even if this ballot was for the Presidency of the United States. One independent source and several self referential ones means he fails WP:GNG. Funny Pika! 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - apart from the plentiful press sources, how can someone who succeeds in getting the FEC to drop the ban on naturalized American citizens running for president not be notable? The abysmal state of the article shouldn't divert from that. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I wouldn't necessarily call two independent sources "plentiful", both sources [21][http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/348933/] state that the Federal Elections Commission merely clarified its position on naturalised American citizens running for president. His court cases are still ongoing so, unless there is a more definitive outcome, he fails to meet WP:EVENT. Funny Pika! 07:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done to User:In ictu oculi for the substantial improvements. The page has now been moved to Abdul Hassan (American lawyer). I've set up a dab for the others of this name and there are no other lawyers, so I think a title simply of Abdul Hassan (lawyer) may be even better, and I've set up Abdul K. Hassan as a redirect, as he seems to be commonly known as this. I change my own vote to keep. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though he is not famous as a presidential candidate, he is notable as a naturalized citizen fight against the Natural-born-citizen Clause and pursue the right of a naturalized citizen to run for president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty & equality (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States presidential election, 2012; subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, as indicated in this search. That being said, the subject has received most of that coverage related to the subject of the article United States presidential election, 2012 and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. As the subject is primarily notable due to a single event or series of event that falls within the scope of the suggested article, a redirect is in order if we are to follow BLP1E. Furthermore, WP:POLOUTCOMES also informs us that a redirect is the proper outcome of this type of AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RightCowLeftCoast - are you aware of any other naturalized US citizens who have brought such cases? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 4 April 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 Paul M. Hebert Law Center. Any merger from the history is a matter of subsequent discussion. Sandstein 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources[edit]
- LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New journal, too young to have become notable yet (only 1 issue published so far). No independent sources, not included in any selective major indexes. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice The following was removed from this discussion without notice being provided.
“ | The result was Speedy keep The existence of reliable primary sources, with the topic already covered in the encyclopedia at Paul M. Hebert Law Center, means there is no case for a notability deletion. With no known secondary sources to establish notability, what is needed is a bold redirect. Any newly discovered secondary sources can be used to improve the article at Paul M. Hebert Law Center.(non-admin closure) Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] | ” |
- The above was an inappropriate non-admin closure, as it did not fulfill any of the criteria for speedy keeps. Hence why it was reverted. Unscintillating, if you think this should be redirected you should make an explicit !vote for such. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paul M. Hebert Law Center or delete. The article doesn't even assert notability. Huon (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the publisher. My Google search shows nothing except calls for papers (essentially the equivalent of a press release when it comes to determining notability) and one-off mentions — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - this is a student-edited "journal" with one publication. It wouldn't be considered a reliable source, I don't think. This implies that student publications are notable. I don't think that's true. Maybe in the future it will become notable, but not now. Redirect to Paul M. Hebert Law Center, since it's already mentioned there. Star767 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paul M. Hebert Law Center; this allows for some limited development there in the meanwhile & can be revisited down the road. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paul M. Hebert Law Center, per DASonnenfeld (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge rather than redirect, because a link from there to Energy law would be helpful to bring the latter article to GA status. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: Are you suggesting that, with the merger of LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources into the Paul M. Hebert Law Center article, the latter should, in turn, link to Energy law?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo's Tech Support Forums[edit]
- Nintendo's Tech Support Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined a speedy G11 on the article, but still think it needs to be deleted for notability problems. Fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From the creator of the page...
I am sorry if the article looked like advertising, and as stated in the talk page, I am willing to make changes if someone would point it out to me. I do not mean to advertise this organization to expand the number of users, but I mean to offer the page as a reference to Nintendo's services. Please give the article a second chance, and I will do my best to fix any problems found. Thanks! Carwile2 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem isn't that the article is written as an advertisement, it's that the forum itself isn't notable. There need to be multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the forum. Independent means not affiliated with Nintendo. See WP:GNG for more info. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, and quite frankly, I'm not sure how it'd be realistically possible for a tech support forum to do so... Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the chances of a tech support forum being notable are pretty much nil. This one is not an exception. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is notable. Nintendo's Tech Support Forums are the only service that Nintendo Offers to fix older systems such as the NES or N64. Otherwise, if you call Nintendo, they couldn't help you because the systems are no longer supported. I will find other sources, and that will take care of the source problem, and I will try to update the article soon. Thanks Carwile2 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to read up a bunch on how Wikipedia defines "notable" and what constitutes a reliable source. Hey, maybe its possible, but I've never seen a company's help messageboard rise to that standard. It may be more realistic to try to add some of the more appropriate information to an already existing, relevent article, like Nintendo or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this article fails the WP:GNG obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what I need to do is...include reliable second and third party sources in my article, and then it will fit the Wikipedia Guidelines more closely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwile2 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can even just link to the sources here, we're in doubt that the sources exist. Sources that establish the notability of a subject need to be reliable (i.e. from reputable sources, not blogs, facebook posts, or forum threads), independent (the author and/or publisher shouldn't be affiliated with Nintendo in any way), and the coverage must be significant (i.e. the primary subject of the source should be the Nintendo Tech Support forums, as opposed to an article about something else that happens to mention the forums in passing). And ideally, there should be multiple such sources. Again, WP:GNG is the bar you're looking to get over here. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking out WP:IRS should also help.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can even just link to the sources here, we're in doubt that the sources exist. Sources that establish the notability of a subject need to be reliable (i.e. from reputable sources, not blogs, facebook posts, or forum threads), independent (the author and/or publisher shouldn't be affiliated with Nintendo in any way), and the coverage must be significant (i.e. the primary subject of the source should be the Nintendo Tech Support forums, as opposed to an article about something else that happens to mention the forums in passing). And ideally, there should be multiple such sources. Again, WP:GNG is the bar you're looking to get over here. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so my mission for these next few days is to cite my article with notable, legitimate sources, and then I have passed the WP:GNG guidelines? Carwile2 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources. Correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I found some sources outlining these forums' notability:
- http://gonintendo.com/?p=90755 This page shows that Nintendo's Tech Support forums are notable since they are no place to "hang out", but are aimed at solving problems, unlike most forums.
- http://zazna.com/selection/ZWE0NjhiY2 This source documents the purpose of the forums.
- http://kotaku.com/5961600/if-your-wii-u-wont-connect-to-your-wifi-router-heres-what-to-do This page is an example of the help to with these forums supply their users
- Eh, no, sorry, you're not on the right track. The Zazna stuff are messageboard posts, which are not "reliable". GoNintendo, of which I'm pretty familiar with, as I read it a lot, is still not a Wikipedia-reliable source. It's just a random dude with a website/blog type thing going on. Also, all three of the sources suffer from the fact that they...don't really say...anything about the techforums. I mean, even if GoNintendo was useable, all he really said was something along the lines of "Hey guys, remember it? I liked being there." Even the Kotaku one isn't really about the forums as much as it is about repairing the Wii. You need coverage that actually talks about the forums, not just references or reminisces about them...(Which, yes, I know is hard to do. That's why people are saying it's unlikely to be found notable in the Wikipedia sense.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable forum, the lack of reliable sources means it fails the general notability guideline. ~ Satellizer el Bridget ~ (Talk) 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Subject...does lack support from secondary sources outside of the forums. I do find, However, that it can be stated that a significant amount of coverage of the forums comes from non-affiliated users of the organization (posts within these forums from users not associated with the company). As for the subject's significance, I wrote the article supporting the fact that it is unique, offers support for no longer supported items, and tolerates nothing that does not have anything to do with tech support. I can make out a very vague loophole, for the company is not the one promoting the organization here (it has rarely mentioned it), but the advocacy of the forums come from thier users. Carwile2 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Carwile2, none of the factors you cite deal with the topic's notability. You really need to re-read the notability guidelines as well as understand what Wikipedia is not. The fact that the forum is not sponsored by Nintendo is irrelevant because the article is proposed for deletion due to notability, not because it is a form of self-promotion. The facts that it is unique and that if offers support for otherwise unsupported items is not relevant because those things are not criteria for notability. And your sources do not satisfy the requirement because they do not establish the topic's notability. (If they did though then they would have to pass the test for reliable sources which is a bar they'd not likely surmount.) Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand...I have read and reviewed the notability guidelines, and know that the sources previously listed do not quite fit the guidelines. That being said, I need to explain the projected point. I did not mean to say that the forums are not sponsored by Nintendo, because that is just the opposite. What I meant to imply was that Nintendo does not often meddle in the forums, they leave most posting up to the users. Now, although I said that posts on these forums by non-Nintendo users were perhaps secondary sources, I do not expect this to pass the clear-cut guidelines. Should this article possibly be deleted, I should still like for it to be included in a Nintendo Support article (perhaps a more valid article for me to create). I do wish to help Wikipedia! Thanks! Carwile2 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We are not being honest with our readers that the sources have conflict of interest with the subject per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. Nintendo is notable, but the forum is not. It should be deleted per lack of independent reliable secondary souces and WP:NOTINHERITED. Algébrico (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anita Chanda[edit]
- Anita Chanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion requested by subject at OTRS:6880209 who feels she is not sufficiently notable. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On the low side of borderline; I would probably have said delete whether or not she requested it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I favor deleting biographies of borderline notable people if formally requested through OTRS. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. Google and Google Books give nothing; the existing references aren't sufficient to establish notability as an artist. I think it's a bit odd that someone should have a personal website promoting their art[22] but object to having a Wikipedia article, but even disregarding her request, deletion is called for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps she's actually looked at our standards, realizes she doesn't yet meet them, and simply wants to do the right thing. Refreshing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established. The fact that we can accommodate subject's request with deletion is just extra bonus in this case.--Staberinde (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Any artist must exhibit to sell their work. For an artist of 60+ she seems to have achieved remarkably little. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteClearly is not notable,but she has achieved something(above average achievement, definitely not little).Uncletomwood (talk) 14:29, 31 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) 11:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voskos Greek Yogurt[edit]
- Voskos Greek Yogurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, no rationale left. PROD reason was " Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All that's in the article is pure promotional fluff." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertising for a specific brand'''DGG''' (at NYPL) (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, found a few brief mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however none of them provide significant coverage of the subject of this AfD, and the few brief mentions, if added up together, do not add up to significant coverage. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I believe that this article should not be deleted whatsoever. If we worked together, we could publish an amazing entry is a matter of an hour or two. The company is relevant, but the content needs to be revamped. This article needs to not be deleted, and instead it needs to be improved and restored. Coolboygcp (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that address any of the concerns? The company fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG as clearly as the fact grass is green. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We can improve this article with reliable sources. However, all I can find are press releases and passing mentions. The best source I was able to find was this article from the Seattle Post Intelligencer and that's barely beyond a mention. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete clearly not notable --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:48, 3 April 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, no traces of notability have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two Tales of One Tomorrow[edit]
- Two Tales of One Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-ref stub with no assertion of notability per WP:NALBUMS, and no evidence of it. This is one of a loooong series of WP:POINTy creations by User:Jax 0677, which are intended solely to increase the link count on a navbox. In this case the navbox is {{Doogie White}}, whose deletion the creator is contesting at TFS 2013 March 16.
This falls so far short of notability that I PRODded it, but sadly the creator contested the PROD despite offering no claim of notability, let alone evidence of notability. The grounds for contesting was that "due to added ref" ... but the reference was added was to the album's entry on allmusic.com, which is just a tracklisting, with no review.
Note that this one of 3 AFDs for non-notable albums by Cornerstone (Danish band). The others are at AFD:Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album) and AFD:In Concert (Cornerstone album).
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The band itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND - at best, it will be redirected to the notable band member's page. Articles on top of that for the non-notable group's individual albums are unnecessary, and none of them meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Cornerstone (Danish band) if the article is kept. If it is deleted, the album and its details should be merged LOSSLESSLY into Doogie White. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album by a non-notable band of which he happened to be a member. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Jax, if you want to add a tracklist for a non-notable album, add it to the band's article. But please stop this disruptive and childish game of creating articles on non-notable albums and then arguing for lossless merge IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SHOUT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have not created an article on a non-notable album in some time, even though WP:BRD allows me to do so. There exists a school of thought discussed here stating "such merges to an artist's page tends to be too messy". In fact, the notability of some of the albums that BHG nominated is being corroborated slowly but surely, hence the benefit of a full AfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. On the contrary, you have created at least a dozen articles on non-notable albums over the last 2 weeks. And WP:BRD does not permit you to repeatedly ignore WP:GNG. I urge you to stop, or I will seek sanctions to restrict your editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Doogie White, there is nothing at all to merge. J04n(talk page) 00:55, 5 April 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. Redirecting is not suitable for a disambiguated title. Merging into the band article is not a possibility since that page has also been deleted. SpinningSpark 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Concert (Cornerstone album)[edit]
- In Concert (Cornerstone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-ref stub with no assertion of notability per WP:NALBUMS, and no evidence of it. This is a WP:POINTy creation, intended solely to increase the link count on Template:Doogie White, whose deletion the creator is contesting at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 16#Template:Doogie_White.
This falls so far short of notability that I PRODded it, but sadly the creator contested the PROD despite offering no claim of notability, let alone evidence of notability. The grounds for contesting was that "having more than 3-4 albums within a band article gets messy" ... but that's plain silly. There is no requirement to splat the entire tracklist of every non-notable album into a band article, and if doing so would overwhelm the article, then don't don't include the tracklist.
User:Jax 0677's WP:POINTy crapflood of stubs on clearly non-notable albums is getting worse, not better. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this one of 3 AFDs for non-notable albums by Cornerstone (Danish band). The others are at AFD:Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album) and AFD:Two Tales of One Tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The band itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND - at best, it will be redirected to the notable band member's page. Articles on top of that for the non-notable group's individual albums are unnecessary, and none of them meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Cornerstone (Danish band) if the article is kept. If it is deleted, the album and its details should be merged LOSSLESSLY into Doogie White. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album by a non-notable band of which he happened to be a member. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you creating articles on clearly non-notable topics such as this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have not created an article on a non-notable album in some time, even though WP:BRD allows me to do so. There exists a school of thought discussed here stating "such merges to an artist's page tends to be too messy". In fact, the notability of some of the albums that BHG nominated is being corroborated slowly but surely. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, Jax, nothing in BRD allows you repeatedly create articles on albums where there is no evidence of notability. And you have created dozens of them over the last few weeks. If you don't stop, then the list will form part of the case for imposing editing sanctions on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some but not this one. Per WP:NALBUMS, "that an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." WP:SPLIT is not a valid reason to have a separate article for a non-notable album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have not created any album articles in the past 24-48 hours. Also, if what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars says is true, why do musical artists and ensembles have discography and award pages? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Doogie White, there is absolutely nothing to merge. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 5 April 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. SpinningSpark 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album)[edit]
- Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-ref stub with no assertion of notability per WP:NALBUMS, and no evidence of it. This is a WP:POINTy creation, intended solely to increase the link count on Template:Doogie White, whose deletion the creator is contesting at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 16#Template:Doogie_White.
This falls so far short of notability that I PRODded it, but sadly the creator contested the PROD despite offering no claim of notability, let alone evidence of notability. The grounds for contesting was that "having more than 3-4 albums within a band article gets messy" ... but that's plain silly. There is no requirement to splat the entire tracklist of every non-notable album into a band article, and if doing so would overwhelm the article, then don't don't include the tracklist.
User:Jax 0677's WP:POINTy crapflood of stubs on clearly non-notable albums is getting worse, not better. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this one of 3 AFDs for non-notable albums by Cornerstone (Danish band) (which is itself at AFD:Cornerstone (Danish band). The others are at AFD:Two Tales of One Tomorrow and AFD:In Concert (Cornerstone album). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The band itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND - at best, it will be redirected to the notable band member's page. Articles on top of that for the non-notable group's individual albums are unnecessary, and none of them meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Cornerstone (Danish band) if the article is kept. If it is deleted, the album and its details should be merged LOSSLESSLY into Doogie White. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recebt AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album by a non-notable band of which he happened to be a member. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A size split is no grounds for creating articles on non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How are artist discographies/awards/song lists by themselves notable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to stay on topic. This is not an AFD for a discography. It is an AFD for an article on a non-notable album ... one of many such articles on non-notable albums which you tendentiously create, without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. Please stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How are artist discographies/awards/song lists by themselves notable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A size split is no grounds for creating articles on non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recebt AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am staying on topic. WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". For similar reasons, albums and discographies can be split off. IMO, a discography page should rarely/never be written about a non-notable artist, and usually is only done if the discography takes up most of the page (5FDP discography), or the artist page becomes too big (One Direction discography). There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. I have not created an article on a non-notable album in some time, even though WP:BRD allows me to do so. In fact, the notability of some of the albums that BHG nominated is being corroborated slowly but surely. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:MERGE, Merging should be avoided if: 1) The resulting article is too long or "clunky". Splatting an set of track listings of non-notable albums into another article serves no encyclopedic purpose if there is nothing to say about the significance of the albums other than that they existed.
AFAICS, only 2 or maybe 3 of the dozens of albums articles you have created over the last few weeks come anywhere near WP:GNG. The remainder have been redirected or are heading that way at AFD. And WP:BRD does not allow you to waste other editors time by repeatedly creating articles on non-notable topics. Unless you stop, I will seek sanctions on you disruptive and tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:MERGE, Merging should be avoided if: 1) The resulting article is too long or "clunky". Splatting an set of track listings of non-notable albums into another article serves no encyclopedic purpose if there is nothing to say about the significance of the albums other than that they existed.
- Redirect to Doogie White, there is absolutely nothing to merge. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 5 April 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 Eva O. SpinningSpark 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Past Time[edit]
- Past Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pointless stub on a non-notable album, which fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. The only ref is to allmusic.com, which is just a bare track listing.
This page is yet another piece of tendentious disruption by User:Jax 0677. It was created at created at 14:40 on 26 March, less than 3 hours after {{Eva O}} was nominated for deletion (at 11:54). I PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested by Jax, even tho he made no assertion of notability. So other editors have to waste time with a full AFD on a clearly non-notable album :( Jax should stop this cycle of disruption, or he will face sanctions.
Note that I have also AFDed another article on an album by the same artist: Damnation (Ride the Madness) (see AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was a tough call. My initial reaction was to just redirect to Eva O. However, I feared that with the title "Past Time", that it would more likely pick up users who were actually looking for pastime than it would people looking for this album. Under the Principle of Least Astonishment, I think the best course of action is to delete. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - A disambiguation page with either "Past Time (album)" or "Past Time (Eva O album)" can solve the "principle of least astonishment". Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Eva O. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A size split does not allow the creation of articles on non-notable topics. Jax should stop his disruptive rampage of repeatedly creating articles on clearly non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How are artist discographies/awards/song lists by themselves notable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to stay on topic. This is not an AFD for a discography. It is an AFD for an article on a non-notable album ... one of many such articles on non-notable albums which you tendentiously create, without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. Please stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How are artist discographies/awards/song lists by themselves notable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A size split does not allow the creation of articles on non-notable topics. Jax should stop his disruptive rampage of repeatedly creating articles on clearly non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am staying on topic. WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". For similar reasons, albums and discographies can be split off. IMO, a discography page should rarely/never be written about a non-notable artist, and usually is only done if the discography takes up most of the page (5FDP discography), or the artist page becomes too big (One Direction discography). There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. I have not created an article on a non-notable album in some time, even though WP:BRD allows me to do so. In fact, the notability of some of the albums that BHG nominated is being corroborated slowly but surely. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. WP:BRD does not allow you to repeatedly and calculatedly create articles on topics where you have produced absolutely no evidence of notability. I really strongly suggest that you stop doing so, or you will face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Reply - I have not created any album articles in the past 24-48 hours. My prime direction has been merging the album to the artist article. Again, if this is true, why do we have award and discography pages? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eva O, there is absolutely nothing to merge. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 5 April 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) 01:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan S. Gassman[edit]
- Alan S. Gassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A lawyer with the usual list of impressive sounding credentials and achievements, but not so much more so than every other lawyer. No signs of any independent coverage about this lawyer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wondered if he might be notable as an author , but almost all his books are either self-published or locally published by the Florida Bar Association & found in no libraries outside Florida. The only 2 that are not are published by Tax Management Inc. and are practical guides, found in no worldcat libraries. Highly promotional article. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete I would suggest edits to this article before considering deletion. A lawyer publishing and writing is still significant in the legal community, even if emphasis is in Florida. Bloomberg BNA speaker/presenter is definitely on the national level. Could trim down some of the promotional language and personal details.User:sok6213 18:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — sok6213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Hi WikiDan61. In reference to your nomination of article Alan Gassman for deletion, there are outside sources and coverage of his work. See footnotes 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 in particular, which include mention of prominent Florida cases he was involved with as well as a bio piece. Also see footnotes 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 regarding citation in national periodicals and publications. He further distinguishes himself in being a published author. If there is anything that can be done to edit the article to refine its appropriateness please let me know, but I think there is sufficient evidence for notability.-the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan1245 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Okay, this discussion is sorely lacking in reference to the applicable Wikipedia notability policies, to wit:
- 1. The general notability guidelines per WP:GNG require multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject per WP:RS for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Generally, this means that self-published works and works published by closely affiliated organizations don't count, nor do works written by the subject. What we're looking for are third-party publications that discuss the subject, i.e. attorney Alan Gassman, in some detail, such as newspaper or magazine feature articles; trivial mentions and routine coverage are ignored for the purpose of establishing notability per WP:ROUTINE.
- 2. As far as I can tell, there is no specific notability guideline for practicing attorneys, and their notability must be established per WP:GNG. The notability of judges may be established per WP:POLITICIAN, but that does not appear to apply in this instance.
- 3. The notability for published authors may be established independently of WP:GNG. The applicable specific notability guidelines for authors fall under WP:AUTHOR, which generally covers creative professionals. WP:AUTHOR lays out various metrics to evaluate the notability of an author, specifically including:
- (a) Is the subject "an important figure," or "widely cited by professional peers or successors?"
- (b) Is the subject "a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications?"
- (c) Is the subject "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?"
- (d) Has the subject "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" [does not seem to apply]
- (e) Has the subject's "work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?" [does not seem to apply]
- (f) Does the subject qualify under the related specific notability guideline for academic person per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)?
Notwithstanding the voluminous list of references cited in the article, the Wikipedia-defined notability of the subject attorney looks fairly marginal, and will require careful review of the references to determine the outcome of this AfD. This appears to be a relatively close call. I also note that the two "keep" votes to date appear to be a single-purpose account (SPA) whose only contribution to Wikipedia is his comment above, and a second account that appears to be the subject himself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Overwhelmingly most of the references in the article are not reliable sources for establishing notability. A search of several repositories shows that the subject has been mentioned in some newspaper and magazine articles, but only in passing references, usually in the context of promoting a speaking engagement or a webinar. I was not able to find any in depth coverage about the subject, so the article seems to fail WP:BIO in that the subject does not stand out from his peers in a significant, notable way. - MrX 22:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. The arguments for inclusion are not policy-based. Qworty (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having reviewed the references included within the article, I have not found sufficient depth of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, nor evidence to satisfy any of the various other criteria outlined in WP:AUTHOR (see above). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 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 Securities and Exchange Commission. Sandstein 18:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ABS-15G[edit]
- ABS-15G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject of the article is a government form from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Securities Exchange Act of 1934? James500 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Securities and Exchange Commission. I don't think the info is needed for this particular form, but it is a plausible redirect. Ducknish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete normally I'm in favor of redirects or merges but not seeing this as useful. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Merge, if people use the term in contexts like this, I feel that it's a plausible, if rare, Wikipedia search term. I don't see notability in those sources, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 5 April 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. There were several suggestions for redirection, but no consensus developed. I am inclined to agree with Barney the barney barney but decline to redirect as an administrative action and leave editors free to create a redirect if they so wish. SpinningSpark 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Shadow Cabinet[edit]
- The Shadow Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apprarently non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS.
I see no evidence that it charted anywhere, and the article is unreferenced. I found a 183-word mini-review at Allmuisc.conm, but that falls short of WP:GNG ... and all the other reviews I found appear to be WP:USERGENERATED. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Wuthering Heights (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a band's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- REDIRECT to Shadow cabinet. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Why should we redirect to "Shadow cabinet"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - because the Shadow cabinet is an extremely important concept within British politics, the British constitution and the Westminster System of government. On a notability scale it completely squishes a minor album into almost complete insignificance. It wouldn't be completely unlikely for someone to type into the search box, or create a link to, "the shadow cabinet" instead of "shadow cabinet" Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Why should we redirect to "Shadow cabinet"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- move to The Shadow Cabinet (album), then redirect to Wuthering Heights (band). then, redirect this to Shadow Cabinet or "Shadow Cabinet (disambiguation)" as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wuthering Heights (band), there is absolutely nothing to merge. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 5 April 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#G12 ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INSIKA[edit]
- INSIKA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG - can't find any reliable third-party sources. The majority of the article appears to be copied straight from a primary source (with attribution), it is thus highly promotional as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The acronym INSIKA denotes the German project “INtegrierte SIcherheitslösung für messwertverarbeitende KAssensysteme” ("integrated security solution for cash registers processing metered values"). It is apparently some kind of automated tax collection scheme. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And speedy delete as copyright violation of the first source; it looks like all the text has been lifted from the source. Tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 28 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 Economy of Italy#Agriculture. Sandstein 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agricultural output in Italy[edit]
- Agricultural output in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty much pure WP:OR, based off one source (which is only used for the production numbers). Nothing in this article is worth merging into the main Italy article in any form. Plenty of unsubstantiated peacock terms as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Economy of Italy#Agriculture. An encyclopedic, properly sourced, article could be written on this topic, although Agriculture in Italy would be a preferable title as it would invite a broader treatment of the subject than merely presenting agricultural output statistics. So the subject matter does have some WP:POTENTIAL. I do agree with the nom though that little salvageable material is present in the article under review, and what could potentially be salvaged from the lead is already better stated over at Economy of Italy#Agriculture. So it seems to me that a redirect would be best for now, although I have no prejudice against the creation of a new article about Italian agriculture (or someone completely rewriting the existing article). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BITE? Seriously? This user has been around since May 2012, so I'm REALLY not sure why you're accusing me of violating that guideline... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Agriculture in Italy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 4 April 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 all. SpinningSpark
2008 Rafael Nadal tennis season[edit]
- 2008 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary content fork. Few other Rafael Nadal tennis season articles exist, nor do they need to - all this information fits in his main article. The entire article is built around one source, and may also contain some WP:OR (namely, the names of the "seasons") Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also am nominating the following:
- 2010 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2012 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2013 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- for pretty much the same reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better if it exists. 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 Rafael Nadal tennis seasons do exist, alongside seasons for several other tennis players. It will be edited promptly and expanded. In addition, there is a lot of extra available content in this article, which is not found in his main article. Additional sources have been added as well. Also, the WP:OR that has been mentioned is not original research. Those are common names given to the seasons in a tennis year, and those terms are used widely in the tennis media. Ingdalevri (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, consider those duly added to this AfD. There is absolutely no need for these content forks. Nothing in this article, or any of the others, would be out of place in the main article. All of those are a mess as well. I have no idea why members of the tennis project insist on making these content forks all the time... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are a lot more detailed and provide an additional level of information for those that wish to read more. The main articles have nothing in terms of detail, while these articles do. The main articles cannot have this volume of information in it. Those articles can be edited, and in my opinion, they are necessary. I know several people who like reading about particular tennis seasons in detail (take for example the legendary 2011 Djokovic tennis season). And it is not just Rafael Nadal, there are Roger Federer seasons from 2003 through 2013 as well. Another thing, the other articles aren't really messes, except the 2011 article. I'll edit it. Ingdalevri (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your unusual formatting is making this AfD look confusing: please, sort it out. There is absolutely no need for an in-depth season for any tennis player: a few paragraphs per year would fit perfectly in the main article, and would not make the main article too long. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't see why a detailed season article is not required. And it is useful because it encompasses a wider range of information which provides for those who want to read more. Ingdalevri (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per previous discussions that formed the consensus for "wiki project tennis", any player that has won a Major may have yearly articles for any time period, where they were professional, before or after they won their first Major. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 31 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) 10:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ID Productions Inc.[edit]
- ID Productions Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ID Productions Inc does not appear to be notable. The article does not cite independent reliable sources. I haven't found any sources that indicate notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As per what significant coverage? There are no non-primary sources in the article, and the nominator hasn't been able to find any after searching for some either. It's certainly possible that there is significant coverage out there — but you can't just assert that, you gotta show your work. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 3 April 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) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - LenaLeonard's assertion that there is significant is simply not true. There are plenty of primary sources, and unreliable ones (IMDB), but there is a significant lack of coverage in reliable sources. In fact, there's generally a lack of coverage in any sources, apart from some non-notable local awards. Article is pretty much purely promotional, and none of their films appear to be notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if the films or director were notable (they aren't), the production company behind them doesn't inherit their notability. None of the sources presented are actually about the production company itself. Therefore, I would contend there are no reliable secondary sources in this article at all or any to be found. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the info is coming from sources that aren't reliable in the least. I.E. IMDB- every film related thing ever has an IMDB page, it doesn't prove notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody can actually find some evidence of actual coverage in reliable sources out there, I'm willing to reconsider this — but as written this article (a) relies entirely on primary sources and directories that don't demonstrate notability, and (b) is almost certainly a WP:COI given the creator's username (User:Distributionid). And accordingly, as written it's a delete unless somebody can salvage it with much better references, although we might also consider pushing it back into the user's sandbox where it started. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Significant coverage has now been found in 3 places. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get It Together (James Brown song)[edit]
- Get It Together (James Brown song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (and therefore fails WP:GNG). The album doesn't have an article, so I'm AfDing the song. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please consider searching for sources and improving articles before bringing them to AfD. There are sources that can be used to improve this: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two of those are even close to significant coverage (namely, 1 and 3). I'll leave this open a little longer to see if anyone finds any more (as I have no idea how reliable those are, and am not 100% convinced at them being proper WP:RS, just due to some of the fluffy language in them). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:N per [29] and [30]. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have added a quote from, and citation for, Allmusic's review of the song. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now people have been able to find coverage that I couldn't, it's time to close this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:30, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Home Heartache[edit]
- Dream Home Heartache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS. No sign of any substantial coverage, or of evidence that it charted.
The onky refence in the article is a link to allmusic.com, which is only 140 words. That's well short of the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and I haven't found any other reviews.
The article does contain an unreferenced assertion that a tour in support of the album led to a riot in Mexico City. If true, that might have prompted further coverage of the album, but the event is not mentioned in the artcles on the album's two creators (Rozz Williams and Gitane Demone), so it may not have been a very significant riot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An album by two notable artists (see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music), released by a notable record label, well received by reviewers. I've added another review quote to the article. I have no doubt that this will have been covered by alternative music/rock music/goth culture magazines at the time of release, but I don't have to anything like that, so I cannot provide citations at this time. This was released long before the Internet was flourishing, and so the liklihood of finding many reviews online is slim to none. (Also, tagging as of questionable notability and throwing in citation needed tags immediately before nominating for deletion is hardly good form. The information requested can be found in the linked sources.) J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article that was in Trouser Press; probably a great number of magazines like this will have covered the album. The majority of them, though, are not going to be accessible online, or within easy reach of me personally. I'm not sure quite how much you want... J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found some obituaries of Williams which list the album as a significant example of his work- how are they? One was apparently in NME (scroll to the bottom), though I don't have a full citation. This is another magazine which may well have reviewed the album, but I do not have access to an archive to check. Again, how much are you wanting? Sure, I've not expanded the article to featured status, but I'm confident I've demonstrated that the subject is notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work on finding refs, but AFAICS they fall well short of WP:GNG requirements:
1) The Truser Press ref is actually one para in a long article about lots of stuff.
3) The Projekt Darkwave ref is a review of compilation album which includes one track from the album. that track is mentioned briefly in two places on the pages.
3) The link above includes a half-para on this album.
The sources look reliable, but these 3 brief mentions fall well short of significant coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work on finding refs, but AFAICS they fall well short of WP:GNG requirements:
- I've found some obituaries of Williams which list the album as a significant example of his work- how are they? One was apparently in NME (scroll to the bottom), though I don't have a full citation. This is another magazine which may well have reviewed the album, but I do not have access to an archive to check. Again, how much are you wanting? Sure, I've not expanded the article to featured status, but I'm confident I've demonstrated that the subject is notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article that was in Trouser Press; probably a great number of magazines like this will have covered the album. The majority of them, though, are not going to be accessible online, or within easy reach of me personally. I'm not sure quite how much you want... J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While there may not be a wealth of coverage available online, it is generally wrong to assume that a Google search will return all available coverage. Albums by notable artists generally receive coverage (in print sources as well as online) and this one has enough to make it worth keeping the article - Google Books also shows some coverage in Mick Mercer's The Hex Files: The Goth Files and GNews has an article (paywalled) in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, possibly a review and there's a Rolling Stone article that describes the album as "a bluesy cabaret album" (certainly not significant coverage but still valid as a source). --Michig (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Rozz Williams or Gitane Dimone. That being said, I concur with Milburn on keeping the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Jax should stop misrepresenting the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the above editors have sufficiently proven that the album is notable to a degree separate from its creators enough to justify an article. Ducknish (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 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 Rozz Williams. J04n(talk page) 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept The Gift of Sin[edit]
- Accept The Gift of Sin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS. No sign of any substantial coverage, or of evidence that it charted. The only ref is a link to allmusic.com, which is just a track listing, without a review.
Note that this is part of a long series of permastub articles on non-notable albums created by User:Jax 0677 to increase the link count on superlkuous navboxes created bim, after they have been nominated for deletion. In this case, see the TFD for {{Rozz Williams}}. When !vote-count was running 5-2 in favour of deletion, Jax wrote Navbox now has 5 albums. Happy?. That was minutes after he had created stubs 3 non-noatble albums: Every King a Bastard Son, Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and Accept The Gift of Sin. All 3 are now at AFD: see AFD:Every King a Bastard Son, AFD:Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and AFD:Accept The Gift of Sin. (I would have PRODded these, but Jax contests every such provide without providing evidence of notability). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or at a minimum, merge to "Rozz Williams") - There is plenty of space in Rozz Williams for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to artist, doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 1 April 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. SpinningSpark 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every King a Bastard Son[edit]
- Every King a Bastard Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album, which fails WP:NALBUMS. No sign of any substantial coverage, or of evidence that it charted. The only ref is a link to allmusic.com, which is just a track listing, without a review.
Note that this is part of a long series of permastub articles on non-notable albums created by User:Jax 0677 to increase the link count on superfluous navboxes created bim, after they have been nominated for deletion. In this case, see the TFD for {{Rozz Williams}}. When !vote-count was running 5-2 in favour of deletion, Jax wrote Navbox now has 5 albums. Happy?. That was minutes after he had created stubs 3 non-noatble albums: Every King a Bastard Son, Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and Accept The Gift of Sin. All 3 are now at AFD: see AFD:Every King a Bastard Son, AFD:Live in Berlin (Rozz Williams album) and AFD:Accept The Gift of Sin. (I would have PRODded these, but Jax contests every such provide without providing evidence of notability). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS.Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Because of article development, I feel that this now meets WP:NALBUMS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've expanded this somewhat. This is the debut solo album by a highly notable artist. It's not surprising that Googling isn't revealing much by way of reviews; this is over 20 years old. Goth culture, rock music and alternative music magazines in the 1990s will have covered this, but I do not have access to any of them. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article that was in Trouser Press; probably a great number of magazines like this will have covered the album. The majority of them, though, are not going to be accessible online, or within easy reach of me personally. I'm not sure quite how much you want... J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found some obituaries of Williams which list the album as a significant example of his work- how are they? One was apparently in NME (scroll to the bottom), though I don't have a full citation. This is another magazine which may well have reviewed the album, but I do not have access to an archive to check. Again, how much are you wanting? Sure, I've not expanded the article to featured status, but I'm confident I've demonstrated that the subject is notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article that was in Trouser Press; probably a great number of magazines like this will have covered the album. The majority of them, though, are not going to be accessible online, or within easy reach of me personally. I'm not sure quite how much you want... J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY) - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Rozz Williams. That being said, I concur with Milburn on keeping the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a tracklist ointo an article on a band. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jax, there is no policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word "no" added. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jax, there is no policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recent AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Where is this "policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless"? To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing saying that the merge can not be lossless, which this type of merge should be. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word "no" now added
I meant that there is "no policy or guideline requiring that a merge be lossless". Per WP:MERGE, Merging should be avoided if: 1) The resulting article is too long or "clunky". Splatting an set of track listings of non-notable albums into another article serves no encyclopedic purpose if there is nothing to say about the significance of the albums other than that they existed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word "no" now added
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seales School of Music and Performing Arts[edit]
- Seales School of Music and Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Uncited orphan article, notability not demonstrated. Proposed deletion template was removed with the assertion that "lack of sources is no reason for deletion", but that did not address notability. I have searched Google News in vain for news coverage; I found one external source and added it, but it is scarcely more than a directory entry. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is called a school but it is a commercial training institute, and not a place for secondary education or higher learning. By WP:NHS, secondary schools typically do not get deleted. There is no precedent for keeping Wikipedia articles about for-profit training businesses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence found (Google, Highbeam, Questia) that this enterprise is notable. The Commonwealth Business & Arts entry that is one entry in a 6 page list of partnership enterprises across the world and not in itself evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a for-profit entity, it must be held to the standards for notability of companies, and the lack of coverage and achievements means that this article fails. Ducknish (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 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. Not charting is not, by itself, a reason for deletion. SpinningSpark 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damnation (Ride the Madness)[edit]
- Damnation (Ride the Madness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album; no evidence that it charted or received significant coverage in reliable sources. The only source is one-paragraph review, which falls well short of WP:GNG; and the allmusic.com listing does not include a review. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From before Internet publishing was what it is today, but I was able to find a review originally published in a Christian media magazine, an interview on a ezine discussing the album and even a mention in a published book. I have added these citations to the album so anyone wanting to expand the article will have them ready. No doubt anyone taking the time to delve deeper would find more. Further, an album by a notable artist from a notable record label; something which would typically be allowed an article. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Good work, but the first ref provided to Release Magazine is very short (only 219 words). The "further reading" link to Cross Rhythms is also short, at only 232 words, while the interview in Dark Heart Mag has only a few paras on the album. Doesn't look to me like meeting WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are clearly more than trivial mentions, and in the case of the two reviews, the album is the main topic of the source material. You're reading more into the guideline than is there; nowhere are details of how many words need to be in the various source articles. Which part of the GNG do you feel that this article does not meet? J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "significant coverage" part. One paragraph is not "significant coverage" . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, you're just straight-up wrong here- you're literally ignoring the guideline. Again, let me quote the part you are failing to do so. I'll even put it in bold for you. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are not trivial mentions, and, in fact, the album is the main topic of two of the sources, meaning that they not only meet but exceed the requirements of the GNG. You're literally just trying to enforce your own rules which are based upon no guideline or policy I know of. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "significant coverage" part. One paragraph is not "significant coverage" . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are clearly more than trivial mentions, and in the case of the two reviews, the album is the main topic of the source material. You're reading more into the guideline than is there; nowhere are details of how many words need to be in the various source articles. Which part of the GNG do you feel that this article does not meet? J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or AT A MINIMUM merge LOSSLESSLY) - Album is recorded by a notable artist, and should at a minimum, be merged losslessly (per this discussion) because it is properly referenced. That being said, I concer with Milburn on keeping the article separate. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please read WP:TPG, and please stop using caps. It is a form of shouting.
Yet again, Jax misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a splat article with the tracklist of a non-notable album.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please read WP:TPG, and please stop using caps. It is a form of shouting.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am staying on topic. WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". For similar reasons, albums and discographies can be split off. IMO, a discography page should rarely/never be written about a non-notable artist, and usually is only done if the discography takes up most of the page (5FDP discography), or the artist page becomes too big (One Direction discography). There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that removing track times is the same as censoring? The Banner talk 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Wiktionary defines censor as "To remove objectionable content". If the content is removed from Wikipedia, its existence on Wikipedia is objected to. The point is that if the information existed on Wikipedia at one time, it can or should be merged into an appropriate article. This happened with Van Canto and No Justice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that removing track times is the same as censoring? The Banner talk 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like enough coverage to me. See also HM Magazine's review, plus I've got an entry in Mark Allan Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music I can use to improve the article -- Foetusized (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence is ever made the charts. The Banner talk 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It almost certainly didn't make the charts, but albums can be highly notable even if they don't. We have featured articles on albums that never charted. There is no guideline or policy which says that only albums which charted are notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 April 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. KTC (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bowman[edit]
- Michael Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor 82.170.113.123, who posted their rationale on the article's talk page. That rationale is posted verbatim below. On the merits, see my comment below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article really sucks. The References lists a single IMDb page twice, that may not even be the correct page: while that IMDb has an image of him in Me, Myself & Irene, the actual IMDb entry for the Bowman this article is about seems to be this page. In other words, pretty much everything in the Wikipedia article may be a lie, because there's barely a thing in the article and what's there possibly relies on an incorrect IMDb page. Then the notability: this person was in 1 movie. The article claims Bowman was nominated for an award in 2001, but it doesn't even state what the award in question was! It mentions the year of the award, the result (nominated), the film and the role; not the award. So, basically, this article is a single line of text. "Michael Bowman was part of the cast of Me, Myself and Irene." Well, great. I'm an Inclusionist, but this article really is ready for deletion. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Honestly, I would tend to agree with the nominator on this one. If the subject has had one prominent role (as opposed to a body of work over time), that role has to be truly notable to justify an article, and I'm not convinced that that is the case here. I would also throw out the usual caveats - if Mr. Bowman ends up in a notable role or roles in the future, and if sources are presented to document this, then an article might be appropriate. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the award that Mr. Bowman was nominated for appears to be Favorite Supporting Actor at the 2001 Blockbuster Entertainment Awards. For those not inclined, that link redirects to the company article, at which the awards are not mentioned. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete using WP:NACTOR as a guide, does not appear to be notable. No multiple roles, one major role. Did receive a arguably notable award nomination. I would, however, argue that the award isn't notable, and he didn't even win it. Roodog2k (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule of thumb I used for the award was whether we actually have an article for that award - and, in this case, we do not. YMMV, but that nailed it for me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One role, and it's a role that seems to be unimportant. Ducknish (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per TOO SOON. While I think the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards are notable enough for us, WP:ANYBIO requires "has been nominated for one several times," and with just that one nomination, this person fails. And too, I agree his singular film role fails WP:ENT. And even if ignoring those SNGs, he fails WP:GNG and thus WP:BASIC. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:12, 5 April 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 WHY IS THIS EVEN HERE. Allright, I'll give a sensible decision: MERGE, but I won't waste my time even templating it. Just be WP:BOLD and do it. SpinningSpark 16:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mycoplasma infection[edit]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mycoplasma infection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not give information about it's subject. The article is only one sentence long, and that sentence only refers to an association between the otherwise unexplained subject and something else. Stijndon (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to mycoplasma. It's worth keeping as a redirect because it is in a navigation template. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, but to mycoplasma pneumonia, as the cited source refers specifically to that infection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to Mycoplasma. WP:Deletion is not clean up. A lack of information is not a valid reason for deleting an article whose subject (not whose current contents) are clearly notable. PMID 23091137 addresses mycoplasma infections in poultry without limiting it to M. pneumoniae. PMID 22819362 is a review of rapid diagnosis systems that is also not limited to the one species. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in the first instance. If the Mycoplasma article becomes too big to contain discussion about both the pathogen and the clinical syndrome, perhaps this article can be used for the clinical content. JFW | T@lk 12:22, 31 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 USERFY. A lot was made of WP:NFOOTBALL in this debate, but only two appearances in a league that is disputed to meet NFOOTY in any case is a bit marginal to say the least. Normally, I am not very sympathetic to "GNG trumps specific guidelines" type arguments, but in this case, I think the deletes have it. The article will be userfied as requested on the grounds that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. SpinningSpark 15:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kerr Young[edit]
- Kerr Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFOOTY - the Scottish First Division isn't a WP:FPL, and he's played 1 game. Also fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a discussion over the professionalism of the SFL1 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Scottish Football League Division One. FWIW, the league was at least considered fully-professional until recently, so when the player made his sole appearance he met NFOOTBALL. Notability is permanent, after all. GiantSnowman 11:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of this discussion: your comment is incorrect, as his debut was yesterday,[31] and that diff is from 7 days prior to that. Thus, the nomination is still valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; a league does not stop being fully-professional overnight. I think it would be sensible to consider the league as semi-professional (if we do come to that conclusion) from the end of this season. GiantSnowman 12:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following your logic. If clubs are part-time now, as they most definitely appear to be, then it's a semi-pro league now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me put it this way then - the league does not stop being notable overnight. Attempting to track the notability of a league on a weekly basis, due to the comings & goings of players & changes in contracts etc. would be an exercise in futility. GiantSnowman 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I understand, but it looks fairly certain that, for this whole season, the league hasn't been fully pro (the clubs can't have become part time overnight, by exactly the same logic you used, and it's not just one club). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the league was considered "fully-professional" - at least as far as Wikipedia's notability standards goes - until a few days ago. GiantSnowman 12:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, but, at the risk of going around in circles, the change was before this article was moved into mainspace, a week before. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have proposed, at the discussion at WT:FPL linked to above, that we consider the league fully-pro for the entire season. That seems sensible to me - playing a game a day or a week before should not impact on notability in the same way that playing in different seasons would. GiantSnowman 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this article is deleted - and I don't think it should be, as there is a strong claim for him meeting WP:NFOOTBALL (see the discussion at WT:FPL linked to above) - then I would ask the closing admin to re-userfy it to User:Blethering Scot/Kerr Young. GiantSnowman 13:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I would also confirm that I would like it to be re userfied in that event. However consensus has been that playing in this div is notable & was agreed would meet WP:NFooty so any change in that consensus should not change mid season. Blethering Scot 09:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Someone needs to add into the FPL list a section for "leagues that were fully pro but now aren't", and the dates they were pro in. Otherwise, this sort of thing will happen again. I'm not going to withdraw the nom, because one game in a league that may or may not be fully pro is a bit marginal to say the least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Scottish Division One has never been fully professional. There's been various attempts to re-draw the notability line around it or make it a special case - but these have all failed because ultimately they are based on a ludicrous premise. The real question mark is over the SPL. At the moment, the source which 'supports' the SPL's inclusion at WP:FPL is an interview with Campbell Money where he recalls playing top flight football himself as a part-timer in the recent past. He was stacking shelves to make ends meet! 176.253.69.131 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Still NN. May be notable one day, but probably still part of a youth squad. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - either way, WP:NFOOTY is just a rule of thumb - we presumed that a player passes WP:GNG if they has played in this or that league. We shouldn't create articles on players that fails GNG, regardless on how many appearance they've made in a fully pro league. My searches suggests that this article fails GNG, but I would be happy to see it recreated once GNG is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the SFL1 has been restored (by an Admin) to WP:FPL, so this player actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication that this individual meets the General Notability Guideline; per Mentoz86, NFOOTY is only a presumption of notability, which looks like it doesn't apply in this case due to the afore-mentioned GNG failure. That's before you delve into whether the SPL1 league is "fully professional" or not. Also per Mentoz86, being in a FPL does not mean, for me, that every player ever to have played in this league should have an article. Particularly not when GNG is not met. Text from the article like "At the start of the 2011–12 season he made regular appearances on the bench.[3][4]" indicate just how notable this individual is. C679 06:24, 6 April 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy G. Tharpe[edit]
- Jimmy G. Tharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable local pastor. This article was created for self-promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to a self-published book and an article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). In the original version, Hathorn includes references like "Statement of Jack D. Tharpe, Sibley, Louisiana, December 15, 2008" (note this "statement" was made the day Hathorn created the wikipedia article!) which is presumably unpublished as no publisher/reference to verify it is given. Did Hathorn get off the phone with Tharpe's son and create an article based on the conversation?
Hathorn then expands the reference count, by citing 30 times Jimmy G. Tharpe's Mr. Baptist autobiography, which was published by 21st Century Press. 21st Century Press is a vanity press. This book doesn't even exist on worldcat or with the Libary of Congress! This means no library in the world has the book and it was never copyrighted in the LOC.
There is no evidence that Tharpe was notable. Seems Hathorn's motivation for writing about Tharpe is his personal connection to the area. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.)
This was previously nominated for deletion four years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy G. Tharpe, but kept with three of the four keeps citing WP:PROF because Tharpe started higher education schools, like Baptist Christian University and Baptist Christian College (defunct and never had accreditation). According to Name It and Frame It?, (now online) both are degree mills. Being the founder of a degree mill does not make Tharpe meet WP:PROF. Further, the wiki article claims he started Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary (also dubbed a degree mill), which wiki redirects to Louisiana Baptist University (unaccredited and of dubious nature Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Baptist University (2nd nomination)) but the connection(s), if any, isn't clear between the four/five similiar sounding "schools". There are no WP:RS for any link(s). Maybe similiar names and someone redirected it? Also Louisana Baptist University fails to mention Tharpe in its history or anywhere on the website.
Thus, the sourcing is weak as seen with Hathorn sourcing a "statement" made the day this wiki article was created, notablity is non-existent whether it be a loose tie to an unaccredited degree mill or a self-published book that no library (including the Library of Congress) has and the creator of this article is also the source for the single third-party piece about Tharpe (save a local obituary).SalHamton (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 09:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep As I said at the earlier AfD, presidents of colleges are notable. That the colleges may have been ones of very low standing is not relevant. I was one of the people who started objecting early on to articles by this editor, who is skilled & enthusiastic about local history but needs to published it properly elsewhere than in WP. Often , as here, he selects people technical notable (e.g. served 1 term in a state legislature) and then writes a long article, most of it consisting of unencyclopedic detail about their otherwise uneventful careers as a local farmer or businessman, and genealogical information about all their relatives and inlaws Most of the content here belongs in the articles on the "universities" he founded. That one of them became notorious because people were using its degrees improperly as academic credentials is not reasonably part of his biography. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF applies to "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." None of the defunct unaccredited schools were "major" academic institutions or societies. Furthermore, it is unclear if Tharpe was elected, appointed or the self-anointed "head" based on the only two sources that mention Tharpe starting these "schools": Tharpe's self-published book and Hathorn. Also note the policy doesn't apply to school founders. This article is the definition of unnotable. SalHamton (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If he were the founder of a large number of prominent degree mills then he could be notable. But I am afraid there is not even that. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Potential keep -- If it is true that he established 75 churches, surely he is notable. Louisiana Baptist University looks as if it is something more than a mere degree mill, even if not up to typical university degree standards. This again points to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I have read the previous AfD and consider the keep opinions were flawed. Criterion 6 of WP:PROF refers to "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution..." LBU is not accredited and I can find no evidence that qualifies it as major. In defence of notability, it was claimed that the LBU had produced alumni which met Wikipedia's notability requirements. Even if they do (which in some cases is questionable) "notability is not inherited". Tharpe's non-academic activities do not support notability, all local or specialist sources. The founding of 75 churches needs to be recognised by a reliable source and verified before it can even be considered. On checking Google, I came up with many listings and books composed of free articles from Wikipedia and the like but little else. Jpacobb (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Pass a Method talk 14:52, 4 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer Project[edit]
- Lucifer Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this conspiracy theory meets the notability guidelines laid out by WP:FRINGE; it needs to have been "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers". I can't find any evidence that this is the case. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this dotty conspiracy theory. It could be notable if it had enough sources, but it doesn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Regarding the conspiracy theory, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Most GBook hits for "Lucifer Project" refer to Lucifer (cipher). Location (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obscure even by fringe standards and certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Entirely unsourced, except for one highly dubious, self-published, e-book with connections to the editor(s) who essentially wrote this entire Wikipedia article (The primary contributors, Goal-in-hat and the anagram Goliathan, share the name with the ebook author's self-owned "publishing company"). Drake144 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 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 Occupy Wall Street. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jed Brandt[edit]
- Jed Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed without explanation. I am reversing my previous position on this BLP's notability.
The only barely notable item here is the OWSJ editorship, which can be merged into Occupied Wall Street Journal itself.
Most of the biographical information sourced is from the personal website of the subject - in the end, there is no sufficient third party coverage of the subject itself, but rather of peripheral events the subject has been involved with. Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while the journal may be notable, it is not notable enough to make its editor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the Occupy Wall Street article. Non-notable person, but potential search term that should be redirected. Ducknish (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:41, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A. T. Powers[edit]
- A. T. Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local pastor who served as the American Baptist Association leader for two years in the 1950s. This article was created for self-promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to one article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). Out of the 21 citations, Hathorn cited himself more than half the times. There is one trivial mention by the NY Times in the 1950s, the book that mentions Powers by name in the title ("Austin T. Powers As I Knew Him") exists in no library in the world, a minor mention in the Minden Herald in the 1940s, and two speeches (Presidential addresses) he made that aren't published (Hathorn tends to source items that can't be verified in published sources, see "Statement of Jack D. Tharpe" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy G. Tharpe (2nd nomination)).
Powers fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), especially shown with the depths of sources Hathorn used: trival mentions from the 1940/1950s, Hathorn's own article and a book you can't get from any library. It seems like this article was simply one of many articles User:Billy Hathorn created to promote his work, and is one reason the community was annoyed and led to his ban. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.)
This was previously nominated for deletion two years ago, but the AFD was withdrawn by nominator, who wrote: "I take the addition by Billy Hathorn in good faith as accurate, and while difficult to verify..." This is "still difficult to verify" and given Hathorn's behavior, his promotion of his own work about unnotable people and ban since, I think this is worth closer look.
Also Hathorn added the photo which is owned by someone else, but it is unclear if how he has the rights to upload it. Given the history he has of uploading images that aren't his, its likely another copy-vio. SalHamton (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 08:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was the leader of a nationwide religious group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero google news hits for "American Baptist Association" Austin Powers and one hit for "American Baptist Association" "AT Powers". So there is one mention of him and this organization. I will quote the complete mention (it's in the wiki article too): "The Rev 'AT Powers, La. , was elected president of the American Baptist Association last night" (NYT, 1957) Thus, he fails WP:GNG as it not only lacks "significant coverage," this person lacks even basic coverage. If being the leader of the ABA was important, there should be several non-trivial mentions in the last 60 years about him. SalHamton (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – The sources provided simply do not add up to notability. The only one that comes near is the NYT and a passing mention concerned more with the organisation than the person is trivial. The Bogard Press is an in-house ABA publishing house and not really third-party. Hathorn's book is unidentifiable and in any case must have been more about Clover that Powers (All the page numbers lie between 127 and 135) As stated above, the article was nominated for deletion two years ago and was spared on the grounds that notability was difficult to verify but there has been no improvement and my own searches on Google produced nothing of relevance. Jpacobb (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hathorn gave no indication of the publisher etc of the "book". Additional investigation shows that the references are to an article in North Louisiana History a local journal which is itself subject of an AfD as not notable and is obviously a "local source".
- Keep -- Though his tenure would be shorter, I would suggest that President of a major denomination such as American Baptist Association is the equivalent of being a bishop in a major episcopal denomination. For some one who died so long ago, Ghits is probably not a good test. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO requires "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" OR "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." One way to see if a person is notable is is searching news databases and book databases that scan literature for the last several hundred years. There was ONE trivial mention for this person. Thus, a reasonable impression from that is he is not notable based on the lack of coverage. Ghits have nothing to do with this.
- The American Baptists were never a "major denomination." The American Baptist's self-published numbers (I use with caution) in 1931 were 116,562 members and for 2009 it lists 100,000 supporters. So even by using their inflated self-published numbers, they haven't grown, but have a net loss over the last 80 years. Contrast with the Southern Baptist Convention that has 16 million. More than that if they do have 1,600 churches and 100,000 members that means each church has a mere 62 people in them. Very small even if we assume the numbers of people and churches aren't inflated at each level of reporting. Those self-published numbers reveal why we found one source: the American Baptists are a marginal group within the Baptist sect, which itself is merely a fraction in the Protestant sect. Thus, there is little, if any, coverage.
- But let's pretend it were a "major denomination". Per BIO, each person must have sources to prove that they "made a widely recognized contribution." There is no evidence that AT Powers has done this. SalHamton (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Pass a Method talk 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article appears to be weaving a bunch of minor mentions into a biography of an allegedly notable figure. If the Rev. Powers were the equivalent of an Episcopal bishop, then there would be a multi-page obituary about him in the New York Times, as I've personally seen about bishops of the same time period in the NYT, not just this one sentence mention. I think some editors may mistakenly think that the ABA is the equivalent of something like the 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention, but our own article on the American Baptist Association gives no indication it is anything but a very minor branch or twig of the large tree that is American Baptism. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A better view of sources is
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)He does seem to be notable (frequently cited) for being an author of an authoritative history of 50 years of the American Baptist Association. The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974 at Google Books which is cited in at least
Encyclopedia Of Religion In The South, p. 104, at Google Books
Religions of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of ..., p. 90, at Google Books
Religion in the Southern States: A Historical Study, p. 56, at Google Books
Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, p. 2080, at Google Books
This indicates that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
SBaker43 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim he is "frequently cited," but following that link on google books you posted about Austin Powers, I get 29 hits TOTAL, which are all trivial mentions or his own self-published work. In contrast, Jared Diamond's single book Guns, Germs, and Steel has more than 26,000 hits on google books. Diamond's book is frequently cited, Powers' work is not. When his book about the ABA (published by the ABA) is mentioned in those examples, it is merely a trivial bibliographic listing. I'll give the full quotes of The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974 in those books you listed above:
- "Encyclopedia Of Religion In The South". Clover and his co-author are only mentioned in the bibliography. The full mention is: "Conrad N. Glover and Austin T. Powers, The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974.
- "Religions of the World." Clover and his co-author are only mentioned in the bibliography. The full mention on page 90 is: "Conrad N. Glover and Austin T. Powers, The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974
- "Religion in the Southern States: A Historical Study." The full mention on page 56 is: "Conrad N. Glover and Austin T. Powers, The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974
- "Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists." The full mention on page 2080 is: "Conrad N. Glover and Austin T. Powers, The American Baptist Association, 1924-1974
- Thus, none of these sources actually discussed the book or its author. In fact, in those examples mentioned, the book was merely included in the bibliography often with hundreds of other books. In the case of "Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists," it is one of thousands of books mentioned. Every single example you gave is 1) not actually about Powers, 2) does not include an analysis or review of his book, 3) is trivial and 4) Powers is not even the first author of the book cited.
- There are no multiple non-trivial sources to meet WP:GNG and your above search proves that. Not only is GNG policy, but it is a good policy because you can't make an article about a person without sources about that person. SalHamton (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Zoke (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Space Fantasy: The Ride[edit]
- Space Fantasy: The Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Zoke (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator - Agreed, now has demonstrable notability. Thanks for your contributions. Zoke (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have significantly expanded the article since it was nominated by Zoke to include further information supported by a range of reliable sources (before, after). I feel it now meets the notability guidelines. Themeparkgc Talk 09:14, 29 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/Withdrawn. Creator made sufficient efforts to clean up and improve notability and formatting. Minor article so not much weigh-in on discussion, but not worth keeping discussion open any further. Crocodilesareforwimps 10:26, 4 April 2013
Michael Cheng (entrepreneur)[edit]
- Michael Cheng (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page contains a list of awards won by subject, but very little content that demonstrates notability on a wide scale. Edit history leads to suspicion that article was created and maintained by the subject or someone close to him. If so, issues with bias implied. Talk page for Vancitystars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vancitystars) shows that article was rejected numerous times before it was created. Many news articles cited, but there is an unnecessarily high level of detail listing awards that do not actually imply notability.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback. I am the author of this article, but am in no way connected to the subject. In response to your feedback, I have removed the details of the awards to ensure that the article presents itself as a neutral source of information on the subject. The article was rejected numerous time before it was created due to the lack of news sources during the early stages of establishing this article. In response to your feedback, I have found 6 additional reliable and published sources on the subject. These articles are from Ottawa Citizen, Edmonton Journal, The Star Phoenix, The Windsor Star, and The Gazette (Montreal), in addition to the existing citations from Metro International, The Province, and The Vancouver Sun. Any additional feedback on methods to improve this article is much appreciated. Vancitystars (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2013 (PST)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the listed sources, the article does not appear to be notable to a general audience. Lots of people have started companies and won awards, but that does not automatically warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should consider how this person has affected others, such as the significance of the ventures to the public, some discussion of what they did, something like that. Right now it's just a poorly-sourced (possibly primary-research based) list of obscure companies and then a series of repetitive news articles without substantial content.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for your continuous feedback and support to help improve this article. In response to your recent feedback, I have considered how the subject has affected others, and have done extensive research on the significance of the ventures to the public. After identifying a number of reliable sources supporting the notability of the subject, I have added two additional sections focusing on the subject's social impact as well as numerous public recognition of such impact through notable awards. Also in response to your feedback, I have removed sections containing primary research materials. There are a number of reliable, published sources suggesting the notability of the subject from many of Canada's largest and most trusted publications. Please feel free to provide me with feedback on the revisions so that I may continue to improve the article. Vancitystars (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2013 (PST)
- That's already much better, but consider structuring the article according to other bibliographical articles, i.e. instead of having very specific sections, consider more general headers with subsections.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed your suggestion and did a lot of research on a number of bibliographical articles, such as that of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Richard Branson. As such, I have structured the article using more general headers with subsections as opposed to the previous revisions with specific sections. Thank you again for your continuous support in helping improve this article, your efforts are much appreciated. Vancitystars (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2013 (PST)
- Much better.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 00:02, 4 April 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. KTC (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earl Williamson[edit]
- Earl Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable article created for self-promotion. User:Billy Hathorn, now banned but still active with sock puppets, started this article, which is mainly sourced to one article written by Hathorn in a local history journal (also up for afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History (North Louisiana History nomination)). The other sources are from two local obituaries written by the family and a book that isn't available in any library in the world. Earl Williamson fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). It seems like this article was simply one of many articles User:Billy Hathorn created to promote his work, and is one reason the community was annoyed and led to his ban. (See: "Billy Hathorn appears to create a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) SalHamton (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN. Being mayor of Vivian, Louisiana is not sufficiently important, even if true, to confer the presumption of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, and a park has been named for the subject in Oil City, Louisiana. That being said, the subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in any of the multiple sources that I can easily view (note some of the sources available are behind a WP:PAYWALL and may have significant coverage of the subject), therefore the subject does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG. An alternative, is that a redirect can be created to Vivian, Louisiana, as I can see it being argued that the subject is locally notable, and a mention of his mayor-ship can be mentioned in the history section, or included in a list of mayors for the community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 2 April 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. KTC (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm a Maid[edit]
Note: The article has been moved to Because I'm a Maid! --Atlantima (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm a Maid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see evidence that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Atlantima (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I searched for the English, French, and Japanese titles and didn't find significant coverage. There is a press release here but that's a press release. Everything else is a blog, incidental mention, or store selling the manga. --Atlantima (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of outside, reliable sources with significant coverage. Ducknish (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search brought up nothing, just as per above. If there was an entry for the author I'd suggest redirecting there, but since there isn't then there's nothing to do here but delete. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It appears to be so obscure that even in Japanese there's a lack of coverage. I have a soft spot for these kinds of obscure manga (I'm currently reading one called O/A), but unfortunately, in this case, the manga's obscurity inevitably means a lack of coverage in reliable sources, whether English or Japanese. At least it appears to be licensed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I exported the full history of this article to the Manga Wiki. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Because_I%27m_a_Maid! Dream Focus 02:21, 31 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 List of minor planets: 17001–18000 per WP:NASTRO (Non-admin closure). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17815 Kulawik[edit]
- 17815 Kulawik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't meet the notability guidelines listed at WP:NASTRO. Zoke (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator, with the suggestion of Redirect as stated below. Zoke (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NASTRO. Ducknish (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of minor planets: 17001–18000#801 per WP:NASTHELP in WP:NASTRO as suggested by their examples section. Praemonitus (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of minor planets: 17001–18000#801 as explained by Praemonitus.--Staberinde (talk) 19:52, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Muto[edit]
- John Muto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found a couple of Variety articles written by him and one scholarly book which quoted him in a footnote, but nothing that demonstrates notability. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with GeorgeLouis and GentlemanGhost that the article's subject has no evidence of notability. Andrew327 16:15, 4 April 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 after sources are being added (non-admin closure). Salih (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thesni Khan[edit]
- Thesni Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Withdrawn below) Another attempt to republish IMDB content as Wikipedia content. I am unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide more than passing mentions of this actress. Language barriers may be an issue, as always, additional sources appreciated. j⚛e deckertalk 20:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 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) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Person is notable,the task of finding more sources must be given to the creator.Uncletomwood (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw based on sources added since nomination. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:07, 29 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. Sandstein 19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Canning riots[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- 2013 Canning riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is about a recent event in West Bengal where a renowned Muslim cleric has been shot dead while returning from a religious gathering which sparks some violence in the area as cited by various news agencies but this incident is presented here portraying the Muslim villagers as criminals and solely responsible for a riot in Hindu majority area. None of the news sources cited in the article verifies the claims in the article. Portion of the article is based on rumors by Hinduist[hinduexistence.wordpress.com] who provided the images and claims without verifiability are potentially dangerous for the local people of the are. Mrwikidor ←track 05:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This event was covered by national media like NDTV, Times of India and Hindustan Times. It was also covered by international media like Gulf News (Dubai). The article is based on the reports published by the above mentioned media. The article passes all the notability criteria. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the event was covered by several media unlike the so called Murshidabad beheading crap where you accused those medias for their professional journalism. Anyways, i've decided to clean this up and remove the accusations without verifiability made by the article creator. Mrwikidor ←track 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brother, you are welcome to clean up the article where required. By deciding on a clean up, you've agreed on principle that the article is a candidate for keep. You should therefore close this discussion. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mrwikidor ←track 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Keep?)There is no doubt whatsoever that these riots took place and it was well covered by the media. You only need to go to the affected areas and ask the villagers and they too will verify that the riots happened and that a lot of houses qwere destroyed by the muslims. Hence this article should not be deleted. Pl refer to http://www.niticentral.com/2013/02/21/riots-erupt-in-bengal-48746.html and http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/21/west-bengal-homes-torched-shops-ransacked-in-riots-1155624.html as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paritoshvyas68 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links you've provided are not reliable and riot took place but both parties were involved. Mrwikidor ←track 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that you and your gang don't get to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. If you have questions and reservations about a particular source, you need to follow wikipedia rules and policies and begin a discussion in the talk page of the article. Sources like blogs etc. are de-facto unreliable and can be summarily removed, but the situation with news media (especially in India) is more complex and requires discussion and consensus. If you continue with disruptive editing that removes such sources without attended discussion in the talk page. I will report your actions to the administrator noticeboard.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As such i don't know your disrupting edits regarding dalits? You should stop your disrupting edits like[32] which falls under {{uw-tpv1}} Mrwikidor ←track 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is you third and final warning concerning violations of Assume good faith. If you cast further false aspersions on users then you will be blocked from further editing.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, I find it very difficult to WP:AGF on your part, since you keep accusing others of inserting partisan sources while you yourself cited a viciously Islamist source (here in this edit) that makes libellous assertions not verified by mainstream media. Of course, such obviously partisan sources such as the al-Qaeda front 'twocircles.net', or excessively pro Hindu Nationalist sources like 'organiser.org' (a newspaper published by the RSS) and 'globalhinduism.whatever' (dunno who publishes this, but looks too partisan to be reliable) are not appropriate for wikipedia, and I have removed them from this article. All the other sources, as they currently stand, satisfy WP:RS and are mainstream publications.Handyunits (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is you third and final warning concerning violations of Assume good faith. If you cast further false aspersions on users then you will be blocked from further editing.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As such i don't know your disrupting edits regarding dalits? You should stop your disrupting edits like[32] which falls under {{uw-tpv1}} Mrwikidor ←track 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that you and your gang don't get to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. If you have questions and reservations about a particular source, you need to follow wikipedia rules and policies and begin a discussion in the talk page of the article. Sources like blogs etc. are de-facto unreliable and can be summarily removed, but the situation with news media (especially in India) is more complex and requires discussion and consensus. If you continue with disruptive editing that removes such sources without attended discussion in the talk page. I will report your actions to the administrator noticeboard.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Keep?)This article should not be deleted as It has focused on Islamic terrorism against Hindus in Indian soil. Everyone should know the real incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this isn't related to islam as supported by User:BengaliHindu here[33]. Mrwikidor ←track 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying that this is related to Islam the religion. This is related to Islamism, an extremist political ideology not subscribed to by most moderate Muslims in the world. In addition, when wikipedia discusses the concept of Islamic terrorism, it is understood that it is not to make any non-neutral aspersions on Islam as a religion, but refer to the acts of a minority of extremists.Handyunits (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Bad faith nomination by political activist. Incident is mentioned in several mainstream media outlets. Any article can accumulate issues that can be fixed, that does not render it worthy of deletion.Handyunits (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a clear Ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The logic is not clear for deletion request. The subject is notable and this riot cover in several mainstream media. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well-sourced article about significant event. Any issues of neutrality should be addressed by discussion and editing, not deletion. --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally disagree with you! I'm amazed how you found it well sourced? Sources from Organiser.org or globalhinduism.com aren't reliable at all plus vastly based on original research without any citation from reliable sources. Mrwikidor ←track 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:RS. You do not get to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. If you have issues, raise them in the talk page. Again, this is the second warning not to engage in racist attacks.Handyunits (talk) 05:24, 3 April 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 G12. It was a copyvio whether notable or not. James086Talk 08:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Davis (audiobook narrator)[edit]
- Jonathan Davis (audiobook narrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a hard-working, steadily employed actor, but he has no claim to notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 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. Consensus seems to be that the sources in the article and the sources found since then are enough to establish notability. None of the delete arguments substantially challenge this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mason (American band)[edit]
- Mason (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable band with one self-published album. Unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - MrX 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any substantiated claims to notability. --Ozgod (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 28. Snotbot t • c » 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with stipulation - Article makes no claim of importance and A7 tag was removed by author. It should have been deleted but since we're here, the band does appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC as they've released multiple albums on non-independent labels. Livin' on the Edge was released on Elektra Records and You Were Supposed to Be Beautiful was released on Victory Records. Granted, that's a weak way to establish notability. There two references in the article would constitute independent and significant coverage of the band (one reference) and of an album (the other reference). I've never been clear as to how reliable AllMusic is but WP:MUSIC lists the website as a good source to use, by name. At any rate, notability is very weak, from what I could find, but the band's name may simply be making it difficult to find sources. The stipulation is that this information be added to the article. This is an odd situation that was created by an AfD being started when A7 was more appropriate. I'd do it myself but I feel that my time is better spent elsewhere. OlYeller21Talktome 02:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Allmusic bio and review, plus also covered in Vernon Joynson's Fuzz Acid and Flowers, album was a four-star pick in Billboard ([34]). For a band that released one album in the early 1970s (I don't the others listed at Allmusic are by this Mason) finding coverage online is going to be tricky. --Michig (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whatever Joynson wrote about the band doesn't seem to be on the web. I am not seeing any RS that says anything beyond the fact that this band issued an album with various songs on it. The band is not mentioned in the 1,100 page Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, nor is it's lead dude, Jim Galyon. The album was reissued on CD by an independent label and is listed on CD Universe.Kauffner (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a reliable source that covers the band and another that covers an album: [35][36]. I don't see how those sources don't constitute significant and independent coverage from a reliable source, especially since Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Resources specifically says that AllMusic is a good source to use (I'm not sure that I agree with that but I didn't make the guideline). I've covered the rest of my feelings in my !vote but I don't understand how you either didn't find these references or don't feel that either can be used to establish notability. Also, that a source isn't found online doesn't mean it's not verifiable or that it can't be used to establish notability. OlYeller21Talktome 14:41, 29 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. Whether to redirect, and where to, is not clear from this discussion. Sandstein 17:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israelophobia[edit]
- Israelophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wasn't merged into Anti-Zionism because it had no content deemed appropriate for that article. Deferring here as the participants in the merger proposal wanted the article redirected. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is a difference in definition. Israelophobia is much like Anti-Americanism in that it is a form of national discrimination. Anti-Zionism however is seen more as a criticism of the state of Israel and would be more related to on article on criticism of American existence. Another example is criticism of Judaism or Islam and Antisemitism and Islamophobia respectively. I am personally of the opinion that unlike the other anti-national sentiments Anti-Zionism is not betrayed fairly. It is used as a far more neutral term than and does not show the many different views on the subject. You could argue the equating of it with Antisemitism is like that but not only is that coming up with unsourced opinions based on linking one thing to another but its also a controversial link in itself. The point is that I feel that this article should exist to address the negative sentiment about Anti-Israeli feeling because that Anti-Zionism is not neutral nor does it show both sides.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article stays, I think the name should be changed to "Anti-Israeli sentiment" to follow the precedent of a similar article, Anti-Americanism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection. Israelophobia only needs be to be mentioned once in the article as a synonym.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect At first, I was wondering if the term is a neologism. It may be, but I do see its use in MSM. What bothers me is that the term is a loosy-goosey. Can you be a supporter of Israel and still have israelophobia? Fearing that they may nuke Iran or something? I'll concede that it's a valid term, but the connotations of the term are not clear. Roodog2k (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A minor neologism used in non-notable blogs, nothing more. Nothing worth redirecting, no content that cannot already be found at Anti-Zionism. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTNEO. It's a neologism and there's no justification for inclusion. Ducknish (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tarc and Ducknish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Just a neologism used as a platform for a particular point of view. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its seems peoples main objection is the neologism argument. So why not suggest a redirect. "Anti-Israeli sentiment" is clearly not a neologism and could easily be used to encompass this entire article. Also people keep stating that all this information is covered in anti-Zionism tell me once where anti-Zionism talks about discrimination or anti-Arab sentiment. I heavily suggest we think about a redirect which would solve all problems therefore the neologism argument is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.76.149 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- We already have too many articles covering the same topic and rehashing the same arguments (. None of the articles are good quality or comply with WP:NPOV. We should concentrate on improving the extant articles instead of keep creating new ones just to push the opinions of one side of the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- not a real word, thus subject to WP:NEO, which it clearly fails. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Antisemitism. Subject of this AfD has appeared to be used an adjective since at least 2000. Therefore, I am not sure a decade plus old term falls under WP:NEO. That being said, the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in any one source, but multiple reliable sources have given the subject more than just a passing mention, therefore it can be argued that if added up those mentions could total a significant coverage single source. Therefore, as this appears to fall within the scope of the article of Antisemitism, I say a redirect to that article would be the best compromise at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could agree with that if the term is mentioned at least once in the antisemitism article. I think that would be a fair comprimise. To you all who are still arguing the neologism argument you do realize the article could easily be changed to Anti-Israeli sentiment which would invalidate over half the arguments for deletion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't your call to "invalidate" anyone's arguments, I'm afraid. We already have an article that covers this topic area; Anti-Zionism. The project has no need for this fork that veers into personal opinion and bias. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, anyone who can point out solutions or use wikipedia guidelines can "invalidate" anyones opinion. Second of all I have already pointed out that Anti-Zionism refuses to even address discrimination. Its not about reflecting one's bias its about reflecting all sides of the conflict which I don't believe Anti-Zionism is doing. Unless anti-zionism even states that it includes discrimination it dosn't even encompass the subject of this article. Even most anti-zionist will state that their beliefs arn't discrimanatory. So if anti-zionism is the article that covers this it is unfairly biased towards one side of the issue anyway. The article dosn't once mention discrimination against the Israelis. As a matter a fact it defines itself as "Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionistic views or opposition to the state of Israel." I won't even bother adding information about discrimination against Israeli people because I'm sure it will be deleted.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they cannot invalidate any such thing; they can offer their own opinions, but such things will be judged at close by an admin. As for the rest of your rant, I already addressed that, really, with the "veers into personal opinion and bias". Your opinion re: discrimination is just not terribly relevant to the article, if you're so sure that it will be deleted then hat should be a pretty big red flag that it is inappropriate. Fringe points-of-view do not get equal weight alongside the mainstream ones. I a sure you are well-aware of that though, given your familiarity with the topic area and the AfD process, you certainly edited under another name at one time. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a fringe point of view. If people didn't feel that Israelophobia could be discrimination there wouldn't be any comparison of it to antisemitism. The fact of the matter is that the article Anti-Zionism is being treated unfairly when compared to Anti-Americanism or Anti-Canadianism or Anti-Italianism. Anti-Italianism mentions stereotypes of connections to the Mafia and Anti-Americanism mentions the September 11 attacks. All other anti-national sentiment articles mention it so if Anti-Zionism is to be the ONLY article on Anti-Israeli sentiment it should fairly address what every other anti-national article expresses. The lack of such shows a huge bias in wikipedia. Albanophobia mentions discrimination and sterotypes, so does Anti-Arabism, Anti-Australianism mentions hostility, Anti-Canadianism mentions hostility etc. The fact of the matter is that there are many sources which talk about Israelophobia and even more that talk about Anti-Israeli sentiment. If you're not allowed to invalidate anyones opinion that I hold the opinion that the root of this argument is deligitimization of Israel and Israeli people and singling out Anti-Zionism to be the only anti-national article that isn't allowed to be considered discrimination.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dosn't anyone who wants the article deleted want to come up with a solution to the problems I just listed. Does no one else think that it needs improvement.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a fringe point of view. If people didn't feel that Israelophobia could be discrimination there wouldn't be any comparison of it to antisemitism. The fact of the matter is that the article Anti-Zionism is being treated unfairly when compared to Anti-Americanism or Anti-Canadianism or Anti-Italianism. Anti-Italianism mentions stereotypes of connections to the Mafia and Anti-Americanism mentions the September 11 attacks. All other anti-national sentiment articles mention it so if Anti-Zionism is to be the ONLY article on Anti-Israeli sentiment it should fairly address what every other anti-national article expresses. The lack of such shows a huge bias in wikipedia. Albanophobia mentions discrimination and sterotypes, so does Anti-Arabism, Anti-Australianism mentions hostility, Anti-Canadianism mentions hostility etc. The fact of the matter is that there are many sources which talk about Israelophobia and even more that talk about Anti-Israeli sentiment. If you're not allowed to invalidate anyones opinion that I hold the opinion that the root of this argument is deligitimization of Israel and Israeli people and singling out Anti-Zionism to be the only anti-national article that isn't allowed to be considered discrimination.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they cannot invalidate any such thing; they can offer their own opinions, but such things will be judged at close by an admin. As for the rest of your rant, I already addressed that, really, with the "veers into personal opinion and bias". Your opinion re: discrimination is just not terribly relevant to the article, if you're so sure that it will be deleted then hat should be a pretty big red flag that it is inappropriate. Fringe points-of-view do not get equal weight alongside the mainstream ones. I a sure you are well-aware of that though, given your familiarity with the topic area and the AfD process, you certainly edited under another name at one time. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, anyone who can point out solutions or use wikipedia guidelines can "invalidate" anyones opinion. Second of all I have already pointed out that Anti-Zionism refuses to even address discrimination. Its not about reflecting one's bias its about reflecting all sides of the conflict which I don't believe Anti-Zionism is doing. Unless anti-zionism even states that it includes discrimination it dosn't even encompass the subject of this article. Even most anti-zionist will state that their beliefs arn't discrimanatory. So if anti-zionism is the article that covers this it is unfairly biased towards one side of the issue anyway. The article dosn't once mention discrimination against the Israelis. As a matter a fact it defines itself as "Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionistic views or opposition to the state of Israel." I won't even bother adding information about discrimination against Israeli people because I'm sure it will be deleted.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't your call to "invalidate" anyone's arguments, I'm afraid. We already have an article that covers this topic area; Anti-Zionism. The project has no need for this fork that veers into personal opinion and bias. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could agree with that if the term is mentioned at least once in the antisemitism article. I think that would be a fair comprimise. To you all who are still arguing the neologism argument you do realize the article could easily be changed to Anti-Israeli sentiment which would invalidate over half the arguments for deletion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have reverted the attempted pagemove by Rainbowofpeace, as it is extremely bad form to rename an article in the middle of a deletion discussion. Calling the article something else doesn't make the neologism argument magically go away, but arguments for deletion do not rest solely on "not a neologism" anyways. It is tending towards delete for simple lack of notability. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to Anti-Zionism. This doesn't appear to be a separate topic. If it were something different from Anti-Zionism, there would be lots of sources about it, because opinions about Israel, both positive and negative, are not hard to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 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. KTC (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Cray[edit]
- Ed Cray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a hard-working journeyman actor, but nothing establishes him as Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N not established for the actor Ed Cray.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 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 04:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 06:11, 28 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 Comodo Group. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comodo Backup[edit]
- Comodo Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article, a backup app, does not seem to be notable. I tried searching for evidences of notability and the results that came up seemed to ridicule me: There were results from very reputable sources but clicking on them did not yield a review. Here, try yourself: PC World, PC Advisor, PCMag.com, PCReview and PC-WELT. SnapFile, CNET Download.com and Softpedia do not have a review page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - While Comodo Group is notable, this software does not have enough independent coverage for a separate article. Suggest merge and redirect to the publisher of the software. Dialectric (talk) 20:47, 23 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 04:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Comodo Group. The software is verifiable as existing, but there are not enough in-depth independent sources for the topic to be notable. Comodo Backup is already listed in the article Comodo Group and Dialectric's recommendation for redirect makes good sense here. --Mark viking (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, no reliable refs for this being notable on its own. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 31 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. KTC (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Griffith[edit]
- Lisa Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former college basketball player. No indications to show that she meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. The BLP is based a single primary source. Funny Pika! 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 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 04:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete playing college basketball and being an assistant coach does not meet any notability requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 28 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delian Society[edit]
- Delian Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am having significant difficulty finding independent reliable sources about this organisation. It's promoted on the websites of its members, but substantive independent coverage is elusive and as far as I can tell it has not been the focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, so does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2 refs given are RS.--Galassi (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 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, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Delian Society" was substantially revised and expanded with numerous primary and secondary sources in March 2013 in an earnest effort to meet current Wikipedia standards. Now approaching its decennial, the Delian Society and its members—many of whom hold distinguished academic and professional credentials—have made significant creative contributions to the emergent historicist and new tonal music genres. For the past decade, their works have been featured not only in a pioneering series of virtual music festivals archived at deliansociety.org but also through live concert performances in North America, Europe, and Asia. Since the Delian Society is a leading international proponent of new tonal and historicist composition and occupies a virtually unique place in the early twenty-first century cultural landscape, deletion of the article in question would conspicuously diminish the breadth of Wikipedia's coverage of current trends in contemporary art music.
It should be noted that creativity—not publicity—has been the primary focus of the Society's activities. The stylistic orientation of its members represents a notable departure from the prevailing modernist aesthetics of the twentieth century that continue to inform some of the most prominent academic institutions and media. Nevertheless, the activities of the Delian Society and its members continue to attract the attention and active support of both progressive academics, independent artists, and audiences worldwide.
—Joseph Dillon Ford, Founding Member, The Delian Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB23:B209:129A:DDFF:FE4A:2E48 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a tough one. I think an article on this organization should be in Wikipedia, but I am having a hell of a time coming up with independently published sourcing. If he has clippings about his organization, I welcome Mr. Ford getting in touch with me directly, either via my talk page or by email at [email protected] and I'd be happy to help guide him through the AfD process. I assume there are probably small-but-reliable music publications which have covered the group in depth over the years. The google machine isn't kicking out the sources, however. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 14 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 19:47, 21 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) 03:35, 28 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 and REDIRECT. SpinningSpark 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ezekiel Zick[edit]
- Ezekiel Zick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Elena Potato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All sourcing is primary. No out-of-universe notability. Previous AFD in 2007 asked for merge. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 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) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A brief search for secondary sources turned up only retreads of the Wikipedia article. TenPoundHammer appears to be correct: no out-of-universe notability. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Anything valid can be copied over to List of Monster Allergy characters. Dream Focus 23:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Monster Allergy (TV series) or delete. Monster Allergy (TV series) has a mere two and a half lines under the "Plot" section, while this article about the main character has screens of text. The article on the series should be expanded with the text from this character article. Articles on characters can be broken out from the main article should space or length become an issue, but not before. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete has no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 4 April 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frostbox[edit]
- Frostbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTABILITY. Article is about a service product. "Frostbox" gets zero relevant gnews hits. The one reference in the article which shows any sign of notability is this, which includes just two paragraphs on this product amidst a list of similar products. The remaining references are either references on the company that provides the service (covering their offering stock in trade for promotion), press releases (the "One Stop Backup For Social Media Junkies" info referenced to multiple sources), or databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 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) 03:33, 28 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logan Buerlein[edit]
- Logan Buerlein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a non-notable person. The only references are from minor blogs. Fails WP:ANYBIO and probably WP:BASIC. - MrX 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - MrX 03:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Gong show 17:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly as CSD A7. No evidence found {Google, Questia, Highbeam) regardng this person; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage, no article. Ducknish (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the same reasons discussed above. Kabirat (talk) 08:08, 5 April 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. KTC (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brentalfloss[edit]
- Brentalfloss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A few media hits, the most notable one of them consisting of a mention in the NYT, are cobbled together to suggest notability for another YouTuber who has no encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I looked at the first AFD, and I am still not convinced. It's possible that the one link to an article in the Times-News actually discusses the guy, but even if that's the case it's one article in a relatively minor newspaper (encyclopedias should aim a little higher for their sourcing). This was brought up with the suggestion that it might possibly be a reliable source (no evidence given), which strikes me as naive and poorly thought-out, considering that this is the website's home page. Finally, that NYT article--it says he co-wrote a musical and graduated from a school, that's all. We need in-depth coverage to prove notability. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are sources already in the article, such as this one, that discuss the subject in detail. The subject isn't the subject of the The New York Times and Tulsa World articles, but it meets the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG, as no original research is needed to extract the content, and the subject has more than a trivial mention. There's also this, which by itself doesn't show much, but I think that all of these together do show notability for the subject. Granted, it's not the strongest case for notability, but I do think it meets WP:GNG, given that there are multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject that have significant coverage of the subject. - SudoGhost 14:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – That the most detail is in the Times-News, a "minor" newspaper doesn't bother me too much; there's no particular reason to doubt the reliability etc. I'd agree with SudoGhost's assessment of the sources here; it's not the clearest case for notability but probably notability enough for WP:GNG. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Roughly via SudoGhost, Paul Erik. With regard to Paul Erik's point about borderline notability, while this isn't something we'd take as "reliable" when talking about verification, I find the existence of coverage of this fellow over three writers and four years at Kotaku Australia to at least smell like notability. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:59, 5 April 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shaikh Sakhawat Hussain Sandralvi[edit]
- Shaikh Sakhawat Hussain Sandralvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography about an non-notable instructor. I was unable to find any reliable sources. - MrX 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wasn't able to find anything either. Fails verifiability at the moment, to say nothing of notability. RayTalk 21:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the above. There's nothing to verify notoriety. Kabirat (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 08:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum[edit]
- Skookum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely original research not supported by reliable sources. Pfly presented some sources at the talk page, but those are only dictionaries and won't allow us to write more than a dictionary entry - something Wikipedia is not for. Huon (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree completely with the nom statement, this can't be more than a dictionary at this time. Maybe merge/move some content to Wiktionary, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (hence why we have Wiktionary). gwickwiretalkediting 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - This is what I love about AfD. It sometimes ends up with the article being so improved that it is an easy keep vote. It's not there yet, but it's getting there, and I feel with all the sources provided, we can try to make this a better article (let's take out the dictionary parts though). Thanks to the people finding sources for it :) gwickwiretalkediting 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with nomination and explanation above. As I recall we have Wiktionary for this. --Ozgod (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Strongly oppose This article is about a major concept in Pacific NW history/culture and is also more than just a word, or a component of another (skookumchuck, it also refers to the Skookum (monster), the Skookum Doll and the Skookum (cat), and is the origin-word for all those names/things. Since its inception, it seems that various materials and cites have been stripped from the article....to the point where now it is being proposed for deletion; rather than trying to expand or investigate cites and increase their knowledge of this term and the things it means and why it should be an article and needs to be, there is a vendetta against it, and against me, it seems, to the point of picking a fight with me on my own talkpage.....there are other "dictionary" articles around Wikipedia, even though this one's not just about a word but also things named using it........deletion removes that context, and again, rather than go look for the cites that are out there to improve the article, Huon has just done the lazy, uninformed route by wanting it deleted......Skookum1 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the opening intro of the article it is stated that there are three different uses for this word - for uses #2 and #3 I can understand having Wiki articles for. However, for use #1, a colloquialism, I do not think that Wikipedia is the best location for this use. I would suggest, then, redirecting this article to two separate pages for the two latter alternative uses - one to sasquatch and another one to primarily discuss the dolls, provided a substantial article can be written with merit. --Ozgod (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A skookum monster is like a sasquatch, but not a sasquatch; it would be like directing Dzonokwa to Sasquatch......or redirecting troll to gnome.Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So on the dolls article or the cat article, that is the place to explain the word and its cultural context/import? ???? The doils article appears to have been deleted, maybe it's Skookum (doll)? Point is that neither cat nor doll items would have turned up if this page had not existed (look at its early history).Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A skookum monster is like a sasquatch, but not a sasquatch; it would be like directing Dzonokwa to Sasquatch......or redirecting troll to gnome.Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the opening intro of the article it is stated that there are three different uses for this word - for uses #2 and #3 I can understand having Wiki articles for. However, for use #1, a colloquialism, I do not think that Wikipedia is the best location for this use. I would suggest, then, redirecting this article to two separate pages for the two latter alternative uses - one to sasquatch and another one to primarily discuss the dolls, provided a substantial article can be written with merit. --Ozgod (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I, for one, would like to see some reliable sources beyond dictionaries for any of the supposed meaning. Not even the cat article cites a source. Regarding other dictionary articles: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be moved to Wiktionary. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Far more than a dictionary definition, this is a term that is an integral part of the culture of the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia and southeastern Alaska. How can we call the article "original research" when a book published exactly 100 years ago, The Chinook Book: A Descriptive Analysis of the Chinook Jargon in Plain Words, Giving Instructions for Pronunciation, Construction, Expression and Proper Speaking of Chinook with All the Various Shaded Meanings of the Words discusses the term at length, and mentions it no less than 15 times within that book? Also of significance is that no less than seven books on a wide variety of Pacific Northwest topics include the word "skookum" in their titles. It is a term associated with bowmaking, as discussed in Traditional Bowyers Encyclopedia: The Bowhunting and Bowmaking World of the Nation's Top Crafters of Longbows and Recurves. It is part of the legends of the Pacific Northwest, as discussed in Weird Washington: Your Travel Guide to Washington's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets. It is a common Native American placename, occurring in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, and even as far away as Michigan, according to Native American Placenames of the United States. The place name extends as far south as Death Valley according to The Explorer's Guide to Death Valley National Park, which mentions it at least six times. Back in 1916, a trade publication called Fourth Estate: A Weekly Newspaper for Publishers, Advertisers, Advertising Agents and Allied Interests discussed the term in great detail in connection with the marketing of apples from the region.. Three years later in 1919, Printer's Ink also discussed the term in the context of the marketing of apples. Jack London used the term in arguably his most famous work The Call of the Wild: And, White Fang. The term is discussed in depth in How We Talk: American Regional English Today. This term is notable, and the reliable sources I've identified can be used to expand and reference the article. That is a much better solution than deletion.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Cullen, finally someone comes along who understands the importance of this word/concept and its role in the region where it's used........BTW this cite is the one that Huon removed just before launching this AfD and is the subject of the personal attacks against me that qwickwire has made a parallel ANI claiming I was abusing him when the opposite was the case...... at the very least, if anything is done here, it should be a dab page with the explanation of the term as the lede. The Skookum Club in Seattle is the old name for the Democratic Club of Seattle, and there's now many companies and organizations using this word as part of their name.... Skookum Digital Works, Skookum Brewery....even a company in New Zealand and another in the UK using the word in their names, also skookum.org which is an association for the disabled. This AfD was spurious and launched by someone more interested in deletion than in research/expansion.Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about the placenames, it was partly because of this word's pervasiveness that I started List_of_Chinook_Jargon_placenames quite a long time ago; look under "S" and also note that there are variants e.g. Skukum Group that are not on there yet (I just added it; the Mount Skukum article has not yet been written. If this article is deleted the many "See Skookum" entries on that page will need to be edited.Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re the wantonly deleted Skookum Tools FAQ page/info, it's reliable and verifiable enough that one of the main authors today has repeated its contents in his publications see here. So it's not just my say-so, Jim Holton is another chinookologist and he has validated it by repeating it, as have other sites out there; his book is a major opus and was academically vetted.......... and archive.org has a citable article too.....instead of research and expand, the proponents of this AfD only want to delete it......instead of investigate it and find the sources they say don't exist, as if this were original research, when it's not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the comments by Cullen328. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen328. Pfly (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen328. This is one skookum article, though I'm getting rid of some of the other uses section, part of which will be relocated to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And use some reliable sources to improve/rewrite this page, like this and this. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Skookum dolls seems notable by itself given the coverage in multiple books indexed in Google Books. Those paragraphs, which seem quite factual, should probably be move to their own page. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested by the IP editor, I've written a new article Skookum doll. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added four solid references to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources provided by Cullen328 are certainly strong enough to justify keeping the article. CaSJer (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perusing a google search more, and other than the companies and orgs using this name which may prove notable (e.g. Skookum Robotics) it also seems that Skookum (oyster) is yet another usage; the name derives from Little Skookum Inlet near Olympia and originally I thought it was just one oyster farm but turns out there's a few, and the type of oyster grown there is marketed in restaurants as the "Skookum oyster" or "Little Skookum oyster" (the latter name seems to have to do with a particular business, not quite sure about that, the terms are used interchangeably). There's also Skookum Creek Tobacco, a native-owned firm in the same region. Other things like the Skookum tackle turn up to, and that's a generic term for a size of tackle, not a brand. Also the organizers of the oyster fest in Mason County WA (where Little Skookum Inlet is) call themselves the Shelton Skookum Rotary Club, echoing the long-standing use of this word in the region by organizations ranging from the Boy Scouts to large corporations.Skookum1 (talk) 03:35, 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 delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flyforbeans[edit]
- Flyforbeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Airline has not opened since its announcement over 5 years ago and their website went offline almost a year ago. As of January 2013, the website domain flyforbeans.com is up for sale. Joshakjohn (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Delete I'm a little iffy about deleting this since it does have links to media coverage regarding the company, but the article overall reads a little bit like a news compilation instead of an encyclopedic article. I can't really see anything noteworthy that they accomplished. --Ozgod (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I agree with you, I have thoroughly checked various sources to see if there is any chance that Flyforbeans may eventually open and well it doesn't seem likely. Reading the WalesOnline article reinforces this. It states that "Barry-based Flyforbeans was established in 2007 with the aim of launching 12 low-cost routes across Europe from a base at Cardiff Airport. However, while that project has failed to materialise, it is now in advanced discussions which could see it taking over BMI’s low-cost operation Bmibaby." WalesOnline Bmibaby was not sold to Flyforbeans but instead to IAG and following the takeover they announced in May 2012 that Bmibaby was to shutdown by September. I have also checked with the Civil Aviation Authority and they confirm that although Flyforbeans did apply for a Type A Operating License, they did not receive one, this was in 2007 and since that date no further applications have been made and no airline named Flyforbeans or Flyforbeans Avaiation Limited has a Type A Operating License.Type A Operating License Holders - CAA Joshakjohn (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, User:Davey2010 14:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BALL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. --FoxyOrange (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The story appeats to be that Mr Lee of Barry has been trying to get a budget airline going for six years, presumably while doing some other job. So far he has neither obtianed a CAA licence for (presumably) funding to get going. The whole story wreeks of WP:CRYSTAL, and in this case the pipedream is either blocked or smashed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom in Book of Revelation[edit]
- Wisdom in Book of Revelation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced original research about the concept or theme of "wisdom" in the biblical Book of Revelation. - MrX 01:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - MrX 01:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Interesting theme, but all I can find is an 1886 book, The Wisdom of the Apocalypse. Not a notable topic. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not delete. Hi there! Here is my reply for your concern: 1. Which part of this article is "Unreferenced original research"? Please answer. All I see is pretty cool and everything there has solid sources. 2. This is an important topic related with Great Whore and Number of the Beast. I've just added the "Interpretations" part which shows it's a really critical element of Book of Revelation. Please check it out. And of course, the new content also has many sources. If this is "Not a notable topic", then Number of the Beast and Great Whore are also not "notable". Thanks! VincentLeon (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any sources that support that "wisdom" is a notable theme in Revelation. I see a lead sentence that simply doesn't make any sense, an indiscriminate list of quoted passages, and some tangentially related interpretations. There's nothing encyclopedic related to the central subject. We would need scholarly sources that discuss the theme of wisdom in Revelation, in a clear, unambiguous fashion. - MrX 03:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For Christ's sake, Revelation "wisdom" is THE KEY to understand 666 and Great Whore - the end of the world. Is it important or not? VincentLeon (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the content of this article is not perfect - this article has existed for less than 24 hours. Please have a little patience, my friend. The "Interpretations" part is related content, and it has good sources - In fact I copied it from other Wikipedia articles(Great Whore, and Number of the Beast). These interpretations are right on the topic, and have solid sources. Thanks! VincentLeon (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any sources that support that "wisdom" is a notable theme in Revelation. I see a lead sentence that simply doesn't make any sense, an indiscriminate list of quoted passages, and some tangentially related interpretations. There's nothing encyclopedic related to the central subject. We would need scholarly sources that discuss the theme of wisdom in Revelation, in a clear, unambiguous fashion. - MrX 03:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (unless editor proves notability) – I appreciate the article is new, but do not see how its inclusion can ever be justified. One of the key criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:Notability. Unless the subject of "Wisdom in (the book of) Revelation" is dealt with in some length and detail by several standard academic commentaries on Revelation, or works on the theology/ies of the NT, or monographs and theses which are referenced by the commentaries, the subject is not notable. Perhaps the editor should look at WP:FIRST. A the article stands at this moment the claim that "Wisdom in the Book of Revelation" is an important topic is totally unsupported. The references provided seem to cover details such as "666=Nero" but do not relate to wisdom as such. Jpacobb (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see how an encyclopedia article could be created out of this topic. It not only fails our Notability guidelines, but to make up for that lack the creator seems to have cobbled together their own Synthesis of how many times the word "wisdom" appears in that book, along with some unusual factoids about numerology, Nero, and the seven hills of Rome, which have no relation to "wisdom" that I can see. The two linked sources have the word "wisdom" in them just once, where it appears in one of the Revelations verses. First Light (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I would be willing to have it userified to see if the author could turn it into something worthwhile. At present, it is a series of quotations (which could be found from a concordance and a couple of statements about unrelated topics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete obviously. Pass a Method talk 14:54, 4 April 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. GedUK 12:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maharishi Vedic Health Centre[edit]
- Maharishi Vedic Health Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, no secondary sources. I've searched Google News, Google Books, High Beam, Credo and Questia and cannot find any sources. All sources currently in the article are primary sources. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 21. Snotbot t • c » 21:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 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) 01:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A quick Google search failed to produce any credible sources of noteworthiness or media/news coverage. --Ozgod (talk) 02:45, 28 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. GedUK 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glossary of jive talk[edit]
- Glossary of jive talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:DICTIONARY, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This is slang. Per the article, "an amalgam of Negro-slang from Harlem and the argots of drug addicts and the pettier sort of criminals, with occasional additions from the Broadway gossip columns and the high school campus." Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Glossaries are well-established content at Wikipedia. For numerous examples, see category:glossaries which has so many entries that there are sub-categories such as category:glossaries of mathematics and category:glossaries of science. We even have a Wikipedia glossary to list terms like AfD and !vote. WP:DICDEF recognises and accepts such content, saying "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...". The topic is notable and well-sourced and so it's just a matter of development and improvement in accordance with our deletion and editing policies: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented". Warden (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an "encyclopedic glossar[y] on the jargon of an industry or field" which would be fine. It's a list of slang terms. Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The jazz culture of the early 20th century is a field in that sense. Other comparable glossaries are glossary of graffiti, glossary of the American trucking industry, glossary of pinball terms, glossaries of works of popular culture, &c. This topic has been the subject of significant academic attention - see The Vernacular of the Jazz World, for example. Dismissing it as merely slang is therefore just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an "encyclopedic glossar[y] on the jargon of an industry or field" which would be fine. It's a list of slang terms. Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This isn't really a glossary, it's a mini-dictionary. Other glossaries are lists of technical terms and definitions of 'things' while this is just a list of slang word definitions. Several of these are already in Wiktionary; Those that are not and can be sourced should be transwiki'd there, and then I would support deletion of this article. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The OED tells us that a glossary is "a list with explanations of abstruse, antiquated, dialectal, or technical terms". So it doesn't just have to be technical - the point is that the terms are obscure. The policy WP:DICTIONARY specifically allows for such glossaries and we have lots of them. We also have lots of coverage of slang in this and other ways — see the huge category:Military slang and jargon or slang terms for money, for example. Warden (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like all the other glossaries, see Category:Glossaries, this is useful for understanding common slang terms. If someone was looking into slang of that culture and error, its useful to have all the terms in one place. Dream Focus 14:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SIGCOV - this topic is extremely well-documented in reliable sources. I have no problem with short glossaries (much less than 400 words). Bearian (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bearian and per WP:DICTIONARY. As it says in our policy: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature..." This useful and interesting article meets this condition. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 2 April 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 as a hoax per WP:G3. — CactusWriter (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tronitroniroa[edit]
- Tronitroniroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a beach. The sources in the article however do not appear to support the article's content. This may be a hoax. Prod was removed by IP without comment. PinkBull 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article states that this is an alternative name for Hamilton, New Zealand. I can't find any sources to support this claim and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. If the city is known as this, the title should redirect to the aforementioned article instead. Funny Pika! 11:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure fantasy - Arjayay (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Hoax. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax. "The Tron" is a recognised nickname for Hamilton, but this isn't.-gadfium 22:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a search under this specific name and there's nothing out there to suggest that anyone has ever used this specific name. I've tagged it as a hoax, but in case it doesn't get speedied I want to support its deletion here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:54, 29 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. GedUK 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prerna Varma[edit]
- Prerna Varma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography that does not seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. A few of the sources merely mention the subject in a trivial context. Some sources are self published and other sources do not mention the subject at all. - MrX 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have been unable to find sources that would warrant keeping this article per WP:GNG. What she may have done at school or college is totally irrelevant to establish notability as a working adult. What she is doing now is basically what she apparently enjoys doing as part of her job or as a pastime, nothing specific to make her stand out in a crowd.--Zananiri (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 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 delete. GedUK 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Augusto Martelli[edit]
- Augusto Martelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography. I am unable to find any sources with which to establish notability. I was able to find sources for the Italian composer of the same name. Fails WP:BIO. - MrX 00:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the closest thing to references I could find was to a totally different person of the same name who was a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 28 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 Penarth#Junior_and_nursery_provision. GedUK 12:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairfield Primary School Penarth[edit]
- Fairfield Primary School Penarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a small non-notable primary school, currently unsourced after 4 years, reading very much like an advert for the school's services. I've found this 2011 article in the town's weekly newspaper, but apart from that, there seems little evidence to say we should make an exception for this school. Sionk (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as not notabe, Isn't different from any other primary school, Davey2010 Talk 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Penarth#Junior and nursery provision. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG, so a redirect to place that it's situated in is a good option - as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Funny Pika! 11:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- REdirect per Funnypika. We do not encourage articles on individual Primary Schools, prefering general ones on education by area. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The creator of this article only ever made three edits, the first identified as vandalism, the second of no consequence and the creation of this page, it seems for dubious reasons, as all primary schools in Britain are supposed to be doing the same.--Zananiri (talk) 11:30, 5 April 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.