The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not appear to be notable. The only sources are IMDB and a link to one of her own videos on Vimeo, neither is evidence of notability. The claim that her films have been screened at film festivals around the world and won several awards cannot, as far as I can tell, be verified. No significant coverage in third-party RS that I can find. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly social networking sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly as she has simply been more of an assistant and there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969TT me 12:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - searches on News returned quite a few hits, but zero which appeared to be about this particular Harpreet Bajwa. Most were bylines by a writer of this same name. Searches on the other engines likewise turned up a few hits, but none about this person. Couldn't find a single reference. Onel5969TT me 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Nominator is mistaken, full professors at research universities are usually notable. Subject meets several of the academic criteria as a leading expert in the Vikings and also meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". Click publications here for the list of published works: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/judith.jeschPhilafrenzy (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. However, editors need not be reminded that Professors are generally not considered notable, they must meet our primary inclusion criteria and in this case WP:ACADEMIC must be satisfy. If I may ask, which of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria does your Judith Jesch met?
"ridiculous"?
Didn't you read the sources?
Director of the Centre for the Study of the Viking Age, University of Nottingham
Chair of the international Runic Advisory Group
President of the English Place-Name Society
An international fellow (utländsk arbetande ledamot') of Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien in Uppsala, Sweden.;
Editorial Board member of Nottingham Medieval Studies, Viking and Medieval Scandinavia and Acta Scandinavica.
I just asked you the criteria of the W:ACADEMIC you think the subject of the article met. Which of the Criteria of WP:ACADEMIC do you think she met? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets the first part of WP:ACADEMIC as having created a significant body of work. If the nominator had done WP:BEFORE they would have seen that the professor is cited in books, peer reviewed journals, etc, quite often. In addition, Wikicology might want to keep out of the rest of the discussion. The categorization of the article in question as "ridiculous" shows that the nominator has a bias. Let others comment on the merits of the article from here on out, please.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "biased"? Nonetheless, being cited in peer-reviewed journal, books or monograph as a contributors to a research in her field is not an evidence of notability. Is she the subject of those books? Being the subject of those books is an evidence of notability and that's not the case here. For example, if I work on the "toxicity effects of Carica papaya seed flour at graded concentration" another editor working on the same seed may cite me that " Olatunde O. I (2015) concluded that or prove that ..... This indeed does not makes Olatunde O.I notable or meet WP:ACADEMIC#1. There are several categories of "more" in WP:PROF, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an h-index of about 20 or more). WP:PROF spells all this out in detail. She fails WP:ACADEMIC#1 with an h-index of only 7. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that assessing academics is difficult. Remember, though, that all of the WP:ACADEMIC are guidelines. We still need to discuss and have more people come to the table. Considering that she's in a field that is fairly small and has been cited as often as she has shows that she has made a significant contribution. I'm going to ping @Dr Blofeld: and @SusunW:, @Montanabw: and @Rosiestep: who are more of an expert on these things than I am. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far I see the subject of the article as someone who's made a significant contribution and therefore passes. In addition, I find it hard to take your comments as seriously because its clear that you have a bias towards getting this article deleted. The reason I say you have a bias is because your comment that the article was "ridiculous" above shows your true feelings. "Ridiculous" means "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd." There is nothing in the article to suggest that it's ridiculous, and so the comment you made is meant to deride the article and the editor. It's quite a loaded statement and really doesn't belong in an AfD about a serious article (which this is.) If you misspoke, I understand. Please strike the comment, if it was a mistake, and we'll move on. But right now, you're coming off as aggressively wanting to delete this article for some reason. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insinuating that this article in particular is ridiculous. I generalized my comments based on past experience. However, I struck the word "Ridiculous" above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jesch is president of a learned society, the English Place-Name Society (in existence since 1923), and there's an inline RS to that claim. Also this: "A more recent example of locating women in prehistory comes from Judith Jesch who wrote the first book-length work devoted entirely to Women in the Viking Age (1991)."[1] --Rosiestep (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn to Keep per above arguments. I closed the debate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete emerging artist maybe, but still emerging.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think WP:ACADEMIC applies, but searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Only found a couple of weak hits on books, and a brief mention on Scholar, other than that, zero. Onel5969TT me 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some links at Books and browser but a better article can be made later. SwisterTwistertalk 05:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he now trains with Shirak's first team. However, since the Armenian Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro, this does not confer notability, never mind the fact that he has yet to actually play, or that the claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presently fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet appeared on the pitch for FC Shirak. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of non-routine coverage. — Jkudlicktcs 02:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Also with transfermarkt being the only source provided, a potential BLPPROD. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article refers to an individual who is scantly commented on in sources. Details on the martial artist are just generic stats on his weight and height along with compliments from notable fighters. Compliments and scarce connections do not denote to notability TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 08:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand the nomination - both the extremely weak lead (should indicate why notable) and the collection of trivia of unclear notability but it appears there is enough independent significant coverage. I wish the coverage was broader but it is there (Black belt January 1977). I also modified the lead to better reflect notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs work, but the number of articles in magazines such as Black Belt, and in numerous books as found on the Google book search (such as this, this, this, and this), indicates his notability. Onel5969TT me 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the point of coverage, but shouldn't the sources say something notable about the subject. Most of what I read was through the individual's relation with notable fighters. I know I do not need to explain that notability is not inherited from other people.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it seems he's actually notable. SwisterTwistertalk 05:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominee for Lt Gov (bottom of the ticket, not running independently) who lost in the 2007 election. Therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also appears to fail WP:GNG without significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to election's article as Books, News and browser (my search was "Robbie Rudolph Kentucky") easily found links including current ones to suggest he's gotten enough attention and is best known for that campaign. SwisterTwistertalk 05:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG, and they fail WP:NPOL. Onel5969TT me 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - This seems like a clear keep and I would've voted as such and the current article seems acceptable and sourced. (NAC) SwisterTwistertalk 05:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable independent sources here. Claims that she is a Professor not supported anywhere, not even on her own Linkedin account. Reads like a self promo piece. Fails WP:GNG and as it stands would also be a candidate for a BLP Prod VelellaVelella Talk 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really surprised this was nominated for an AfD at all. I added some more info about her, but the references (including her LinkedIn) did show that she discovered an important Mayan site. Also that she is the director of a program relating to El Pilar. So now the sources should show that she's notable as the discoverer of El Pilar, and for being the director of ISBER/Mesoamerican Research Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. That's not to mention her publications, which I only added a few of. She's cited quite often, but I'm not sure how to add that information to a Wiki article. Also, if anyone has access to Archaeology or American Anthropologist magazines, there is an article here and another here that may be of use. Anyone with JSTOR access might find more info, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm also surprised that this article was nominated for an AfD. The note that she is a professor has been removed as that has been proven false. However, the other sources indicate that she is very notable, especially after discovering an ancient Maya city. El Pilar is also one of the most endangered sites in the world and is currently in the process of becoming the first binational peace park in the world. Ford is also responsible for creating a unique conservation strategy that is currently being spread around the world. I have included her most recent publication in order to add more sources. Melissa.leanda (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Melissa.leanda[reply]
Keep. not a professor, but na notable academic. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editor Megalibrarygirl put it quite well. There is significant coverage of her work, she is recognized in her field, and is cited a fair amount. She has changed the field of Mayan archaeology, and maybe tropical archaeology as well. The article formerly did somewhat seem to promote her new book. If there are remaining concerns of this nature, please address them on the article's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userfied on request if new sources appear. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of meeting General notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Aside from the Dorkly blurb, all sources are self-published or user-generated sites. When and if this game gets reliable third-party coverage, an article may be warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing found with WP:VG/S's reliable and situational source search. Additionally, one of the three sources (Dorkly, the lone non-self published source), was supposedly considered unreliable earlier this year. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy again as it once was as there's enough for an article later if there's better sourcing and my searches found some at News and browser and thus there's no obvious need for deletion. SwisterTwistertalk 05:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I agree and my searches immediately found nothing better than a few links at Books, simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 07:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in searches to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969TT me 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, all four articles--Ymblanter (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising tone and feel, little out there to suggest the company meets WP:COMPANY, flagged for notability for almost 5 years without any improvement.
Took a closer look at the editor's history and also want to suggest deleting the following bundle of articles as related ones with similar issues:
Delete No evidence of independent coverage by WP:RS. The interlocking nail system is also not unique to the company. It's just a variant of something already widely used in veterinary orthopedics.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for now as although they are interesting and were good contributions by the author, there's simply not much and is WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwistertalk 07:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged as G11 as my searches found nothing convincing at all and this is clearly in need of restarting if it is to be acceptable. SwisterTwistertalk 05:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is grossly promotional. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. References are a joke. Many do not mention the subject at all. Many are not reliable. None provide anything even remotely close to the "in depth coverage" required by the guidelines. In a sane world this would be a speedy delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm somewhat surprised at the age of this article (I would've assumed this was a new one) and my searches found nothing better than a link each at Books (2012) and Highbeam (2013) so there's nothing to suggest better at this time. Pinging tagger Tedder. SwisterTwistertalk 07:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Smashing Pumpkins connection indicates status as a video director. THIS is an interview with Vents magazine, HERE is another with Alter the Press,AND ANOTHER with Examiner.com (url missing an R) due to WP's URL blacklist), FAN Q&A from BlogTalk Radio, and so forth. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the searches gives enough to satisfy notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article on a young ministerial aide. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, note that this article has been nominated for deletion twice by the same editor apparently within eight minutes. Why? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp I'm also curious about Wikicology's nomination but it may have been a system event and as we have commented here, I'll close the other one. SwisterTwistertalk 05:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister Thanks for closing that debate, it was a systemic error and of course, you know I can never knowingly open two deletion discussions on the same topics at a time. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there has been no further improvement since starting and my searches found some links at News and browser but this can be restarted later. SwisterTwistertalk 05:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the news coverage of him is in passing, the subtantial articles are about his wedding, and the interviews here and here. Wikipedia seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward interviews, on the one hand their publication in reliable sources seems to be an indicator of notability, and they frequently contain substantive information about the biographee. However, since most, if not all, depending upon the interview, of the information is being sourced from the biographee they are often classed with WP:SELFSOURCE. See the essay at WP:Interviews. In this instance it appears that they only add a veneer of notability. This might be a close case. The biographee is an inverterate poster on Twitter and other forums, and thus is quoted more than others. --Bejnar (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is completely unsourced and lacks an actual lead section. At the moment, most of the the entries in the list lack any sort of description and are simply links to the articles; those that do have descriptions are not sourced at all. The list is potentially so broad that it will be unmanageable to maintain, and as it is right now, the list is very scattered in what it covers. I think having only a category, with no list article, would be a much better way to deal with the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a valid reason to delete any list in WP, all of which generally include links to other articles in WP. List is useful to readers on its face and as allowed by WP a complement to any categories that may exist. And the length of such a list is also no valid deletion reason; WP has lists with thousands of entries. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. If we are going to have this we may as well have lists of gas stations or pharmacies.Charles (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of individual sites rather than companies but that is bad enough.Charles (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the nonexistence of other lists has any bearing here. And please discuss the first two sentences of NOTDIR so we can better understand how that section might apply here. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not even close to exhaustive, which we wouldn't want anyway. Not sure I follow the line of logic that this can't be a category, which would make more sense. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 22:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exhaustive of what? All condominiums that exist? Or just of our articles? If the latter, of course it isn't and no one would want that. If the former, we fix that by adding any missing articles. And no one's saying it can't be also be a category; quite the contrary. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP as complementary to Category:Condominiums in the United States and per WP:LISTPURP as a standard index of articles. The nominator's complaint that this is primarily a bare list of article links that lacks an intro section is tantamount to admitting that they are unfamiliar with both lists and deletion policy. Any list can be expanded with annotations (not that this is required), and we do not delete content for fixable issues. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf, some people prefer navigation via categories some prefer via lists. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. There are tens of thousands of condominiums in the United States. This is ridiculous. There might be an argument for spinoff lists, such as "list of co-ops in New York City" or something, but this is a good example of where a category is adequate and a list isn't needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of thousands of condominiums do not have or merit articles, so the number that exists isn't relevant. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point, a "list of condominiums" is absurd. Perhaps retitling this list into something that explains why the ones listed are notable would help... condos that have over 100 units, condos that house over 1000 people, whatever. I'd strike my delete !vote if someone wanted to propose a more descriptive and narrower title. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're notable because they pass WP:GNG or some other notability guideline. And it's standard practice when we limit lists of X to notable X not to include "notable" or whatever in the title. Not including that in the title doesn't prevent us from limiting any list's entries to articles/notable topics, as we do with nearly all lists of people, buildings, etc. In titles we discourage self-references and encourage brevity. Maybe we should call all such lists "list of Wikipedia articles about...", but we don't, and titling disagreements (or the claimed implications of what content titles invite) certainly don't give rise to deletion rationales (or put a bit more cheekily, "article titles are not suicide pacts"). postdlf (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making myself clear, perhaps. My point is that there is no indicia of why these buildings are notable: size, population, architecture...? WP:NOT is clear, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random facts. I fail to see how this list is anything more than a glorified category. It's really just List of all condominiums notable enough for a WP article, and nothing more. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because you do not understand WP. By definition, a subject with an article in WP is notable or there would not be an article. Other items without yet an article can also be notable. Hmains (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here nine years, Hmains, let's not start insulting one another. The article seems to have no reason to exist and is nothing but a list of what's in the category. Insufficient. Add some context and maybe it might have some encyclopedic value. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list of articles that's also in a category is sufficient according to well established consensus, and that's what most of our lists are. We'll just put you down as not liking WP:NOTDUP and the intro sentences of WP:NOTDIR, and move on. postdlf (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) (and if you concede that it can be improved, you've already effectively withdrawn your own deletion !vote.)[reply]
I don't think you can improve the situation, because it's a random collection of trivia. My vote stands. That said, evidence of improvement could change my mind. Is there any? Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An index of wikipedia articles about a certain type of thing is a "random collection of trivia"? That's...interesting. Particularly since you think the same information ("these are the articles we have about condominiums") is valid when in the presentation format of a category. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this list needs any particular sourcing. I can see that all of its contents have articles, which I have to presume fit the applicable notability and sourcing criteria. The list itself is neither trivia nor duplication. As others have said, it's by no means unusual to have a list of this size or nature. My only content gripe is that it ought to be called "List of notable condominiums in the United States" since by design, it excludes all but a few. That would also dispense with any WP:NOTDIR objections, which I consider poorly founded in situations such as this. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to retitle it that to restrict it in that way, and in fact we expressly recommend not to do that. See WP:LISTNAME. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if it can be shown to be maintainable: It seems like a perpetually-outdated list waiting to happen, but maybe if it's limited to items that are potentially WP:GNG, it might have a chance at staying current, so I'm saying neutral instead of delete. It does, however, seem like it could easily out of control, and policy WP:NOTDIR overrides guideline WP:NOTDUP, both in priority and logically: WP:NOTDUP says it's OK for some catagories and lists to be on the same topic; it doesn't say there should always be both. It's worth noting that, if the list weren't limited to likely-notable entries, thousands would be an understatement; the list of organized condominium projects could be in the millions. --Closeapple (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to comply with WP:Stand-alone lists (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.) in that it lacks adequate selection criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, and while it contains the necessary background information it lacks the references to sources for that background information, and thus it fails to provide encyclopedic context, producing an indiscriminate list that therefore breaches the policy at WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you understand this list's selection criteria to be, and why you think those criteria are "inadequate" and unverifiable? Right now your comment is too general or abstract to indicate you're even talking about this list, and reads instead like boilerplate rather than specific criticism. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Party of England and Wales. The redirect target and an merger of content is up to editorial consensus. But consensus here is not to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is an actual entity. All the refs simply show as an integral part of the Green Party and not even a splinter group,simply one component grouping. As written this fails WP:GNG . Maybe a merge back to the relevant parent article might be the appropriate solution. VelellaVelella Talk 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge with the UK Green Party, and redirect - This is better suited as a sub-division of the UK Green Party rather than its own standalone article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge with the UK Green Party, and redirect
Creating and editing a Wikipedia page for an institution of which you are Chair is a clear breach of WP:SPIP. The current article does not meet the criteria for balance, and constitutes self-promotion, please see: Wikipedia:NOTCV. Support Velella's point: integral parts of the party do not constitute a separate grouping that is notable, and therefore should be merged into the article. Rob304665 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Small point of Information
If you do insist on merging it then I would advise against merging it with the UK Green Party as the UK Green Party hasn't existed since 1990. And as mentioned above, over Parties' LGBT+ Groups are allowed, so unless the other pages are deleted, I do not think Wikipedia should be making a Partisan decision. Aimeec110 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I do not support the hounding of Aimeec110 who appears to be a new editor writing about a subject in which she has an interest. Any judgement about this article should be on its notability and nothing else. If it is partisan , then that can be fixed if the decision is to retain. @Rob304665: - as a brand new SPA, you seem to have great familiarity with Wikipedia rules and procedures. If you have an undeclared interest, it would be appropriate to declare it now. VelellaVelella Talk 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rob does have a point. The chair of the LGBTIQ Greens is Aimee Challenor, and the main editor of this article is Aimeec110. It does raise a few concerns. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and acknowledge that, but to persistently make the same point including adding a hidden comment in the article itself is pushing the limits unacceptably IMHO. VelellaVelella Talk 21:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable You Tube series. All self-published sources. LizRead!Talk! 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He was describe as "rising actor" by some local blogs. Not every local actor with press coverage are notable. Ref 1 and Ref 2 looks promising but not enough to establish notability. Ref 3 is a blog, ref 4 is a passing mention, ref 5 is a blog and say nothing about the local actor, ref 6 is a "YouTube Video" and ref 7 is not what I will considered a significant coverages (just few lines sentences). Other uncited sources I found are just a passing mention perhaps WP:TOOSOON. In addition, the article is a pet page for an WP:SPA who just want the article to stay. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; although it's important to AGF, SPAs often do have COIs with the subjects of their articles. Miniapolis 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much as above. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as aside from some News and browser links, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 06:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, to your point though 'I do not just want the article to stay', I was hoping to start 'editing other articles on wikipedia' and I do have a passion for Nollywood, so what better way to start. Uzoeshi is one of my favourite actors and the 'you tube' videos are actually interviews, not just videos, I noticed on Chiwetel's page that 'you tube interviews' were used as references and so copied that.
However I am going to AGF and believe that you 'experienced editors' are after improving searchability and the 'overall quality' of wikipedia, at the end of the day its not about winning. In my view he is 'notable', however 'notability' is very 'vague' on wikipedia. My argument was always COI and not 'notability', the page was on 'wikipedia' way before I decided to contribute to it. I did not create the page.
Nollywood is the 3rd largest film industry in the world and Uzoeshi will sit in the top '50' actors easily and also has a decent following in Nigeria. But like I said, I am assuming good faith, so happy for it to be deleted. It may be difficult for some of you to understand that in a lot of ways, Nollywood, for us Nigerians abroad, is one of our key links to home asides from 'blogs', and we do take an avid interest in knowing more about the actors/actresses. Wikipedia and IMDB are key sources, and that was my driver to contribute.
WP:SPA???; completely unfair though!; I joined Wikipedia less than a week ago and was 'bitten' as soon as I joined, I have explained, apologised and worked tirelessly to clean up my errors on this article. I have always written; please see my blog here and was a columnist for 'Next234' before it shut down. Its so sad that even though AGF is THE KEY principle of Wikipedia, its clearly not that important to 'anyone' I have come across so far! asides from this AMAZING EDITOR - 220 of Borg, who keeps taking the time to be super helpful! ThankYou so much everyone! Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, I was simply coming back on the comments made above. I believe we are all entitled to our opinions and should be allowed to express them freely. I'm pretty calm. Lol. I'm still learning the wikipedia terms and will get better with time. Maybe I have not been clear, there was no paid editing here and my account was not intended to be set up as an SPA. My point about my account being barely a week old was meant to show that I have only been able to contrubute to this one page. As soon as another editor pointed out that as avid admirer I may be conflicted I added the connected contribute template to the subject's talk page. So I'm pretty unsure how this infers that the page is promotional especially given that Wikipedia has had the page on for years. As mentioned I didn't create it I contributed to it. I can't deal. This is beginning tò sound like a bit of a joke. Its pretty simple if the page doesnt meet the notability requitements than I support deletion. End of! Thanks and take care :). I think we should focus on that rather than on coming back on my comments. Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BMK (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I know this is a brand-new article, but I do not think that even with a week to edit will it prove suitable. A small-time middle school with no claim of notability (which throws out WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), and the only press coming from local sources about relatively mundane things. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STOP!!! If you delete my article that I spend two hours working on, I will retire both of my accounts and leave Wikipedia forever! Don't destroy everything that I have done. I am the WikiMan(Click here to contact me!) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever, it's two hours, not the end of the world. Second, it is not permanently or irreversibly deleted. Pages can be undeleted (though I doubt it would be applicable in this instance). Third, there are other articles to edit Wikipedia, and I hope you don't feel like you can only edit this page. We are always looking for new volunteers. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As per our usual practice, especially regarding pages nominated for deletion as promotional, I am discounting the views expressed by anonymous and very new contributors because of the very high likelihood of votestacking (not that this is a vote). This leaves us with an unanimous consensus to delete the article as a vanity autobiography of a non-notable person. Sandstein 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional with no underlying notability. The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense. For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles; he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander! He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him; and to add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities. He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published". He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices andPR about the speech.
Written by spa editor with no other significant contributions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) lack of significant substantive coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:The heading of the following hidden text says it is by "article author". A glance at the article's history is likely to give the impression that the editor in question is not the author of the article, but that is because for some reason (perhaps by mistake) the administrator Jimfbleak, when restoring the current article after deletion, also restored the edits of a previous version of the article, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yap Kwong Weng. Wikiwak991, who wrote the hidden text is indeed the author of the current article.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive comments by article author
Contest to Deletion
Moved from talk page.
I would like to contest the nomination for deletion. This article has been deleted previously, but restored by the one who deleted it because changes and justifications were made to a satisfactory level. Below, I address some of the issues brought forward by DGG.
DGG: Promotional with no underlying notability.
My response: The article has been edited to remove unintended promotional tone. Notability of the subject has been raised - see the awards, as well as work in the Non-profit sector, additionally as position in Parami Energy Group.
Wikipedia is supposed to be informational and factual, which this article is, based on the information provided. Notability guidelines have been considered. The article meets these guidelines. More on this is discussed below.
If you take a look at notability guidelines, the awards, credentials, and public quotes are all in the article. This individual is recognized by the World Economic Forum, the World Cities Summit. He is the Country Head of Cambodia, Previous Secretary General of the United Nations Association of Singapore, and a Young Outstanding Singaporean, awarded by the Junior Chambers International.
DGG: The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense.
My response:
"impressive array...." implies sarcasm.
To the best of my ability, I am being factual and referencing nearly every sentence to ensure accuracy. Giving references is part of the guidelines of wiki and I have made sure that the references are from objective sources.
The sources referenced are not to his personal accounts or any blogs that he may be able to manipulated to his needs. These include official organization sites (global dignity, world economic forum, Norwegian Ambassy) that document this individuals accolades and contributions.
On the comment about the information being "nonsense" - all information are factual and based on objective sources. Please refer to the Wiki guidelines on Wikietiquette: " • Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. • Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor."
DGG: For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles
My response: It is a requirement of wikipedia to give references. This is not the only things that Yap Kwong Weng has written. There are several. The monograph is a compilation in which Yap Kwong Weng wrote 3 articles. It was actually a series of articles published and put together for the 1st time in the history of Singapore's Special Forces, and distributed at the ASEAN Defence Meet in 2009.
DGG: he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander!
My response: Again, the language used is sarcastic (Refer to Wikietiquette). Giving references is part of the Wiki process. Platoon Commander is not the only position held (it was actually an early position), there were many other positions in the military. These were not mentioned by DGG. Also, Graduating as a Navy Seal is notable at least in the world of the armed forces especially the US. I am unsure why there is a problem in stating that as a fact.
Also, DGG only picked a few minor things that may confer notability to refute the article. He did not mention notability seen in awards, such as Young Global Leader, Rotary, CSIS, Global Dignity, and others mentioned in the article. Also, Yap Kwong Weng has also gained recognition with youth work, has contributed to NGO work, and has given speeches at regional levels, as seen in the references.
DGG: He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him;
My response: Being a COO is part of the C-suite (refer to Wiki definition of COO). Parami Energy Group is now one of the Global Growth Companies of the World Economic Forum (2015) (Reference: http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/global-growth-companies-honourees-2015). To be a GGC company is a global recognition that is awarded to the highest potential growth with significant potential and achievement. (Reference: http://www.weforum.org/community/global-growth-companies). As COO of this group, it therefore is considered to be notable. Yap Kwong Weng was COO before this company got GCC. He has been included in many business projects and is notable in the Myanmar business community as seen from the references especially in the areas of CSR.
On notability - Yap Kwong Weng is notable under the "Any biography" section under notability as he has won awards in his field and has made a lasting contribution in it. See above mentioned awards received (also in the article) from significant world organisations like World Cities Summit, World Economic Forum. These are notable awards. Why has DGG not contested based on that information? Yap's notability is not only based on his position in Parami, but also because of the awards received by world recognized organizations and bodies.
DGG: To add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities
My response: There is nothing unnotable or promotional about that. Yap Kwong Weng has been quoted as the COO of Parami. Also, Myanmar is undergoing change which needs more support from the international community to improve the lives of the people there. Yap is playing a role in that process, as shown in the references. Many of the quotes and references come from Asian news sites and magazines which may not be as well known to a Western audience. However, this individuals contributions and renown is dominantly in the South East Asian context, thus media coverage of him is expected to be in such a context.
DGG: He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published".
My response: We remove the word "widely" if DGG is not comfortable with it. But including the CDF essay competition in Singapore military is considered reasonable. The article was about ex-military personnel (often stereotyped) being more recognised in the workforce. That is hardly promotional, rather, it is a study that benefits military personnel.
Also, the article written about dignity for the Lee Kuan Yew school is notable in the Asian context. This was not highlighted. The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is recognised in Singapore also Worldwide, especially in Asia.
DGG: He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices and PR about the speech.
My response: This has been changed already. I am not sure why DGG has chosen to pick this as an issue. Also, according to a Forbes article, this was stated: "TED and TEDx are powerful events because their organizers and staff don’t do it for the money or the fame – for which there is neither. They do it to make a difference. And people that do things out of passion, do them better". There's no evidence to suggest that PR exists in the speech. It's just media reporting which the author is doing due diligence by stating it down as part of the Wiki guidelines on referencing.( Reference: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/06/19/heres-why-ted-and-tedx-are-so-incredibly-appealing-infographic/)
In any case, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. I, as an author, have explained to the one who previously deleted the article that I had viewed TEDx and TED as synonymous. However, with the difference being pointed out, I have consented to change it. I am not sure why this was again brought up as an issue.
There are also many areas such as UN association work, etc. These were not mentioned in DDG's assessment and taken into account. DDG has narrowed his nomination to minor details and on articles. There is a much greater scope on the subject that has not been mentioned in the nomination for deletion. The subject is notable and the presented information prove it.
I would appreciate that DGG prove that this article contains "promotional activities", or has an intent to promote. And if there is, to point it out or to change it. The tone has already been edited by user jimbleak, and I as the author am willing to adjust if needed (I am still learning how to put up wiki article). Appreciate if DDG could help improve the article. Please advice on what to include and what to omit.
yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.
as for the rest, an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion. An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.
As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.
the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.
Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.
Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.
If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort. -- DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contest to Deletion
DGG: yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.
Response: Thank you for your comments and for changing it. On two occasions, you argued for the importance of differences between Ted and TedX. Now you said you changed it initially because you thought it was worth rescuing. So that settles the issue about TED and Tedx.
DGG: ..an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion."
Response: This statement is untrue according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no promotional intent nor backdrop that show the subject is being promotional. In fact, most wiki articles on notable subjects contains the activities in which the person has been involved in. In any event, the notability factor of a subject is guided by certain criteria, not the opinions of the editor or how yourself (DGG) thinks it should be. There is no indication in the references that the subject is promoting himself. I have already mentioned this in my previous posting and stated my rationale and supporting evidence.
DGG: An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.
Response: I have tried to use and include links and other references, which is widely seen in wiki articles, as well as included links to the information about this subject. Please clarify this statement.
DGG: As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.
Response: Again, your response that such honours from this organization is mutual promotion is an opinion and a big generalization. WEF is known to world leaders, organizations and thousands around the world for its content, delivery and substance. The World Economic Forum Young Global Leader award is an honor given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. It is definitely not self-promotion. Please refer to this link that explains what the Young Global Leaders are: http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders
So I do not agree that this blanket statement, which is not a fair statement to the 1000 YGLs in the world who include many notable people.
Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders:
Mark Zuckerberg,
Jared Cohen,
David Karp
Every Young Global Leader has a Wiki page linked to them, even the ones who are not household names, but are notable in their field and region:
Johannes Weber,
Ahmed Mater,
Zibusiso Mkhwanazi,
These are just a few, but the whole list can be found at: List of Young Global Leaders. In fact, Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). (http://www.weforum.org/young-global-leaders/jimmy-wales)
Also, as stated under the Additional criteria for Notability:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
DGG: the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.
Response: If national branches are not notable, then what is? Maybe he can give examples. This is only one area of the subject's life, which should not be generalized as a failure for notability. Is this a criteria put up by Wiki or your own preference again? There are many notable people who hold office in national branches. What about regional branches then? Head of Global Dignity Cambodia? Rotary Peace Fellow? They are not national designations, but international ones. These are not brought up for consideration again, which again, brings back to the point of narrow focus. Global Dignity is a non-profit organization that advocates for dignity around the world. It is headed by the Crown Prince of Norway., and there is nothing promotional or un-notable about being its chair for an emerging country in Cambodia, which faces many human rights issues.
When you say "we", who are you referring to? If this is an AfD, then you shouldn't be representing other editors but yourself? See AfD guidelines for details. I thought AfDs are meant to be an expression of community thoughts, but you don't and cannot represent the community.
The content in question is a mere representation of the work the subject has done over the years with full references from reliable secondary sources. This is to ensure full accuracy in reporting, as I did with all sentences/sections dealing with each subject. Could you kindly advise on what to include and what to remove so that it is not over saturated with information, if that is what you mean.
DGG: Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.
Response: Again, DDG is speculating, and misquoting the facts. What was stated is Yap Kwong Weng previously held appointments in the military, one of them was Platoon Commander. Shouldn't this be part of the historical facts in an encyclopedia? Previously you tried use this as a point of contention, by stating that the subject "rose to Platoon Commander" as a sarcastic remark, which was untrue and misleading. It is not the role of platoon commoner that confers notability. It is merely the factual history of this subject who has notable accomplishments. Now, you are using the point about the subject graduating from US Navy Seal school as a point of contention? Since this is a fact, why can't it be stated? The military facts are important in this subject's military history and involvement in the Special Forces. The subject graduated from Class 237 of BUD/S in 2002.
Military histories are also stated in Ahmed Mater's article where it states that he was a Sergeant. Eric Greitens also the information about his Navy Seal title stated. I don't understand your logic. Yap Kwong Weng is not a General when he was in the military, but he is now COO of a Global Growth Company, which again, does not seem to be considered notable by you. There seems to be a preference for choosing minor points to provide a facade of unnotablilty. But the facts that the author brought up was not addressed. For military, Yap Kwong Weng was the editor and author of the Special Forces monograph of the SAF journal (The monograph was distributed to ASEAN militaries and used a reference in regional defence colleges concerning Special Forces operations). That fits into the requirements of Military notability, other than holding a "General" rank.
Please see military notability guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide: "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing."
The subject has accumulated a number of honors which shouldn't be discounted for independent ones that DDG has scrutinized. For example, according to DDG, while being a Navy Seal does not equal a Wikipedia entry, it does not mean that the subject should be 'penalized' for having the recognitions and history stated. The subject has met the criterias of notability under the "Additional Criteria". However, this is not recognized due to your preference/groundless opinions on WEF honors, an the others stated?
DGG: Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.
Response: The purpose of Wiki is to list down references as accurately as possible. Thats what I as the author did. There is nothing factually wrong about that and this shouldn't be used as a point for contention. Based on the previous argument on referencing and factual reporting which is the very basis of Wikipedia has been addressed, to which you have replied, "Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place." I am now unsure what your stance on this is. You seem to hold two contrary stances on this matter.
DDG's response here is vague and very general. I thought the article was supposed to contain several links and references. I am not sure what your point is. In my previous response to DDG, I have already stated that all references come from secondary and independent sources (see criteria for biography for living persons). There seems to be a repeated argument for deletion without providing any substance in response. These points have already been addressed in previous replies, hasn't it? There is no indication that all biographies must only use links, if that is what DDG is suggesting.
DGG: If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort.
Response: Thank you for the advice. I, as the author, agree that the article is imperfect but I believe that the subject still meets the criterias to be put up on Wikipedia. I am working on another article of a composer and arranger featured on grammy award winning projects, Phillip Lassiter. I think that would present less of a problem. I picked Yap Kwong Weng as a subject because it was relevant in my regional context. While I am new to Wiki Editing and creating, I disagree with your arguments. You cannot represent the community by stating "We" in an AfD. That is not supposed to be the purpose of the discussion. Your arguments seem to be repeated and based on preferences or misinformation about organisations such as the World Economic Forum and Global Dignity. The arguments are unable to address the points mentioned, with generalizations at best, ie. stating that WEF honors are promotional by nature. A reminder of constructive discussion is advised.
Referenced from Wiki guidelines on arguments and evidence:
"When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."
Referenced from Wiki guidelines:
"Wikipedia documents topics as they are seen through reliable sources such as academic papers, and reputable books and news media. The work of editors is to summarize and balance those sources and reflect them neutrally and fairly, rather than to present novel ideas of their own."
At the same time, there seems to be a bias on the article based on the deletion on the previous one of the same name. I am not sure if that colours the objectivity of your arguments.
Delete After sifting through all of the promotional language it seems the article fails WP:GNG. A LinkedIn account would be a better forum for most of this information. EricSerge (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept. I just saw Yap Kwong Weng speaking in the ASEAN Energy Business Forum where he spoke about Myanmar's oil and gas industry. He noted the importance of social responsibility and transparency. I am a participant from the US. He spoke well so I decided to google him, and glanced through this. I used to have a good impression of Wikipedia but seeing this today, I changed my mind. I looked through the way how comments were made on Yap. Totally unprofessional. I saw that some points (especially at the start) were coming to the point of being somewhat discriminatory, and not just being critical. Isn't the Wikipedia founder a young global leader himself? Didn't the US start the wars and got attacked in 9-11? I have full respect for people in the military, especially those who help others. Rank is not everything. And then, I saw the rest of the entry, and understood where all of this is going. If anything, more self-reflection and respect are needed. Mr Yap is obviously a known person. I don't view him as being promotional, and neither do the rest of his background. In fact, I find it this individual as a fine person with a bright future. That's all I have to say. - A disappointed American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.25.201.3 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article. No prejudice to recreation at some later date if notability criteria satisfied. Buckshot06(talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article I happened to chance upon Yap’s wiki page while I was searching for some information about the world economic forum. I do not agree that this page should be deleted. Reading through some of the comments, I could feel that DGG’s comments show signs of sarcasm, personal attacks and he picks on tiny petty details. Shouldn't his comments be deleted since no sarcasm is allowed on wiki? I also especially disagree when DGG mentioned that Yap’s contribution was not notable enough. Yap is making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation, society and even in undeveloped countries. Regardless of what positions he may hold, I am sure that he had touched and changed the life of many. Over all, I think this page should be kept since there are abundant of relevant secondary and reliable resources to prove of Yap’s background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.162.115 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reliable sources that I have seen point to significant contributions, nor have significant coverage of him. Please could you provide citations to these reliable sources and for each one explain what that specific significant contribution is? --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article Apologies for extensive comments. Yap Kwong Weng is notable in the Asian context. He is a Young Global Leader under the World Economic forum, which is a notable global organisation. Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders, such as Mark Zuckerberg. The honor is given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. He is also the country head of Global Dignity in Cambodia, as well as the COO of Parami Groups Myanmar, which is a leader in Myanmar Oil and Gas industry. The subject meets the basic requirements of notability under the "other" category. In the military context, Yap Kwong Weng has made significant contributions to the Armed Forces, as well as the Special Forces. The issues pointed out were focused on the more minor facts that on its own, do not confer notability (which is the main gripe), but against the backdrop of these achievements and contributions, serve as a factual account of this subject's history. DGG's concerns have been addressed previously, but he re-iterates the same points again to argue for deletion.
Wikiwak991 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A substantially promotional article, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the "keep" arguments are rather vague rambling discourses where it is difficult to make out what reason is being advanced for keeping the article, beyond "I think he's a noble and important person", and where the reasons given are clear, they do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, such issues as "making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation", "made significant contributions to the Armed Forces", being deserving of "respect" and being "a young global leader" do not feature at all in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We can, of course, ignore the ad hominem attacks on the nominator. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, do relate to Wikipedia's notability guidelines: this is perhaps the most extreme case that I have ever seen of bombarding an article with huge numbers of "references" of no value at all. Many of the references don't even mention him, and the few that do mention him do nothing to indicate notability. (Although it is not part of the reason for deletion, it is perhaps worth noting that the arguments for keeping the article are from one account and two IP addresses all of whose recent editing has related to this article, and some of the comments from the three are rather similar, which is similar to what happened in the last deletion discussion for this article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article
The references do mention the subject in them, as far as I know. Perhaps you could point out a couple that do not mention or are not relevant to the article. I will remove those. There was no intention to attack DGG. I merely mentioned previous points brought up for deletion had been addressed, but had been repeatedly used as points of contention for deletion. It is also untrue to state that the facts presented are "vague ramblings". There have been many facts presented (please refer to above discussions and article on recognition by World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader, Rotary, Global Dignity, COO of Parami Energy Group). These are clear and distinct, not general statements that "he's a noble and important person".
155.69.161.36 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Apologies, I forgot to log on (user: Wikiwak)
Wikiwak991 (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that the sources do not mention him, the problem is that the vast majority are only verification of specific facts, like a list of awardees, or mention Yak in passing, but are used for the fact his is Catholic. Notability is not the same as verifiability. Please read WP:Notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence that the subject has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. That is not just any coverage or any recognition. Coverage much be substantial, and it must show significance, as well as being published in an independent reliable source. See the basic criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Recognition means significant awards, not any awards. Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia. Lots of the cited sources in the article suffer because they are from sources that are intellectually related to Yak, such as organizations of which he is a member or of which he has been a fellow. These do not carry weight as independent. --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article
Quoting Bejnar, "Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia"
There is a Wiki page on Young Global Leaders (YGL) that gives a clear picture of Yap's award: "over the years. Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people, including several popular celebrities, alongside with recognized high achievers and innovators in the realms of politics, business, academia, media and the arts". See Young Global Leaders. , "Young Global Leader" is a recognition given to a few selected candidates per country who are reviewed by Heidrick & Struggles. The selection is chaired by the Queen of Jordan and a neutral committee. Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). Candidates are publicly nominated. (Criterias state that "self-nominations are not accepted").
(Reference: http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/nominate-young-global-leader)
(Reference::http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders)
In the arguments for deletion, it was stated that YGLs are not notable and is a promotional title. Please prove this statement and justify it with facts, as well as your thoughts on why this award is not notable.
For writing: The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, ("Securing A Future for Dignity" article) is a significant reliable publication source in the regional context. The Special Forces monograph is also a peer reviewed journal article (military leadership article) by international journal of knowledge. Yap is the only editor and a contributing writer of the first Special Forces journal published by Singapore Armed Forces Journal, a regional military authority. The monograph represents one of the highest standard of Singapore's military staff writing. This meets criteria number 9 under the Military History Notability - People: "9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." Holding the rank of general is one of the many criteria that confer notability, not the ONLY criteria.
I will promptly remove sources which editors think is an "overkill", please assist in identifying and removing, if necessary. My intent was to be as factually accurate as possible with backing sources. May I also appeal to the editors to look at the subject as a whole, instead of looking at individual areas that is not representative of his entire notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwak991, a number of points.
You ask me top point out a couple of "references" that do not mention Yap Kwong Weng. This page, this one, and this one do not, as far as I can see, mention him: certainly not under that name. In fact, none of them contains any of the three words "Yap", "Kwong", or "Weng" at all. I may have been mistaken in saying that "many" of the references don't mention him, but certainly a number of them don't. This is, of course, quite separate from the fact that those that do mention him frequently just make one brief passing mention of him or include his name in a list, and that some of them are by him, not about him.
You seem to have difficult grasping that by Wikipedia standards, notability is not inherited from other notable subjects one has connections with. Thus, for example, Yap Kwong Weng may be the editor of a publication which satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but not satisfy them himself; he may have an award which satisfies those guidelines, but not satisfy them himself; he may have the title "Young Global Leader" under an organisation which satisfies them, but not satisfy them himself; and so on.
The fact that someone chooses to come along and post something to Wikipedia does not make it a valuable or reliable source of information, so quoting from other Wikipedia articles is of no value at all in establishing notability: thus, for example, you quote from Young Global Leaders as saying that "Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people", but that is not a reliable source. In fact, to me that article reads like a piece of promotional marketing-speak for the organisation.
Even if you were to give a reliable source saying that "Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people", and even if you could show that in the context "noteworthy" meant much the same as "notable" in Wikipedia's sense, it would be of no value in establishing that this particular "honoree" is notable: left handed people include many thousands of notable people, but it does not follow that all left handed people are notable. We need direct evidence that Yap Kwong Weng is himself notable, and evidence that he has an award which is also shared by many notable people does not do the job.
Don't keep putting bold "keep" notes at the front of your messages: as long as you have done that once, we know you want the article kept, and posting multiple bolded "keep"s could mislead readers as to how many people have argued to keep it.
I suggest that unless you have some new evidence to offer, continuing to post is likely to be a mistake. Largely, you seem to me to be repeatedly arguing the same points, trying to explain why in your opinion the same things you have already mentioned justify regarding Yap Kwong Weng as significant and important. This discussion will be closed by an administrator who will be well acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and will be able to see whether your reasons are in line with those guidelines. Adding yet more text to the extensive amount you have already contributed will merely make it less likely that anyone will spend the time reading it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet notability requirements. Searches only turned up trivial hits. Onel5969TT me 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel a sense of injustice for the contributor. Clear blatant bullying. This is a discussion, not a forum to showcase authority you wish to portray. Whatever experience you think you might have, this is not a place to show you wish to win. If there are reasons, state them, argue them without insulting the contributor. Using blanket statements, like "Delete". No notability." is a useless form of contribution without objective reasoning. Look at DDG, he should have been removed for his blatant sarcastic remarks, but he wasn't. What's the point of stating guidelines when it's not followed? As for Bejnar, you say Young Global Leader should have a wiki site if its notable enough, this was provided by the creator of the article. You obviously did not check/read/understand in the first place. So this justifies the credibility of your assessment. For JamesBWatson, you consistently twist your words, and argue that Yap Kwong Weng is not notable but cannot really justify why, and tend to nitpick without giving any concrete reason or rationale. Then when justified that an award was given, you say its not the award that matters, but the individual and its "evidence" which has already been mentioned, but was clearly unaccepted. Can't you read on the links what the subject has done or did you even read it at all? You then move into a baseless assertion mode to nitpick about this award definition by Wikipedia. i.e whether given to notable or noteworthy people, however you wish to twist it. Why don't you go ask the editors who wrote that instead? Now let's assume that World Economic Forum is "at best promotional" as DGG ridiculously puts it, how do you then justify that Yap is indeed un-notable? You cannot prove it, and move on to mention about not using "Bold" statements. What kind of logic is that? Clear unnecessary nitpicking to the extent of being unreasonable. To add on, anyone with some common sense can tell you that this award (YGL) itself is a recognition of his contributions obviously. Similarly, you seem to be arguing for the same points without providing much evidence and in fact, distort the facts to some extent (although you use the used the word "mistakenly"). In my opinion, the contributor Wikiwak has done a good job in writing about the subject. And there is nothing done to help him improve the article but just plain bombardment. Finally, why do you need to explain that an administrator will close the discussion and so on? Are you implicitly threatening the contributor or using assertion to prove your point? Anyway, I am a member of the public - A free person who doesn't use a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awards
(1) Yes, the National University of Singapore has a Wikipedia article; however, there is no article for its awards. Yap was one of nine individuals receiving an award in 2012 in the "Distinguished Leadership Category" (not counting the merit award.) That award is not notable (insufficient sources if nothing else). No claim of significance is stated. There is no coverage of Yap. The source is a list. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which also reduces its impact on notability.
(2) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Young Global Leaders organization; however, it does not have an article on any award nor on the Forum of Young Global Leaders which is what Yap belongs to (six year tenure), along more than 900 other individuals, with more than 150 chosen each year. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources. In many cases such bios are prepared by the subject. If we assume good faith without other evidence, World Economic Forum (WEF) may error-check such bios, in which cases they may be used for verification purposes.
(3) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the World Cities Summit (WCS) organization; however, it does not have an article on the Young Leader program. In fact the Wikipedia article does not even mention the young leaders program. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which again reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources. In many cases such bios are prepared by the subject. If we assume good faith without other evidence, World Economic Forum (WEF) may error-check such bios, in which cases they may be used for verification purposes. As the biography at WEF and WCS are substantially the same, the likelyhood that they are subject produced increases.
(4) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on Rotary International; however, it does not have an article on the Peace Fellowships, although they are discussed in a paragraph. Up to 100 Rotary Peace Fellows are selected annually; it is not a significant award awarded to one person. It is more in the nature of a scholarship. The source cited was the bio at World Economic Forum (WEF), a source with the infirmaties discussed above. There appears to have been no secondary coverage of thw fellowship in independent reliable sources. It is mentioned in passing in some sources, but even in non-independent Rotary sources I found only a list or passing mention such as here.
(5) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Center for Strategic and International Studies organization; however, it does not have an article on the fellowship program. In fact the Wikipedia article does not even mention the International Fellowship program, except to say that "fellows" (unidentified) assist staff. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which again reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources.
In summation, Yap has received no significant awards under Wikipedia notability guidelines.
Reply to JamesWatson: Thank you for pointing those out. Those were in reference to information on business this subject is in to give context. I will delete those if they infringe on wikipedia guidelines. On point two, by your logic, the subject must be the publication title or an award itself? It seems that you have risen the stakes of what notability refers to. To say that an editor or a recipient of an award of a notable publication/award is not notable enough seems to be a stretch. I conclude that to you, "Young Global Leaders" are not notable (which leaves a lot of subject pages in question of deletion.) See List of Young Global Leaders. The Young Global Leader page does not seem to be in any contention and is a widely accepted fact by the wikipedia community. Being left handed is not notable, though there are notable people who are left handed. Left-handed does not inherently confer notability. Being a Young Global Leader is notable because it inherently confers notability, and those who are recognised under this category are therefore notable. (Notable individuals in their fields and region are recognised and identified by YGL). Apologies for putting the "keep" note. I thought it was for each argument for keeping. Thanks for pointing that out and for your comments.
Concluding Remarks: Perhaps an admin reply on Wiki's stand on whether Young Global Leaders and similar titles, as well as the role of individuals in notable organisations confer notability will help to resolve this issue. (In this case it seems that, COO, editor, board of directors, award holder is not sufficiently notable).
Wikiwak991 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my notes on awards above. It is not that talking about less-than-Wikipedia-significant awards in an article is improper. It is just that such awards, especially when they generate little or no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, add little or nothing to notability, and that uniquely Wikipedian concept is what we are discussing here in relation to Yap. --Bejnar (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Bejnar: See Wiki guidelines - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." The content by the subject is covered in diferent types of sources and references, which you do not recognize. This clearly reflects your above argument that Yap's awards (the ones you listed above) are baseless and misleading. There does not mean that if an award is put on wikipedia, therefore it can be known as notable. Further, you tend to use alot of words to explain your point but it seems to get nowhere. There are secondary sources to state that Yap is a recipient of the awards. It's not up to you to decide whether its notable or not but the committee of the awards who do so. At the very least, the YGL award is clearly notable, and it is a false impression/opinion to state it's not. The so-called 150 people in the world per year who are selected are all notable individuals selected. They are covered in international sites, press releases to state that they have been selected on a neutral basis etc. It is unlike a research article where you look for references, and/or gauge the journal's credibility. There is also no further indication in the criteria of a biography that the award has to be ONLY awarded to the subject for it to be known as notable. Kindly read criteria again, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the below mentioned arguments reflect incoherent views, which are self-explanatory in nature:
JamesBWatson - "The fact that someone chooses to come along and post something to Wikipedia does not make it a valuable or reliable source of information, so quoting from other Wikipedia articles is of no value at all in establishing notability."
Reply to 203.126.139.7: You are avoiding the critical part of the notability criteria, which is that the subject has to have some reasonable discussion of his exploits in each page/citation. As has been demonstrated above, this has not happened in this case - virtually all are single-name mentions. Please, should you wish to continue this discussion, bring arguments forward that are based on WP:Policy. Others can be discounted. I would also note that your IP geolocates to Singapore, where the subject of this article served in the army, and that of the three edits your IP address has made, two are long contributions to this discussion. This is creating the perception of a WP:Conflict of Interest by a WP:Single purpose account. Kind regards Buckshot06(talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I saw Yap Kwong Weng's Wikipedia page and want to say a few words on the discussion:
It is clear that the editors are biased from the language they use and the way they behave. They should be less aggressive in their approach and more encouraging. (See above for details to find the answer). Wikiwak991 should provide more information on why Yap succeeded on being "notable". He should also take out necessary repeat links and beef up substantially the quality of Yap's contribution to do justice to him and Wikipedia. The notability factor is based on criteria, not certainly not other Wikipedia posts. Awards are not meant to be questioned. That's not the job of editors in this space, or anyone else writing an Encyclopedia. The basis of discussion seems very Western-oriented. So the recognition of certain notability factors are excluded. There's a need to relook into this. Editors are not meant to be 'policemen' (at least this is obvious here). They should provide positive discussion points, which unfortunately I don't see here. Buckshot06 wrote a paragraph worth almost nothing when he pointed out "the subject served in the Army..." What relevance has that got with the subject matter here? Buckshot06 paradoxically asked "the subject to have some reasonable exploits...". There's no need to show how good you are in English. This is not an English class. By the way, I think Singapore has 5 million people now. And anyone can post on Wikipedia - isn't that the basis of free information? You ask others to be objective, then why bother to act smart by inferring unnecessarily? If you have anything to say, prove it. In sum, the method of argument in this entire discussion is flawed. There is no contribution to the Encyclopedia at all. In fact, I find the arguments regressive and senseless. However I do feel the writer of the article deserves a proper explanation and guidance.
PS: Please don't bother looking at my IP address and trying to figure out who I am. My name is Steven Wang, and I am a Singapore PR residing in Thailand. Whatever the case, I think Yap's article deserves a shot although most of you think otherwise.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The South Carolina-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found in blogs and other sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. Article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD today, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the fact that one blog calls this "a major SEC East rivalry" (see here), this series doesn't appear to have the characteristics of a traditional rivalry: 1) there is no trophy; 2) there isn't a close geographic proximity (Tennessee and S. Carolina aren't bordering states); 3) there is not a historical parity and competitiveness between the programs (Tennessee won 19 of the first 21 games and has an overall record of 24-7-2 in the series); and 4) there is an absence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources treating the series as a traditional rivalry. The first three factors are not essential, but can be indicators, but the fourth factor, as highlighted by the nominator, is a key element under WP:GNG that is missing. Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very famous football rivalry ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{@ThisGuyIsGreat: It would be helpful if you could provide some evidence of this being "a very famous football rivalry," such as links to significant coverage of this series as a rivalry -- and not just passing mentions -- in mainstream national and major regional publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Sports Illustrated, The Sports News, or stand-alone books about the history of this "rivalry" such as one may easily find for "very famous football rivalries" like Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, Oklahoma-Texas, Florida-Florida State, Notre Dame-Southern Cal, Army-Navy, Clemson-South Carolina, Florida-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Harvard-Yale, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alabama, Florida, Vandy, and Kentucky are the only ones of Tennessee's I can see keeping for sure. South Carolina is easily last of the remaining. Cake (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cake, you're also forgetting Tennessee's close-fought series with Georgia, and its historical rivalry with Auburn: both are much, much bigger than anything that's evolved in the lopsided series with South Carolina since 1992. Bottom line: unless every conference opponent is a "rival," this ain't a meaningful "rivalry." Most importantly, from a Wikipedia notability viewpoint, there is almost ZERO significant, in-depth coverage of this series as a "rivalry" in independent reliable sources. Which is all that really matters for our present AfD purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are others, and hence the qualifier "for sure." Just commenting on the ones I know; and my perception of any USCe-UT rivalry. For example. I don't know much about the Tech-Tennessee rivalry, but given the likes of Bobby Dodd, it seems more plausible than the Gamecocks. I concur with your bottom line. Cake (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Winsipedia" ??? Need we go further? Try another wiki oh wait, they did! No opinion on the suitability of the article for Winsipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since both of those links are broken, I still see no reason to change position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, the first link is from a Southern college football fan site called "Saturday Down South." Here's an archived link from the Wayback Machine: [2]. As you can see, the blog uses the word "rivalry" exactly once, to poo-poo the existence of a USC-UT rivalry before Spurrier's arrival in Columbia. It is not a significant discussion of the history, tradition and impact of the series as a rivalry. And, in any case, we do not treat blog sites and fan sites as reliable sources for the purposes of determining notability. And, yes, I found this blog post when doing the WP:BEFORE due diligence.
The second link above is not broken, but is mis-coded. Here's the working link: [3]. It's an October 2014 online sports column from GoUpstate.com, the website of the Spartanburg Herald Journal. The article uses the word "rivalry" twice and discusses the Gamecocks' four biggest games of 2014: Clemson, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. There is little or no discussion of the history, tradition and impact of these four series as rivalries. Ask a Florida or Tennessee fan, player or coach whether South Carolina is a traditional "rival" of Florida or Tennessee and you will get blank stares. But this is what these AfD rivalry discussions have boiled down to: some AfD participants are willing to accept two local sources that mention the word "rivalry" -- with no significant discussion of the history, tradition and impact of the purported "rivalry" -- and suddenly we have another Wikipedia "rivalry" article with no meaningful content because we have editors who feel slighted if their favorite CFB program doesn't have 5 or 6 rivalry articles. It's goofy. We are so far removed from the truly noteworthy traditional CFB rivalries like Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn, Notre Dame-Southern Cal, Oklahoma-Texas, Florida-Georgia, Army-Navy, Clemson-South Carolina, etc., that it's laughable. We should either adopt a specific notability and suitability guideline for CFB rivalries, or we should just give up and accept that every one of 1400+ CFB game series (120x120) is a "rivalry" because it's been played more than once and we can find two local sources that use the word "rivalry" in reference to any given series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As the nominator said, substantial coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found in blogs and other sources. The independent reliable sources have only trival mentions. This includes the sources cited by CollegeRivalry above. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable businessman. Sources are short author bios and articles about Pixloo (not primarily about him). No in-depth coverage from independent sources found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - while I disagree with a few arguments in the first nomination, a second nomination based on similar grounds would be too early. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is keep (though article can do with improvement), and it appears to have been a bad-faith nomination to begin with. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Badly written autobiography by yet another foolio with a sinister agenda. Hats off to tarantino who is doing his best to keep you folks honest. Only thing that's on my mind is, can you, can you handle this? Nora The Terrible (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, tone is balanced, and article is sourced. What are the grounds for deletion? What does "hats off to tarantino" even mean? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Blatant self-promotion. Fancy you showing up here, Bangabandhu. Things must be getting lonely over at the Office of
U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance in Arlington, VA. https://archive.is/VfHjr
(Thank you, tarantino, for that link). I don't think you're ready for this jelly. And don't pretend you don't know who tarantino is. Everybody who is anybody on here knows tarantino. He's the gorgeous to your ... not so gorgeous. Nora The Terrible (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this? Please read WP:WIA. I note that recently created pages by Nora The Terrible are far better candidates for deletion, namely Assaf Ramon. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. WP:WIA. That's a novel one. Shiver me timbers.
As for your attempts at shifting the focus from your act of self-promotion to one of the articles created by yours truly, you don't have kids, do you? And you know nothing about the Ramon family, am I right? That article about young Assaf is here to stay, like it or not. Unlike you, he had a purpose that had nothing to do with inflicting pain unto others, and he made his mother proud. Nora The Terrible (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not I have kids or know him personally is irrelevant. That entry should be merged with Ilan Ramon and I am going to make a proposal accordingly. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Girlfriend! What *did* I *tell* you? Lie with dogs, wake up with a franchise in a lucrative little flea farm in Phobiadelphia and a balding ADHD grammar nazi for a neighbor. Just as well your better-looking half told me you'll be dropping in on us next week. We are so getting the band back together. Don't you dare wimp out on me this time! Yeah, you can sing with your back to the audience. Like I care. Anyhow, this discussion needs more ice cream. That's more like it. And I'd say baleet that youngster's self-promoting article into outer space, but I guess lil Zachary here would accuse me of WP:SILKSCREEN or some such nonsense if I put in an actual vote. What a vindictive winker for messing with your article. Anyhow, where's that useless Sue Gardenia when you need her? Lemme guess, drunk out of her skull in some dive bar with her latest boy toy and unable to remember her password. Drummers. Can't live with them... Roberta Benigni (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose someone might find this funny, but I doubt they're the type that would visit this page. Why are you doing this? Can I suggest that you look elsewhere for the audience you crave? While we're trying to divine identities (which I think is highly inappropriate) I would bet that Roberta Benigni and Nora The Terrible are the same editors. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he does not meet GNG. If you think there is another grounds for inclusion, I may change my vote if pinged. --JumpLike23(talk) 03:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the extent that there are Wikipedia requirements for journalists, this entry satisfies all of those criteria - Pincus Roth is a senior editor at a major publication. The article does not now, but could with a bit of editing, list many more of his publications. As for your comment about WP:GNG, check out the guidelines on WP:BIO. There's nothing specific to journalists on there, but there is for creative professionals, which is probably the most suitable category listed. One of the criteria is that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Check out the number of citations of his work here. Would like be eager to hear more about what you're thinking, @Jumplike23: thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tone and content that were used to first propose this deletion review make it difficult to WP:GF among those editors. I perceive the nomination as weird or flippant at best and possibly malicious. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sourced and he is referenced in other newspaper articles and has received some awards.Cathar66 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was satisfied by the number of citations in google scholar. And, I don't like the tone of the nomination. --JumpLike23(talk) 23:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. Citation numbers are trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JumpLike23. The formatting of the citations present in the article is a mess, and more of the reliable sources that exist should be cited, but that's hardly a basis for deleting it. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 06:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Being bad at something can be a basis for notability - cf. William McGonagall. But is this kid bad enough to be notable? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Satisfies WP:GNG, has coverage in a multitude of sources, and has had a rather enduring impact, see [4] where they mention him in a retrospective in 2015. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 03:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; subject does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT, only known for one very, very bad YouTube video. A flash in the pan, not a "cult" following - just a lot of people who could not believe what they saw. No encyclopedic notability here. Scr★pIronIV 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. There may be a case for an article about the single YouTube music video, but there is nothing in the way of non-trivial biographical coverage of this subject as a person, who is otherwise unknown outside the scope of this one song. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there are simply no signs of improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 05:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oppose #2 - The song could perhaps be a notable article but as it stands the bloke isn't, Fails BLP1E.–Davey2010Talk 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Davey2010 hits the nail on the head. Onel5969TT me 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local councillor. The article suggests 2 claims to fame. First councillor for UKIP on Bristol City and parliamentary election candidate. In the first case, simply being a local councillor does not establish notability and there are now about 500 UKIP councillors in the UK, which has over 400 local councils, so UKIP winning seats on them rarely attracts the significant news coverage which would satisfy point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage is local news coverage almost all of it in passing, failing WP:BIO. Similarly, being a parliamentary election candidate is not notable in itself and in this case the person finished a distant third with 9% of the vote. Valenciano (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local councillor and failed candidate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of :::work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple :::independent periodical articles or reviews.
4) The person'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.
Delete I find nothing that does not go directly back to her and she cannot be the source of her own notability. Though I tried web, news, scholar and books, I find no RS to establish even the lower threshold of GNG. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources & no claim to notability beyond "average professor". SPA-created article is likely a fan-page or may be auto-bio by an ed not familiar with sourcing requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. She seems to be a successful working artist but not yet a high-enough profile one for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. I agree with David Eppstein, this may be a case of a working, but not notable artist, or it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969TT me 12:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From reading the article and having edited 1000s of wikipedia artist bios over the years, with a dozen solo exhibits, several international permanent commissions, award-winning published poetry, two endowed chairs at universities before her current full professorship at a distinguished university, this person seems to exceed over 90% of the contemporary artists with bios in wikipedia. She's mentioned in nearly 300 googled books. Perhaps one can argue that her art alone, poetry alone, or academics alone is borderline notable, but the combination is solid.Afasmit (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even discounting the off-policy "keep" views, i.e. the ones that don't talk about sourcing, we don't have sufficiently clear consensus for deletion. Sandstein 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links at News and browser but nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a company, it's open source software. How about the links to European Securities and Markets Authority and Reason Magazine? They are independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironchapel (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nxt is new and has had to generate it's own media, because it's a startup crypto. I refer you to new independent sources like Forbes, which will show that it's in the forefront of this industry. I would like to ask you not to delete on the basis of lack of sources. I will update the page ASAP with relevant links this weekend. --DamelonNxt (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article can easily be drafted and userfied to your userspace until is is more acceptable and sourced. SwisterTwistertalk 17:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keephttps://coinmarketcap.com/ has a list of cryptocurrencies sorted by market capitalization. A high market capitalization leads to outsiders writing about a cryptocurrency. Many of the cryptocurrencies on that list have Wikipedia pages, regardless of market capitalization. Maybe it would make more sense to delete them all, but I think just deleting this one article about Nxt is unfair. Ironchapel (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironchapel: I think we have to start somewhere, because as it looks now, we seem to have articles about nearly all cryptocurrencies and related business. And I don't think we should be Cryptocurrency Yellow Pagespedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nxt has clearly been researched, not just written about, by big serious organizations. European Central Bank describes the Nxt consensus algorithm (See 1.3 here). CME Group has done their research in their response to ESMA (link). This is in addition to the ESMA and Reason Magazine links I mentioned in my earlier comment. Ironchapel (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ECB describes the Nxt consensus algorithm, known as forging, on page 10 (1.3 Differences between various decentralised virtual currency schemes). In the ESMA document Nxt is used as an example of a cryptoasset platform. The mentions of Nxt are not in passing, because the field of cryptocurrencies is too fast moving and competitive to be able to write without making errors and not have done the research to understand the issues. Ironchapel (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep@Piotrus:I'm no expert on notability - would the announcement on reuters count as evidence? Big mass-media sources rarely write about Cryptocurrencies - and are often not accurate. But all major crypto-currency pages have written news and articles specifically about NXT - and those of course are the ones more handy for linking in the references, since they have enough detail. Though one could add the business-insider one if that would help. Also: If NXT would have to go, it would mean roughly 20 other Cryptocurrency pages would have to go under the same criteria - even though tens of thousands of people are involved in them. --Thomas (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas Veil: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Are_trade_magazines.2Fportals_acceptable.3F, which should explain in detail why I have serious doubts about notability of an article that relies primarily on "major crypto-currency pages". It seems to me that such pages cover virtually all companies and products in the field of crypto-currency but the newest tiny startups, but such overstaruation of specialist articles on a given subject does not we should cover all such companies/products. "tens of thousands of people" does not indicate notability: tens of thousands of people can go to unnotable events, visit unnotable pages, buy unnotable products, watch unnotable YouTube vidoes, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:I get where you're coming from, but I find it a bit questionable because it's such a new field. I'm in the gaming industry since 15 years, and back then no major publication would write about games. And if they ever dropped one line about it, it was always factually 100% wrong. How could you link any of that on Wikipedia then? Though of course the developments back then were noteworthy. If we delete now all alternative cryptocurrency pages, it would be a big loss - we're talking here about something that generates tens of millions of dollar worth and has big amounts of people involved. --Thomas (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas Veil: I also get where you are coming from, but note WP:ITSUSEFUL. Those games were not notable back then, they became notable only once people started writing about them. And note Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources; members of that project have done a really good job telling us which outlets are good and which are not. Without such a list for cryptocurrencies, and with no-one providing an analysis of sources used in the article here, I am still not convinced this company is notable. Tell me, please: are all cryptocurrencies notable? Where to draw the line? Because it seems to me that currently we are very pro-inclusive for this field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:Thanks for the helpful links. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources mostly lists video game specific sites like GameSpot - but that would mean cryptocurrency pages are OK then. So what you would need is a list of which cryptocurrency sites are reliable? The field is only around since 3 years, so age is a tricky measure. On another note since you write "this company": We're not talking about companies. There is no legal entity there - it's more comparable to Linux maybe... without a singular core personality like Linus.
"are all cryptocurrencies notable? Where to draw the line?" - well, that's tricky. It's hard to find numbers, since by definition these currencies are mostly anonymous (or pseudonymous). NXT has 125.000 accounts - but that might not be exactly the user number. The closest of an objective measure I could think of is the monetary value (as someone mentioned it's tracked on Coinmarketcap). Then again those numbers change dramatically over half a year - as we've seen with Bitcoin, it could be 10 times more or less worth within a given month. There are more than 500 cryptocurrencies overall - so surely a selection has to be made. I'll think about it. --Thomas (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "are all cryptocurrencies notable?" No, because a new cryptocurrency can be easily created by copying Bitcoin's code. A copy-cryptocurrency might be notable if it reaches a high market capitalization by using clever marketing. I would consider all cryptocurrencies notable that have significant differences, changes, or improvements to Bitcoin's original source code, which acts as a base for the code of most cryptocurrencies. Nxt doesn't use Bitcoin's source code, so it is notable by that definition. Ironchapel (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @ironchapel: you are right, most new cryptopcurrencies are just mere copy pastas. This does not hold true for NXT, though which has a completly unrelated code base and does in fact work a whole lot different from bitcoin. I think NXT is among the few cryptocurrencies which deserve a wikipedia article. 16:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorty66 (talk • contribs)
Comment I haven't had a chance to give the article a close reading yet, but the lion's share of sources in this article are of dubious reliability (forum posts, self published, etc). Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had some time to look at the article and it has numerous problems--quite a bit of original research, a dearth of reliable secondary sources (most of the references are forum posts, wikipedia articles, technical documentation, self-published sources, or first party sources/sources with a financial stake in NXT. On top of that, it reads like an advertisement in places. Maybe the best thing is to WP:KIBOSH and start over with a shorter article grounded in the reliable secondary sources that DO exist. Breadblade (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Firstly WP:KIBOSH needed. But it's a weak keep based on these sources:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the substantive criticism advocating deletion in the prior discussion is concerned with the article's substance. But if we're talking about inclusion, it's clearly notable on its own, received substantial high-level media coverage (more than most topics in this category), and is not a company pitch. The initial parts of the article can certainly use some help, but there are other tags for that.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the recent AfD closing as a keep is a concern, participants here have invalidated the comments there through new analysis not present then. —SpacemanSpiff 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPA-recreated Orangemoody article with questionable notability. It has several references, but most of them are blog-like or non-expert reviews, some of them are clearly affiliated or biased. In several of them AdPushup is not the focus, but only mentioned in a short paragraph as example for a trend or with some interview quotes (this is only OK, when the topic-related coverage is in-depth). With the article's history, the quality and reliability of sources should be closely examined. I am not convinced, that the included sources are more than PR coverage, WP:MILL startup reporting and passing mentions. The nomination is obviously not so much about the existence of sources, but about their applicability to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I didn't see the first nomination (no talkpage). But still, a second look shouldn't hurt in this specific case. If such a re-nomination is considered inappropriate, please close it.GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing notable about the company is that it received a small capital injection. Most of the coverage in reliable souces is trivial. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. It's a small startup, with $600K in funding. There's not much info available about it. There's a long discussion in a Google AdSense blog, in which the major participant is from AdPushup and others are telling him his comments are bogus.[5] So it's not notable from either a business or a technical perspective. If they get another round or two of funding, it might make it on the business side. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet wp: notaibility and reference are week Shrikanthv (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but in recognition that the Orangemoody-created version survived AFD with a result of "keep" (vs. a mere "no consensus to delete"), 1) double-check all contributors in that AFD to make sure there are no socks, and if there are none, copy all reliable-source references from the Orangemoody-created version on the talk page of this discussion, so if someone wishes to re-create the page using those sources he can do so. If the previous AFD was tainted by socks (and I'm somewhat suspicious of the IP editor based on another edit he made in the last two months), strike the socks and change Sam Sailor's "keep" close to "results invalidated / post-closure investigation found sock-puppetry" or something similar. I'm also taking note that the page was deleted as an Orangemoody-deleted page less than 24 hours after the AFD closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/previous discussion. --Non-Dropframetalk 14:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could a wandering admin confirm whether or not this meets CSD G4? shoy (reactions) 14:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shoy I can't imagine as G4 requires the article be "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy." Although it's a similar article, I don't think it really falls into the purpose of the G4 category. --Non-Dropframetalk 14:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shoy point taken. If nothing else, those discussions create precedent for deletion here. Frankly, it's looking a bit snowy to me. --Non-Dropframetalk 16:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More than adequately explained in the AfD discussion for similar articles.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I could only find three sources, two of which only mention the subject in passing, and one of which seems likely to be press release generated content. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prodded as an unsourced BLP and possible hoax - I can't find any online mention of either Bennetts or the named footballer he represents, and being "voted highest earning football agent" seems an oddly made-up claim. Article creator removed the prod and copypasted the content over the top of the unrelated Jonathan Bennett (mathematician) article. McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. This is a blatant hoax. No such agent (or player) exists. (Even obscure youth players at a club like Arsenal have thousands of Google hits.) Incidentally, an agent in the English Premier League who "made £2.5million in deals" last year would certainly not be the "highest earning football agent" in a league that regularly generates hundreds of millions in transfer fees annually. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax per above in addition to being an unreferenced BLP (granted, only for a few hours thus far). --Non-Dropframetalk 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as there is simply nothing to save this and my searches only found links for a BBC sports journalist John Bennett. SwisterTwistertalk 15:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': As per nominator, it is purely a hoax. Ayub407talk 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NCORP with only primary sources. I prodded it for having an unclear Alexa rank and "almost 3.7M likes on their Facebook page" as its only assertions of significance; the creator's response was to just delete those claims. McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hilariously self-promoting. Should be deleted. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete:Article should have speedily deleted under the criteria of G11 as it is promotional. Ayub407talk 16:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have said it needed to be "fundamentally" rewritten, it's only a few peacock sentences that would have to be cut. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have to disagree. If you removed all of the promotional and unverified content, you'd probably lose more than half the prose. --Non-Dropframetalk 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think? It's worth knowing if I made the wrong call here, for future reference. The only puff lines I can see were "able to won the hearts and believe of the people of Bangladesh", "huge response from the people of Bangladesh" and "very impressive for a news paper which is only 8 months old", which could easily just be blanked (and I cut the third one after raising the AfD). There are some bold claims which perhaps aren't true ("country's leading English language [...] website"), but that's more or less the tone we'd use if it were true and sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go so far as to say you're wrong -- our disagreement is a very small one. Like I said, between the promotional material and the unsourced (probably untrue) material, there just isn't much to salvage which is why I went with speedy rather than just merely deletion. --Non-Dropframetalk 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article is backed by primary source only, with no proof of credibility and obviously promotional. --nafSadhdidsay 14:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is truly terrible, but before a deletion happened, I'd like to see a non-Western person vouch for the notability or non-notability of the topic, since article style/content is not the sole determinant for deletion. Not being Bangladeshi, I don't feel equipped to say.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality or origin of editors shall not matter in Wikipedia, but FYI I'm from Bangladesh and I don't think this is a notable topic. --nafSadhdidsay 16:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is rife with original research and synthesis. It seems clear that the whole of the article is intended as a criticism of Christianity rather than good-faith, neutral content. --Non-Dropframetalk 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Failed Biblical prophecies are well-documented in serious scholarly sources and useful for historical criticism (the prime example being the dating of Daniel), but this article cites too few such sources and its lede is an attack on a "common argument used by Christians" (actually on American fundamentalism, it seems).QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. For example, what does the article mean by "failed Bible prophecies"? How would people know if a Bible prophecy "failed"? Some content could theoretically be merged to Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible, but only if reliably sourced. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:OR and premise "failed Bible prophecies" undefined, quite possibly undefinable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, terrible even for an essay, which doesn't belong here anyway. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgebattle, just to be clear, the rationale for deletion in this discussion isn't based on the "attack page" speedy deletion rationale which was appropriately declined. The page should not have been nominated for speedy deletion and certainly shouldn't have been labeled as an attack page. My AfD nominating rationale is based around WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Non-Dropframetalk 10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite of the lede has fixed the neutrality problem, but the point of original synthesis remains. This article is a grab bag of loose points mostly based on primary sources; some of the content may be appropriate for articles on, e.g., the Gospel of Matthew, but without a good connecting source, we shouldn't have a separate article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has all the feel of an ATTACK article on Christianity, expressing the author's POV on issues that are a matter of interpretation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's simply nothing to suggest fitting this more to an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwistertalk 05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I reject the view that this is original research, see the section in Criticism of the Bible on prophecies. Nor is this article sythesis, the author didn't reach these conclusions himself/herself, there is plenty of evidence that they have been reached, rightly or wrongly, by others. The article is certainly not neutral especially in its choice of title. The problem is that this list fails WP:Stand-alone lists (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.) in that it lacks adequate selection criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and thus fails to provide encyclopedic context, producing an indiscriminate list that therefore breaches the policy at WP:NOT. Were this topic not already adeqautely covered in Wikipedia, I might suggest that by renaming and adding adequate criteria, background information and sources for both, as well as proper sourcing in the text, the article might be salvaged; or given the scope of the infirmaties I might suggest WP:TNT; but delete is proper because it is also needlessly duplicative. (See WP:Content forking.) No redirect is recommended because of the non-neutrality of the title. --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Most third-party coverage is in the form of download sites, which do not establish notability. I think this fails WP:SIGCOV. sstflyer 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, the only coverage is from download sites. Not notable apparently. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another WP:ADVERT for another run-of-the-mill video converter. Nate•(chatter) 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made and feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwistertalk 05:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This may be a popular piece of sofware with independent reviews written about it, but nothing written in the article really establishes why it's noteworthy. Putting aside the poorly-conceived page on Wikipedia:Notability_(software) (which is about as blatantly deletionist as the rest of the notability "essays," this fails to have any exceptional sources or non-commercial importance. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Note that, in the article, the Daily Mail source doesn't mention the subject at all and the CNN source is labelled (by CNN) to be unverified. But even if all of the sources did meet the standards for reliable sourcing, we still would just have an article about a successful businessman. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about the instant subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail reference removed. I added two important projects by the investor that are making an impact on the Montenegro Economy. M-sosostris (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found a few links at News and browser but nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- searches did not reveal enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969TT me 13:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Totally unsourced blp. Created prior to 2010, so not qualified for Prod. Searches on News and Highbeam turned on several trivial mentions; newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR unsurprisingly returned nothing. The article is currently tagged with a COI issue. Onel5969TT me 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oranges and Lemons, a band of which he was a member; he is already mentioned there. In a search I did not find any Reliable Sources about him, just things like Twitter, Facebook, and IMDb. Note that a user named McoyFundales1977 was recently blocked for spamming his name everywhere, so it may be necessary to protect the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I found sources and recently added them.--Jondel (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the one article is a nice piece on him, but that's it, and definitely supports the redirect suggested above. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Onel5969TT me 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but leaning towards redirect to Orange and Lemons, for now. Note that "Orange" is singular, the link given by Melanie above is incorrect. The band is definitely notable. Sources are almost impossible to find for the members though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 09:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band I suppose and sincerely hope no one will restart the article without thinking if there should be a separate article first and my searches only found a few links from the past few years at News and browser. SwisterTwistertalk 07:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete.Michig (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
does not meet wiki:notability , nowhere the source says nor discuss why the subject is notable, award claims to be frevilious without reference , also no quality references Shrikanthv (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are simply no signs of improvement here. SwisterTwistertalk 06:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability unclear. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am updating some more references so we can wait for some more updates.--Samudurai 23:36, 29 September 2015 (IST)
Keep Started improving this article by removing details which is not having proper reference. will add some more details with proper notable reference. Rajmartalk 12:32, 30 September 2015 (IST)
Delete NO reliable sources within or for the finding, linking to a letter's to the editor type contribution in The Hindu city supplement Metro Plus or contribution on The Hindu Business Line 's college campus blog is obviously not something that would contribute to significant coverage. —SpacemanSpiff 07:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 08:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the artist who created this album is certainly notable, no indication at all that the album itself is. Article has not been referenced in its entire 9 year existence. A Google search turns up insufficient evidence of notability. Safiel (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Liam Lynch as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 05:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Liam Lynch Zero sources I can find. Bulk of the article (added here) is a strange "synopsis" of some sorts that weirdly tries to tie the whole album together, which I could not verify and suspects WP:HOAX (or at least blatant WP:OR). Without that there is not enough to warrant a separate article. Additionally disambiguating with History of America is also a thing that could be considered. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 08:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus to keep based on the number of sources available that give coverage to this article topic. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like not notable topic. There is no clear definition and it correlates with consultant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." The article already references at least two books which demonstrate the notability of the topic: Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus; Guide to the Management Gurus and the search link above for books indicates that there are many more out there. Andrew D. (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like promotional for the books in references. Also, the topic itself may be notable, but not notable enough for an independent article. After reconsideration I think it has to be part of businesspersonArthistorian1977 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are by different authors. The publishers are also different and are quite respectable - John Wiley & Sons (endorsed by The Economist) and Random House. The person who started the article has an MBA and so presumably learnt lots about this topic in the course of that study. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article author here. To clarify: I am not trying to promote the books referred to in the article. I also did NOT encounter the "business guru" concept while getting an MBA. Business gurus are more informal than what you read in business school. They're almost a competing source of ideas in business (business school teachers try to be respectable academics, business gurus are more "on the job" thinkers or popularized by people who work in business). "Business guru" is a term that I encountered while working in business. I agree that it's sort of a buzzword, but I think it has broader adoption than other articles on Wikipedia (e.g., technology evangelist or prescriptive analytics). I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's notability guidelines to know if it should be its own article or if it should be merged somewhere else. Let me know if there's anything else I can provide to help with the decision. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's as if you have not read the article which clearly starts by defining the title as "a leading authority on business practices, especially management." This is exactly how we are supposed to start our articles per WP:DEFINITION and WP:LEAD. If you don't agree with that definition then that's a matter of talk page discussion not deletion. In such discussion, your personal opinion of the topic has no value when we have plenty of substantial sources to confirm the validity and notability of the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Way to go, chief. Creating bad redirects to try to buttress your argument. A sports guru is not a coach, a technology guru is not an technology evangelist, and education was the best you could come up with for teaching guru? Three Rfd's coming up. I have, however, refined my argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not providing a clear reason to delete this topic. Buzzwords get used a lot – that's in their definition – and so it's appropriate for us to create articles and redirects to help readers understand what they mean. This set of topics lacks coverage here and so, while you're busy creating deletion discussions, I shall be creating articles. I have made a start with Dylan Wiliam who, as your source indicates, is a notable guru in the field of education. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple search online or at one's local library will find dozens of good sources. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received substantial coverage under that name, books and magazine article in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since this is all over news now, it makes sense to let the article stay. Also, no nomination reason provided, which makes it hard to refute the pro-deletion arguments. An eventual merge is possible, but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close the situation changed rapidly since nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion? Why would anybody want to delete this? Russia formally entering the Syrian civil war is hugely notable. Thue (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Russia intervening in Syria is a very significant development. DylanLacey (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any verifiable claim of notability in this article. The author of most of the content on this page has a WP:COI since he claims to be the subject of this article. Also, this page appears to be largely, if not entirely, promotional as it is almost wholly dedicated to discussing his achievements and contains links to his website and twitter. Eventhorizon51(talk) 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart if better as WP:TNT as I was actually going to suggest keeping considering his numerous asteroids but given that this has existed since March 2005 with never much better improvement and my searches finding nothing better than this and this, there's not much to suggest better improvement even if we attempted it. SwisterTwistertalk 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk! 08:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - SwisterTwister's analysis is spot on. Onel5969TT me 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. A whole lot of fluffy claims supported by not a shred of evidence. Not very scientific, nicht wahr? Nha TrangAllons! 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While it's no doubt been note worthy in the news, I question the video's lasting notability, as notability isn't temporary. Does it have the staying power notability wise as say Numa Numa speaking in terms of notability? Or will it be a hot topic news story that like so many fades in to obscurity when the news spike dies out? In short, this article stinks of recentism, and therefore, it might be too soon to have an article. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. It's already covered there and at this point in time I don't particularly think that this warrants its own article. It received a spate of coverage when it released, but that's since slowed to a trickle. She's received a mild amount of coverage for another video about abortion, but not really for this specific video. It can pretty much be covered in her article in the career section or in a separate controversy section. If she continues to release videos of this nature then a separate controversy section might become necessary. I'd argue for probably leaving the article history behind since if this does get coverage a few years from now, we can have the article history to pull from and improve upon. Otherwise this is pretty much one of those situations where someone says something controversial on YT and it gains a brief amount of coverage for a short spurt of time. If this was the only thing she was known for then it'd be questionable whether or not the coverage was entirely heavy enough to have an article, but since there is an article on her (and it's fairly brief) there's no reason for a separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. Per WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." and WP:PERSISTENCE: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." We live in a time where the bulk of "news" consists of content farms and click-bait, and perhaps it's time to update Andy Warhol's famous prediction: in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes and their viral videos for 10. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect like previously mentioned on Nicole Arbour's article, this seems to fit into her article as part of her career. Although all her videos are garbage (especially the Jesus one) this should just be redirected. Also make sure before redirecting this that some information makes it onto her main article. Adog104 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. She is Mark and Bob Mothersbaugh's sister (from the band Devo) but aside from a handful of links on the web, she does not appear (the majority being Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc.) She is not associated with the band. Half of the links provided in the bio no longer exist. She is a gallery owner and may be well-known in the Akron/Cuyahoga Falls area of Ohio, but I do not see any significant contributions to the art genre outside of the temporary installation mentioned in the article. Leaving it open for discussion in case someone can prove notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless one of the brothers' articles is a good move target as my searches found nothing to suggest better coverage from two News links and a few at Google browser. SwisterTwistertalk 06:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (even though I very much support DEVO). Secondary sources are minimal mentions on blogs and announcement pages. Not notable on her own.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable locally. WKYC is the local news station and she's appeared there more tHan once. She's notable for her contributions to the local art community. Notability doesn't have to be world-wide at all, local coverage is still notable coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It occurred to me that she would be covered by Cleveland's major paper, the Plain Dealer, but I think you need subscription access to that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, I searched the Plain Dealer, and found no features or coverage of her as a person. What i did find is that the Plain Dealer once ran an article about a local photographer with this sentence: "The Studio 2091 Mothersbaugh Roos Gallery will open a show of Kenyan photography by Kent photographer Shel Jane Greenberg on Saturday." [10] Here: [11] is the search, all 31 hits were for the single article about the gallery hosting that photographer. A proquest newspaper search on: Amy "Mothersbaugh Roos" - not limited by date. And one on : Amy Mothersbaugh Roos - both came up absolutely empty. Delete, though it would be appropriate to mention in a bio of her notable offspring that mother runs an art gallery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show she has the prerequisite in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969TT me 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local coverage NEEDS to be notable coverage. A 30 second fluff spot on the local TV station doesn't cut it. Where are the feature articles in major newspapers? No? Then she hasn't received so much as local coverage. (Also not sure why this was relisted a second time, with three Deletes against a sole weak keep.) Nha TrangAllons! 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This seems to be a personal essay about how space missions have caused radiation risks. Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I suppose although I have to say it is quite an article but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwistertalk 05:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The initial rationale offered for deletion is not quite correct. It's neither a personal essay nor a soapbox piece, but an issue with the WP:FORUM policy as it's essentially a report on research. It still doesn't go here though. Userify could be a proper action here.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a well-written article that presents the scientific concensus. But much of it is copied from a NASA publication. I've notified Moonriddengirl (copyright issues), the other articles by that editor may also have problems. Ssscienccce (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company. fails WP:CORP. Apart from releases, there's not any great depth of coverage Flat Out (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Teneo. There's some stuff out there, but it's all press releases, brief mentions, or stuff related to the Teneo merger. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I work at Blue Rubicon, so just providing this comment as hopefully helpful information - there's quite a lot of press coverage for Blue Rubicon in the media, examples including the specialist trade press, such as Corporate Communications Magazine[12], PR Week[13], EsPResso[14] and MarketWatch[15], all of which go beyond being simply press releases from the firm. There's also coverage in the international/national media such as The Guardian[16], Daily Telegraph[17], BBC [18] and Fortune [19]. Markpackuk (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teneo as I found enough links at News and browser to confirm this has gotten attention but maybe not enough for a separate and better article. SwisterTwistertalk 05:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. Tagged for a year, no improvement Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no improvement and although my searches found results at Books, News and highbeam, there's nothing for a better article yet. Pinging Trivialist and Dragons flight. SwisterTwistertalk 05:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Some stuff there, but mostly PR type stuff or brief mentions. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's not really the lack of notability that's the issue here, but that a timeline and a very brief non-description just aren't enough for an article. With quite awhile having passed, it seems safe to delete.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable songwriting duo. I could not find anything on them from a simple Google search. Additionally, there might be a COI issue as the creator of this article is User:Danielcaesars. Natg 19 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draft and userfy if needed) as I simply found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwistertalk 05:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No, THEY don't have charted hits, the performers who performed those pieces have charted hits ... if, of course, they did indeed chart, which I can't find. There's a difference. No evidence of notability. Nha TrangAllons! 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable training area. No g-hits and the only source not reliable. Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Area is notable. The fact there aren't many google hits only adds to the weight that it should be represented here. The reference is extremely credible. Please say why you assume the reference is not credible as it is referred to here in Wikipedia in dozens of places. We should build on this topic, and not wipe it out. Rcnvr (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 05:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. I've merged the information to Maritime Forces Pacific; I'm not sure whether people feel the redirect is worthy of being retained. Buckshot06(talk) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with high explosives: Oh come on. The only ref is to a fansite of naval slang? I get that Rcnvr doesn't think he needs to use proper sources [20], but that's not how Wikipedia works. He's also full of it if he thinks that the term is found "dozens of places" on Wikipedia. I found it in exactly one: the Maritime Forces Pacific article to which Buckshot06 suggests redirecting it. From where I sit, this is as NONnotable as it gets, and Rcnvr has to do more than just assert it's notable to make it so. Nha TrangAllons! 20:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Jon Pearce. Nobody is for retaining this as a separate article. Whether to merge any content can be figured out editorially. Draft:Cachet Chair would need a separate MfD nomination. Sandstein 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Jon Pearce as Books found a few results and it seems there's a fairly good connection between the two. SwisterTwistertalk 06:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete.Michig (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a school's sports season. Fails WP:NSEASON. - MrX 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - school football is not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - school football teams are definitely not notable and certainly should not have individual season articles Spiderone 17:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK for lack of available sources.- MrX 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) - MrX 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author seems to be Russian, which might explain why there's so little English-language coverage. However, the article is little help in establishing notability, and I can't find anything online about this book. If someone can locate Russian sources, that would be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems like an obvious delete for now until a better article can be made as I found nothing better than some links here. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwistertalk 05:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs that this is notable. This is apparently one of a series of articles of questionable notability being created by a class at RIT that is not registered through WP:SUP. I have been in contact with the instructor (Sandybaldwin). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liz--Ymblanter (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable model. Fails WP:BASIC. - MrX 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing found to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only are there notability concerns, but the article seems to be written entirely by the subject. (A user named "Raven2525", who I assume is Raven Black. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A7 as my searches easily found nothing and with the current article simply not acceptable, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwistertalk 05:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find anything relating to this after searching numerous times. No references, clearly does not meet the notability guideline. --Kethrus |talk to me 03:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just redirect it to Penny Dreadful (TV series). So if someone searches for "Vanessa Ives" in the search box, it'll go to the TV series article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect - Flat Out (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 7 days, I went ahead and redirected it. Clearly this is not controversial. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article about company that spends most of its text discussing individual. Support for company is trivial and individual is NN. Mostly vanity based article. reddogsix (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the reasons stated in nomination. Ceosad (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the reasons stated in the following: Dschultz099 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My name is David Schultz and I am a college student at Belmont University. I was assigned a wikipedia related project in my Seminar class. In order to fill this requirement, I elected to write about my stepfather's business.
I was unaware of the Conflict of Interest issue this would raise and that this might be a problem. I specially disclosed my relationship in the article--I was definitely not trying to hide it.
One other threshold matter. I would be fine changing the article header to Barry Lawrence Ruderman and de-emphasizing his business.
I chose my stepfather because his website impacts 10s of thousands of people and is very highly regarded in the academic world. While I do not have an exact count, I note that hundreds of his on line map images have been co-opted by others for use on wikipedia. When I asked him about this, he said he was aware that people were using his images and was fine with it, as his goal (and participation with the Rumsey Library at Stanford) is to make high resolution digital images of all of his maps available to the public (and freely downloadable) at no charge, which is one of the reasons he had chosen to work with Stanford. He is very passionate about making digital content freely available. While it is true that his business is selling antique maps, he does not sell reproductions or digital copies of his material--it is always given away at no cost to anyone who asks.
the extent there are other problems with the article, I would be pleased to work on editing them, but thought it best to deal with this threshold issue first. My stepfather definitely merits consideration for a wikipedia article. In the next several months, he will be finalizing a 20 year commitment to Stanford to fund a speaker series similar to the Nebenzahl lectures at the Newberry Library: https://www.newberry.org/kenneth-nebenzahl-jr-lectures-history-cartography.
Delete as does not meet WP:ORG, a search does not bring up anything except non-notable blogs showing some of his maps, and sites discussing various fairs.Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps is without question the best known name in the Antique Map trade on a world wide basis. So, in terms of industry "fame", his is the biggest name by far in the world.
There are 10s of thousands of antique map collectors world wide and 10s of thousands more enthusiasts who frequent his website for the descriptive content and illustrations.
The website has been cited as one of the primary reference tools for map collectors and unquestionably, although there is no pricing guidance offered on the site, it has become the de factor barometer for valuation purposes.
Barry Lawrence Ruderman has created by far the largest on-line compendium of content rich description on antique maps. Here are just a few examples:
There appear to be at least 24 references to Barry Lawrence Ruderman on wikimedia.
The BLR archive of map descriptions is accessed thousands of times each day, which has led to the use of free use of BLR images, descriptions and other content on thousands of other website. All of this content is given away for free--there is never a charge or licensing fee associated with digital images or descriptions. No watermarks are added and, when asked, the same high resolution images given to Stanford are made available to the public for free.
Note WP:Bio
- Any biography
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
1. Barry Lawrence Ruderman is the Leading Antique Map Dealer in the World
2. He is recognized for revolutionizing the Sale of Antique Maps On Line
3. Stanford recognizes and advertises as part of its permanent collection the Barry Lawrence Ruderman Collection of Digital Images
4. He hosts over 40,000 often content rich descriptions of Antique Maps on-line, representing 19 years of published research.
5. Raremaps.com is almost certainly the most visited and relied upon website in the world for map collectors, dealers and other map enthusiasts.
6. There are well over 1,000 independent on line references to the descriptions and images published on RareMaps.com. At last count, my it was estimated that over 5,000 separate "permissions" had been granted to use images for books, magazines, doctoral theses, blogs, websites, etc. and there are hundreds if not thousands more "unauthorized" (but not unwelcomed) uses of descriptions, images, etc.
Academics
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
“Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”
--See numbered list above
Creative professionals:
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.”
--See numbered list above
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.”
--He is the first major on line retailer and by far the largest research content provider.
“The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.”
--You will note that Barry Lawrence Ruderman listed along with many of the top National Collections (Library of Congress, American Geographical Society Library, Boston Public Library, British Library, Oxford Digital Library, etc., as "Large general sites" for digital images. No other dealer is on this list and only one other private person is on the list (David Rumsey)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rumsey_Historical_Map_Collectionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rumsey
“The person'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.”
Major Clients Include (this is a small sampling):
Library of Congress Geography & Map Division
Yale / Beinecke Library
Stanford University
British Library
John Carter Brown Library (Brown University)
Princeton University
New York Publc Library
Canadian National Archive
Bibliothèque nationale de France
University of Michigan Clements Library
"CarteMuseum.org/resources.html -- Museum is a non-profit cartographic museum located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and is dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of original maps and atlases.
Delete for now and 'draft and userfy to author until it is better as my searches found a few links at Books, News and browser but nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwistertalk 07:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious coatrack is obvious. Mr. Schultz makes a great many assertions that he doesn't back up with reliable sources, and keeps on confusing the ostensible subject with Mr. Ruderman. Considering the bits of WP:BIO he's citing to back this up, he's missing the point: Ruderman isn't CREATING these maps, he's acquiring and selling them. "Barry Lawrence Ruderman Collection of Digital Images" isn't the subject of this article either, whatever Stanford allegedly thinks about it. While Mr. Schultz is gracious enough to disclose COI, I think this goes a bit deeper than familial ties: "We are listed in the Research Laboratories of Archaeology under "Repositories and Web Sites"" "We?" Nha TrangAllons! 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This appears to be a typical parochial middle and elementary school. Under the widely accepted customary standards for school articles described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this sort of school doesn't get its own article unless a clear showing of notability is made. Possibly this could be redirected to Holy Family High School (New Bedford, Massachusetts), the now-closed high school at the same location; if not, then could be redirected to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Education instead. A prod was declined. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Arxiloxos, you have quite correctly interpreted the facts as reported at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and 'redirect' is indeed the solution for such articles and they don't necessarily need to be brought to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect per above points. --Rubbishcomputer 21:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't summarily redirect this myself for 2 reasons: (1) The article creator had already deprodded this article, and it's clearly a good faith effort with some detail; I feel that the creator in such circumstances deserves a chance to address the notability concerns before the article disappears. (2) As I noted in my nomination above, there are at least 2 possible redirect targets here, so I wanted to see if anyone had an opinion about that. Now, however, in a post on the talk page, the article's creator has acknowledged the notability problem and suggested merger to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Education.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nomination Withdrawn to Keep per above arguments. I closed the debate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
