Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 6
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch·comms 02:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Observium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This speedy deletion was overturned at DRV, with a note should be taken to AfD for notability.
As nominator I say this does not show any reference demonstrating notability and it should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Observium (sometimes as its previous name Observer) has had some mentions in relevant places in the past few months: [1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamathefrog (talk • contribs)
- Comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion, the result of the discussion was "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a PHP/MySQL-based Network Observation and Monitoring System (NOMS) which collects data from devices using SNMP and presents it via a web interface, as such of interest chiefly in the back rooms where network administrators work. Without some kind of showing that this particular product has some sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that makes it stand out among the many similar products and gives it long term historical significance, I don't see it as meriting a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Observium is unusual because of its design ethos. It's intended as almost zero interaction from engineers. The quote above brings to mind Cacti, of which Observium is virtually the polar opposite of in terms of design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamathefrog (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources in article plus those mentioned above (which overlap) would seem to surpass WP:N's requirements. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems demands having a dedicated Wikipedia article for every system listed. - Klaver (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Klaver, however the software is currently version 0.1... so its pretty beta even for that list. THE KING (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THE KING misunderstands how versioning of open-source software works. It's actually reasonably common to never, ever hit 1.0. 1.0 is often just a psychological goal of everything being perfect. Observium's current versioning scheme is 0.<year>.<month>.<revision>. (also note there was never a 0.1, the software was released as 0.3 in 2006.) Adamathefrog (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heartbeat (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing to pass WP:BAND. JaGatalk 21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm afraid I failed to find any references for this article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has been tagged for better referencing. Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Azad (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of article previously deleted after PROD; it does not appear that the issues raised in the PROD have been addressed. No third party sources for this BLP article. bd2412 T 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and SALT per nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notabilty established, Also get rid of the discography page. 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did anyone even check the discography? The chart positions check out. Furthermore, a couple trawls through Google News found this: an interview, biography and another biography. The fact that most of the sources are in German is immaterial. I'm not terribly fluent in German, but I can read enough of it to tell that these sources are non-trivial and reliable third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know enough about foreign music charts to know what should constitute evidence of encyclopedic notability. If someone from WP:MUSIC can confirm that these will do, I imagine that will swing some support for the article. bd2412 T 19:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The three charts listed are all listed at WP:GOODCHARTS, meaning that he meets WP:MUSIC #2. And the sources I found prove that he meets WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know enough about foreign music charts to know what should constitute evidence of encyclopedic notability. If someone from WP:MUSIC can confirm that these will do, I imagine that will swing some support for the article. bd2412 T 19:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, charted. "POP-LP-CHARTS", Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 15 April 2006 lists 8. Azad Game Over. "FOCUS Single CHARTS", Focus, 20 August 2007 has Die Top Ten der Single-Charts in Deutschland in der Woche34 listing 1 AZAD FEAT. ADEL TAWIL(Universal) - Prison Break Anthem. Sexton, Paul (9 August 2007), "Mika, Rihanna Unmoved From European Top Slots", Billboard.biz says " The fastest mover on the Eurochart is Azad's "Prison Break Anthem" (Urban), which rises 22-11 after a 6-3 climb in Germany. Azad is a rapper from the Kurdistan province of Iran, now based in Frankfurt." "Billboard; Eurocharts", VNU Entertainment Newswire, 16 August 2007 has Billboard's European Charts. Released August 16, 2007. listing in Hot Singles in Europe 8. "Prison Break Anthem," Azad. Urban. German language sources include: "Das Spiel ist noch nicht vorbei Rapper Azad kommt zusammen mit Jonesmann ins Aladin", Kurier am Sonntag, 7 May 2006; "INFO - Azad: Rap ist nur der Spiegel der Gesellschaft", Ostsee-Zeitung, 21 February 2008. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Even a quick check shows that this is a charting artiste. What the nom is doing nominating articles on foreign musicians when he states he doesn't know enough about foreign charts is a mystery. Pass the trout :p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5), article by a sock of banned user Pickbothmanlol. –MuZemike 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Teach For Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teach For Us and history at User:Ageller/Teach For Us. Not certain this subject satisfies WP:NOTE. Bringing here for further community discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it looked okay, it claimed to be featured in the LA Times which I think is a pretty notable source. ☭FryPod 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim appears to fail WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to have significant (or maybe any) coverage from secondary sources. LA Times would be great to verify (was it a letter to the editor, a multi page article, a mention along with other organizations, a solicited story?) but even then it is just one source. Might be a fine organization and the article can be recreated as soon as more sources are found. I saw none in a Google News archive search but I might have missed something. [5] might be a good one and would point to notability if other sources could be found. Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Second AFD and still no references to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill Bill Chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR of something already discussed elsewhere Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original poster posted this support for the page on talk page "I suggest leaving this article up for a few weeks to see if it gets better. There is currently an edit war on the main Kill Bill article involving a chronology issue, and it would be better to deflect some of that over here." Well, it's been several weeks and the page has not gotten better. Removing content from the eyes of editors on the appropriate page seems a poor reason for creating a page. And the fact that there are edit wars over chronology issues suggests strongly that this is not material explicitly stated in the film, supporting the idea that this is WP:OR --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really overly detailed, as well as unsourced, original research. Belongs on a fan website not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Definitely looks like WP:OR to me -- I strongly doubt it's possible to find verifiable sources saying that this is accurate. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 18:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A section could be written at Kill Bill about the narrative structure of the two films, similar to what's at Pulp Fiction (film); a stand-alone article about this is unnecessary. Cliff smith talk 22:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No RS to confirm first team appearances for Sevilla FC, fails WP:ATHLETE Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Non-notable. In addition to having no proof that he played for the first team, I am unable to find any indication that he meets WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've found absolutely nothing to suggest he is even close to meeting the GNG. Possible hoax, given that the only google hits I could find on this guy originate from Wikipedia. --WFC-- 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage of note, seems to be a school kid / youth that was offered a trial. Has not played notably and coverage insignificant. Fails NSPORTS to boot.--ClubOranjeT 00:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong venue. This page was a redirect when nominated so it needs to be discussed at redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect name and hasn't played a competitive game, Name should be Andrew Bond. So fails Wikipedia:ATH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrokeyBoy (talk • contribs)
- Comment It seems to be a redirect now. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammad Mansouryar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod template was removed by IP, reason was "Notability?" PaterMcFly talk contribs 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. only 4 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BLP. None of the sources in the articles seem to be reliable independent sources as required by WP:RS. No indication of notability. Self-publishing a paper on arXiv is not enough. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The level of academic impact of his works and his non-standard academic career path suggests WP:FRINGE may be a more appropriate standard than WP:PROF — in any case he is not even close to passing WP:PROF — but WP:FRINGE demands reliable sourcing for its subjects (which we need in any case even for non-fringe subjects), and we don't have that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, nomination by a sock of banned user Pickbothmanlol. –MuZemike 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Total Drama Island episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The last AfD was a no consencus. I am nominating this per WP:OTHERSTUFF due to the existence of List of Total Drama episodes
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
- List of Total Drama Action episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Total Drama World Tour episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ☭FryPod 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. AFD 1 closed in June with a recommendation that more discussion take place. Was there a discussion about these articles? I lean delete, but wanted to link in to the consensus for the record. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any discussions that were started by the nominator of the first deletion request, who happens to be blocked for sockpuppetry, nor am I aware of any discussions started by other users between the end of the first deletion request and the start of this one. ☭FryPod 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I need to look at this one more, I'm missing something. But if this list is part of the larger "Total Drama Foo" list that includes the other, related series, then I'd say this could easily be a merge candidate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists of episodes are entirely appropriate per WP:SALAT; in cases like this, the episodes themselves can be used to cite the plot summaries. These don't need deletion, but a removal of fancruft is certainly in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all season articles, delete combined article per WP:SALAT, these kinds of lists are appropriate. Due to the target audience, WP:SIZE is very hard to meet, even in episode lists for a single series. I feel that the List of Total Drama episodes is inappropriately broad and not an organic list. Additionally, the TD list was inappropriately created by copy-pasting content that I and others authored at the individual series' episode lists. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Total_Drama_Island_episodes may provide more information. --Malkinann (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:
Frypod (talk · contribs) has been blocked and has admitted to being a sock of a banned user. —Soap— 19:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey Paul Gowdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. No significant roles ("Talent Scout #2", extra, etc.), no significant voice work ("additional voices"), no other meaningfull credits ("special thanks", "associate producer", etc.). No coverage in independent reliable sources. (Speedy recreate denied due to age. Prod denied because it is a repost.) SummerPhD (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk)
- Question? Who nominated this article and what was the reason? How can we offer recommendations when the nomination is incomplete? Cindamuse (talk) 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The page was vandalised, I've reverted it, it should look better now. Hairhorn (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lack of prominent roles, or of prominent positions on major projects, indicates non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As an actor, this individual fails WP:ENT, so let's forget about pursuing that aspect... same for his work as producer on a number of minor films. And in looking for sources, it is found WP:GNG is failed., hence failure of WP:BIO and no way to source it as a BLP. I am actually quite surprised that this survived since January 2007. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Has google changed their news / books / scholars / images addresses? Does our Find Sources template need updated? Found 2,890 images on google after clicking on WEB then back on IMAGES on google:
- http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Joey+Gowdy
- http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Joey+Paul+Gowdy
- As a comparison I did a quick search for Ayka Kell (from Make it or Dreat it) using our template, think it needs updating as it returned no results under images. It seems Joey Gowdy studied at the Acting Corps with Ayla Kell in 2006.
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- http://www.google.com/images?safe=off&q=Ayla+Kell
- Just did that as a comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.107.120 (talk • contribs) 05:31, August 8, 2010
- Comment To Anon IP 65.0.107.120: You're correct.... the Find sources for images seems broken, as there are plenty of images found for her through regular searches.[6] But you might understand that images found through a google search do not equate to news articles when it comes to finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I came to the article in question investigating a vandal on the SWG Wiki, of which I am a sysop. I can confirm that any edits by IPs 64.89.*, 65.0.* or 98.95.* are User:JoeyGowdy, the subject of the article. I know you can't take my word for it here but I'm sure a checkuser would tell you the same. If you study the histories of not only the article, but this nomination page you'll see that those IPs have been used to attempt to derail the nomination procedure by removing the AfD tag and by changing other users delete votes to keep ones. Additionally, User:BarbieGurl87 who created the article, is if not a sockpuppet of Gowdy then a close friend acting as a meatpuppet. 86.164.104.152 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete as G11. Non-admin closure of AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IOrbix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very promotional, and I couldn't find any independent reports about it. Not sure how many users it has, but if the founders are connected to them all it can't be that many! Plus, much of it is copied form their website, here [7] - the copyvio tag was removed. Chris (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, spam or db-web, take your pick. Hairhorn (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: You can spot the amount of advertising in this article from a mile. Ezhuks (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already deleted. Can somebody close this? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I figured out how to do it. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already deleted. Can somebody close this? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted because blatant hoaxes are vandalism. And this was a blatant hoax about an alleged Syrian province. Though many of the residents of Baniyas are followers of Islam, many Khàtprinçians are followers of a polytheistic religion found only within the province. They worship 3 main 'lords'; Tcid, Sakc, and Romonumj-Haazlkuido. Etc. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Khàtprinçia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Khàtprinçian national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I believe this article to be a hoax. No references. Google searches reveal no sources except those that reference this Wikipedia article. Some obvious jokes lay lower down in the article if you read into it. I am also nominating Khàtprinçian national football team for the same reason (same creator). Jujutacular talk 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular talk 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I believe you're right about the hoax. Perhaps speedy delete per G3, although it may not be "blatant" enough for that. Definitely delete, though, I'm seeing no verifiable, non-Wikipedia mirror proof of its existence. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as failing WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This is absolute nonsense. "What Dariush claims was the Imperial Palace of Khàtprinçia is in fact a KFC in Baniyas" and "The Khàtprinçian Symphony Orchestra regularly holds concerts in parks and halls, playing classical pieces and contemporary jazz pieces, along with the greatest hits of Gore Beyond Necropsy." This seems like a pretty blatant hoax to me. Rje (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete both articles under G3 as blatant hoaxes. Full of claims such as hallucinogenic spices "found only within the small fishing province," which is a Syrian province named after the English words "Cat" and "Prince" before 1478, and which province has its own dictator (notwithstanding it is part of Syria), who has the only copy of the sacred text of the religion practiced only in the province, where they wear cat skin suits and eat cat soup. Gimme a break. Edison (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Black Mages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keiji Kawamori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is a list of credits and has only one source, which is from Kawamori's employer company Square Enix. I can't find much information about the person. I recommend deletion and/or redirecting into The Black Mages, a band Kawamori is part of and which is much more notable than this article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – unsourced BLP with no sources out there that provides any significant coverage. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. –MuZemike 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd find secondary sources that support the article's notability, but I really can't be bothered. It would pass WP:BIO if I cared, and WP:BLP isn't an inclusion-related policy (it's irrelevant). Frankly, I'd hate to see a bunch of people stumble over this deletion page and just copy what every other person has said without doing proper research into its actual notability. Feel free, though.--Teggles (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Whilst it can be verified that Kawamori is a "Synthesizer Operator" for Square ([8] for example), this does not seem particularly significant. Marasmusine (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Mico Apostolov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article appears to fail the WP:PROF guidelines for academics. Being published, a researcher and a member of various institutes does not of itself demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. Fæ (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a new entry; I'm willing to wait a bit to see some third party sources demonstrating notability, currently there are none, and a quick Google search makes him look less than notable. Delete if nothing shows up. Hairhorn (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would have been open to a longer grace period for article improvement but the earlier PROD was removed by the article creator without discussion and there is likely COI considering the name and Single-purpose account nature of the creator's account. Consequently AfD seemed appropriate in order to judge the article on its merits with independent opinions.
- Note, due to considerations of potential WORLDVIEW issues for sources, I recommend this AfD remain open for comment for a minimum of seven days. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear fail of WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, clear accordance with WP:PROF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8MA8 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — 8MA8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete unless it can be shown that he is notable. The article itself doesn't show anything, and the references I've looked at don't show much more. As always, I'm willing to be influenced by a bribe of some nice reliably sourced demonstrations of notability... Peridon (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Garderbien ...très Bien! ce frère ... a fait quelque chose d'intéressant et je pense que ce sera OK pour conserver cet article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GNègre (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —GNègre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Frère de qui? "quelque chose d'intéressant" - quoi? Il faut des meilleurs références. Peridon (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All it says is that he's an academic and he's published papers. That's not enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep-mantenere*Mi permetto di dissentire, credo che sia in conformità con WP: PROF.--Governare è far credere (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You may consider yourself Machiavellian, but creating these single purpose accounts is childish. Please stop and consider using your language skills to the benefit of Wikipedia. Fæ (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Negligible GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP, needs some more work and that will come with time and hopefully other contributors --8MA8 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck through because one !vote already recorded. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Basically nothing in WoS either. The article doesn't even make any claim of notability. I don't think this is a very controversial case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Almost no actually published work DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gray McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Presumably Fake or Fraud. This article doesn't cite any reliable sources. The website of this 'long established' company has been created not earler than 2009 and is hosted by a low cost provider. A german lawyer asked two canadian regulating authorities for this company: Both have never heard of it [9]. There is a lot of telephone marketing in europe/germany these days which try to make people invest in this company, so i'm led to the conclusion, that this article (and the already deleted one in de-wp) are an attempt to give this fraud a little bit reliability. Gnu1742 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:ORG. I'm unable to find any substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. Deor (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not only a blatant hoax, but a dangerous one as well. It is simply not possible for an investment institute with that asset size and employee base to escape any mention in any official registrar. None of the names check out, and the domain is now locked. The German wiki has deleted it as a hoax. This is a simple confidence scam and Wikipedia is being used - I've deleted the article as a hoax, and will leave it to another admin to close out this AFD and double check. Kuru (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already deleted? It seems this was deleted as I created the AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good and Service Tax India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single source, reads like pure WP:OR, discusses things in a WP:CBALL manner even though events should have taken place in the past(?). Primary reasons for AfD: no sources whatsoever. — Timneu22 · talk 12:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_architecture,_engineering_and_construction_(AEC). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of CAD editors for computer-aided engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no reliable sources asserting that this is a notable topic. The one reference just supports features for a given program. This just doesn't seem like an encyclopedia worthy topic. Wizard191 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: See WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR. Cmcginni (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge, per my comment below: Would definitely require verifiable sources and all, which can be found for this topic. However, I don't see why this article would be deleted, while articles such as Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of text editors, Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of raster graphics editors, etc. could all be kept. I know that's not much of an argument, but CAD software is by all means notable. What's required to show that a comparison article would be? Perhaps at the very least remove the "for computer-aided engineering" part of the title, so as to not narrow down the topic too much. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- So what if other stuff exists? This article must assert notability in and of itself. Wizard191 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware -- I just wanted to point it out. As you'll see, I mentioned above that I know that showing that other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Because of that, I continued on to say that the article does assert notability. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: seems like a notable subject, and somebody obviously put a lot of work into the chart, but we need reliable sources to verify the accuracy of the information therein. I have tagged the article for “rescue.” Bwrs (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but should probably be merged with Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) (which lists several CAD/CAE programs and is better sourced). There are multiple CAD/CAE comparisons that can be found via even the most casual of google searches, suggesting that WP:BEFORE would have indicated notability was not a concern & the article could have been improved. Further, most products in this comparison stub have their own articles in Wikipedia already. Presumably, these articles are sources & assert notability. This comparison can be used as an aid to navigation to those other articles. --Karnesky (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't notice there was another comparison article on CAD editors. The merge idea is a good one. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Karnesky. List of notable things, and their notable easily confirmable stats, is fine for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete disagree with Dream Focus. one can clearly see that every single time Dream Focus edits in an AfD it is always delete. how can one trust him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.74.29 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) per WP:CFORK. SnottyWong yak 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that content has not yet been merged & a better name for the merge target might be simply Comparison of CAD editors (which redirects to the AEC page now), as there is no reason to specify CAE vs AEC at this time. --Karnesky (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Karnesky above. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect reads like a guide rather than an encyclopedia article and this topic or comparison also seems to be original research. Nothing to WP:verifynotability of the comparison of CAD editors, and so inappropriate to have an article outside the main CAD editor article. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and merge If there are notable CAD editors, then the comparison of them is an appropriate encyclopedia topic. (if one wishes to get over-literal, essentially every review of any of them will offer comparisons). But that's not necessary--it's an accepted type of summary article, just like lists. Merge under some suitable general heading, because that will be the most useful arrangment of the material DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremiah Cohick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem very notable at all ScienceApe (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be an autobiographical article and a promotion for a company of which the subject is part-owner, but I agree that there's no notability at all. He's had a more interesting life than I-- appeared in a national TV commercial once for Apple computer, and survived a helicopter crash. The article managed to escape notice for more than eight months, which is an achievement in itself. Mandsford 13:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per nom, not notable, and no sources that reflect notability. N2e (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tulsi Ramesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Public figure? I think not. Chris (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think not too. She's the CEO of what appears to be a small company called Fernza, which is promoting a specialized confectionery, but we have no article about the company nor the product. Mandsford 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Definitely not a public figure. Taroaldo (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Niall O'Donovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer, not played at a professional level; fails WP:ATHLETE and the WP:GNG as he is not discussed in detail by independent sources. Previously prodded and recreated. Tassedethe (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He doesn't even come close to meeting Wp:ATHLETE: I can't find the division his teams play in, never mind himself. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has significantly improved during the course of the AfD and there is now a clear consensus to keep. Mkativerata (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelley Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete No evidence of notability. Still no third party sources after being tagged for five months. PROD was contested with an edit summary saying "Google does reveal sources indicating notability". However, the editor did not say what these sources were, and my Google searches have failed to confirm the statement. All the sources I found suffered from one or more of (1) not independent sources (e.g. www.kelleyabbey.com) (2) not reliable sources (e.g www.flixster.com, people.famouswhy.com, www.facebook.com) (3) only very briefly mentions Kelley Abbey (e.g. www.tv.com). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has a profile at IMDb so there is no reason to take her article down. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a guideline or policy statement? Ryan Norton 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The presence of an IMDB page is a poor metric by which to gauge notability, but I wonder if the Green Room Awards and Mo Awards satisfy WP:ANYBIO. If these can be properly sourced, I might consider a keep here. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. A notable dancer, actress, choreographer and director with international recognition. Winner of multiple prestigious awards. Clearly satisfies WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per sourcing by WWGB. Well done! Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT now. Ryan Norton 00:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep per excellent WP:AFTER and improvements by User:WWGB. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Satisfies WP:CREATIVE with awards; good coverage in sources as well. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Futurama (season 6). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Futurama (season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no such thing as Futurama season 7. It appears the article creator is in error, and may have confused the production seasons with the broadcast seasons of the show. The episode listed on the article is for Season 6, and the only citation present on the article specifically states this. .:Alex:. 08:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's not a hoax and it's not an error. These two references identify that season 6 is to be split into two 'runs' - [10] [11]. Given that Benderama is the only unscheduled episode from the first 13 (of which 12 are scheduled), it is likely to be in the second run. The only problems with the article are verifiability/crystal ballery. However, I think the topic is notable and that the article should stay. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect in some form Even a casual google search reveals plenty of sources on the matter. Appears some do consider season 6 as season 7 and vice versa. Ryan Norton 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep mostly because of my growing love for Futurama and the statements made by Richard.
☭FryPod 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references support the existence of a season 7 in this capacity, and the matter was already debated and reached to a consensus on the numerous related talk pages. KnownAlias contact 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a major misunderstanding here. Due to the erratic nature in which Futurama is broadcast on television, there are more "broadcast seasons" than actual production seasons. Wikipedia features Futurama season articles by production season (as opposed to "broadcast season"), as this is the order and categorisation featured on the DVDs and the true, intended order of the episodes. Production Season 6 is being shown as two seperate "broadcast seasons", which is were the confusion originates. The first half is being shown this year, and the second half is being shown next year.Therefore, it is entirely incorrect to have an article called "production season 7" as it simply does not exist in any way shape or form; hence why I have nominated this for deletion. The show's own creators even acknowledged just the other day their uncertainty for "Season 7". --.:Alex:. 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The assertion that this is a "South Park" situation is more crystal ball nonsense, flying in the face of referenced evidence that was reverted for being "incorrect". Verifiablilty is the Wikipedia standard, and a source exstsis that says they will be split. The continued arguements of the number of 6ACXxx episodes is also speculative, since The Simpsons (season 21) had both LABFxx and MABFxx codes, and American Dad! (season 5) had both 4AJNxx and 5AJNxx codes. It is not a given that those codes would air in the intended seasons. And as long as we're being speculative, it would be unprecedented for a cable network to order a 26 episode season of anything. Even The Simpsons on network never exceeded 25. Comedy Central's budget would never provide for a single 26 episode season. Even the split South Park season is only 14. KnownAlias contact 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to KnownAlias The source that exists say that the season will be split into two. It doesn't say two production seasons, it just says two seasons. Countless sources exist that state that it will be split into two broadcast seasons. Clearly the source in question is talking about them splitting production season 6 into two broadcast seasons. The Simpsons production codes only overlap from season to season when the episode is a hold-over from a past production season. The extra production code values exist when extra episodes are added mid-season or when they're produced by different people to the rest of the run. This hasn't happened in Futurama yet. As for American Dad!, that season 5 list refers to the show's broadcast season. We're discussing Futurama's sixth PRODUCTION SEASON. It would not be unprecedented for a cable network to order a 26 episode season of a show if they intended it to be aired as two separate airdate seasons. They would most likely have just ordered 13 episodes to begin with but they were striking a deal with Fox as well and obviously they had to order a lot of episodes at once to make it financially viable -just as how they had to make 4 straight-to-dvd movies rather than just one for financial reasons. And as for the only split South Park season being 14, no. They've split their seasons in half since at least season 7 but 14 is still mid-season. Look at the airdates.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Reply to Omega cyber turnip I spoke poorly. I didn't mean Season 14 of South Park, I meant, in defence of Comedy Central not ordering a single 26 episode season, that South Park doesn't exceed 14 episodes. As for the rest, you continue to speak of the PRODUCTION season, but you filled the table on Futurama (season 6) as if there's no difference between a production season and a broadcast season. Yes, there is only ONE production season. Comedy Central ordered 26 episodes, and that's how the producers chose to produce it. But it is NOT one broadcast season, there will be a sixth and seventh season. This was discussed on the talk page, where you should have brought the matter up further, instead of unilaterally changing information to your preference and understanding. I'm not even saying I agree with it completely; Futurama should be listed by broadcast season for each season like any other page, but that is not the consensus that was reached in this case. The consensus didn't start broadcast order until season 6. And I am defending the consensus, whether you (or even I) like it or not. KnownAlias contact 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the reply I filled the table before I was aware that people were having a difference of opinions on how season 6 should be listed -I'm fairly new here so sorry, I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. Wikipedia lists Futurama by production seasons, hence production season six should be listed as production season 6. There is also an option to view the episodes by broadcast order, this is where the page for this season should go (albeit, as season 8, not 7). Even if people decide that it's broadcast seasons 6 and 7, that shouldn't have any impact on the production season pages on Wikipedia. This is a page for production season 7 that we're discussing the deletion of and you basically just admitted yourself that it doesn't exist.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia classifies Futurama episodes by production season rather than broadcast season. A single production season may indeed by split into multiple broadcast seasons, and that's exactly what happens with Futurama. There's no evidence that Benderama is part of a seventh production season. Reach Out to the Truth 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Reach Out... and Alex. Note this article actually qualifies for a category G5 Speedy as the creation of a blocked user. The creator was evading multiple blocks at the time of creation, and many of the edits by this account were deliberate introductions of factual errors. Majorclanger (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Adding to that last comment, this cannot be considered season 7 in any way shape or form. It's the 2nd half of production season 6 but it's also broadcast season 8. Broadcast season 7 is the first half of production season 6 which is currently airing on television. To have this article would mean that you'd be mixing broadcast seasons with production seasons which is just messy and incorrect. Wikipedia offers you the choice of viewing episodes by production seasons or broadcast seasons. Production is default (and rightfully so; fans consider them the true seasons and so do the show's creators). This article should be deleted to make room for an article on broadcast season 8 if a separate article is needed.
The 26 episodes of season 6 were ordered together and each one has a 6ACV production code ranging from 6ACV01 to 6ACV26. Script pages have been released which confirm episodes from the second run to have a 6ACV code and not a 7ACV code which they would have if they were 'production season 7'. Here are two of said images: 'http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/e/e4/6ACV24_Production_Script.jpg' and 'http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/6/68/Production_script_cover_of_6ACV14.jpg'. Comedy Central may refer to the second run as another season but it means another broadcast season, not production season. They do a similar thing with South Park each year by splitting each season into two 7-episode runs, but each year's 14 episodes still only officially constitutes one production season.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal - I suggest that we give this discussion, as with all discussions on Futurama seasons, over to the Futurama talk pages. It appears that we are now sure that this is not a hoax, but a product of a confusion between production and broadcast seasons. It's really up to the Futurama fans/writers to figure this out. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into season 6 until the broadcast season vs. production season is settled via RS'es calling the second half of production season six "season seven". That allows a redirect and a consolidated presentation of the article about the production season in one place, which can then be split out again if and when RS'es settle the season seven issue. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Changing my vote; Jclemens' rationale is the most concise rationale of ignoring the season 7 evidence thus far. KnownAlias contact 10:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Jclemens, as it makes perfect sense at this point. Ryan Norton 20:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge would be redundant as the information is all already included on Futurama's season 6 page.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Season 6's page does not seem to mention the new "Bendarama" episode. How would it be redundant to merge? --Odie5533 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, with footnote – Episode details go into the Season 6 article with a footnote as to why the episode might be considered part of season 7. If the information is redundant to merge as User:Omega cyber turnip say (though I did not see it), then just delete the season 7 article entirely. Without more reliable sources, we can't even determine if season 7 should exist and thus creating it becomes speculation. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Film adaptations per nominator's request. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oz, The Great and Powerful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the WP:NFF guideline in the sense that filming has not begun (plans to in June 2011) for a "suppose" release date in 2013. Too far into the future. Mike Allen 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Yeah, there are sources, but...I can see an article for a film that isn't finished, but for a film that hasn't even begun to be filmed? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to a The Wizard of Oz page, as clearly fails WP:NFF but no reason for the information not to be included under a "Proposed prequel" section or the like. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 23:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect the three sentences to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Film adaptations. While it is possible that this project could receive enough coverage to merit an independent article, such has not happened yet... so a redirect of sourced content as above will serve the project and the reader. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Merge/Redirect seems appropriate to me. I should have been bold myself and I did just that. Mike Allen 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Wings – Avalanche brawl. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Wings — Avalanche rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A great rivalry indeed, but a sloppy, POV-filled mess of an article. Already plenty of the rivalry mentioned in other articles. A pretty obvious fan-created piece. Jmlk17 06:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. WackyWace converse | contribs 07:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Notable topic [12], needs improvement. I've moved the title from what it had been (Detroit Red Wings Colorado Avalanche Rivalry) to something consistent with other rivalry articles. Mandsford 13:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Red Wings – Avalanche brawl. The rivalry exists within the context of the brawls and as such the two articles are obviously redundant. The latter article is a little more neutral. Resolute 14:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as this doesn't compare to NHL rivalries of the Golden 6 era. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When it was just the Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Red Wings, Blackhawks, Rangers and Bruins, they did tend to face each other a lot. Mandsford 01:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. per Resolute. Patken4 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines and should be deleted. I can userfy if either the creator or any other editor would like to work on establishing notability in user space. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yandere Kanojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A search for reliable sources comes up with nothing but forum posts and illegal scanlation websites. Does not appear to be licensed outside of Japan. Fails the inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, especially the specific inclusion criteria for books. Deprodded without any comments by an IP with a known history of disruptive deprodding everything he/she comes across. —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gangan Comics I see no harm in a redirect as it is a possible search term other than that I agree that this article should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see any particular reason for an article with this much content to be deleted. SifaV6 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the fact that the subject lacks any coverage by reliable third-party publications, which is a requirement for all subjects on Wikipedia? —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lack of secondary sources, you should put up a notability tag, not a deletion tag. You're going way overboard here. SifaV6 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I going overboard here? I did a search for significant coverage by reliable third-party sources and didn't come up with anything. There was no reason to believe that such coverage would exist. I don't see how an article's length is has any barring on the subject's inclusion or as a legitimate reason to keep an article. —Farix (t | c) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of third-party sources out there on this manga such as Anime News Network and such. Maybe instead of spending your time on trying to get articles deleted, you should use them to improve the articles. SifaV6 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only coverage by ANN is a list the manga that will appear in the premier issue of Gangan Joker manga magazine. It is not the significant coverage required by WP:NOTE or WP:BK. "Significant coverage" means that third-party sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I looked for third-party source and couldn't find any significant coverage. You claim there is. It is up to you now to prove there is significant coverage. —Farix (t | c) 11:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Link ANN] - Listed the title of the manga, author of the manga, the name of the magazine it appears in, its genre, the official website for the manga and aslo its publisher. [Link ANN] - This listed the number of volumes the manga has and also its release date. What more do you need? SifaV6 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational explains why ANN's encyclopedia is an unreliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Link ANN] - Listed the title of the manga, author of the manga, the name of the magazine it appears in, its genre, the official website for the manga and aslo its publisher. [Link ANN] - This listed the number of volumes the manga has and also its release date. What more do you need? SifaV6 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only coverage by ANN is a list the manga that will appear in the premier issue of Gangan Joker manga magazine. It is not the significant coverage required by WP:NOTE or WP:BK. "Significant coverage" means that third-party sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I looked for third-party source and couldn't find any significant coverage. You claim there is. It is up to you now to prove there is significant coverage. —Farix (t | c) 11:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of third-party sources out there on this manga such as Anime News Network and such. Maybe instead of spending your time on trying to get articles deleted, you should use them to improve the articles. SifaV6 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I going overboard here? I did a search for significant coverage by reliable third-party sources and didn't come up with anything. There was no reason to believe that such coverage would exist. I don't see how an article's length is has any barring on the subject's inclusion or as a legitimate reason to keep an article. —Farix (t | c) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N by lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The length of the article in no way justifies keeping it. Edison (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edison, no sources found. Search for Japanese name was also fruitless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SifaV6.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SifaV6 didn't present an argument backed up by any guidelines or policies. His argument was a combination of WP:TOOBIG, WP:ILIKEIT, and mild personal attacks against me for nominating the article for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and delete, looks like it fails notability guidelines now, but who knows, it may get licensed and translated eventually. It'd be a shame to have to start the article from scratch if that happens. Let SifaV6 keep it in his userspace until then. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dynamic synesthesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is essentially unreferenced OR, and has been tagged as such since December of 2009. This article has not been edited since March, 2010, and as a substantive contributor to the synesthesia page, I do not feel that there is anything worth editing here. I believe this article fails under WP:NEO. A google search turns up 163 hits [13], while synesthesia itself turns up 476,000 results [14], and "grapheme-color synesthesia" one of the most intensively researched forms of synesthesia, turns up 2,180 results [15]. Note that wiki's synesthesia page and grapheme-color synesthesia page are the number one hits in these searches. Similarly, a pubmed search of dynamic synesthesia turns up two hits, both of which merely contain both words in the title, but do not refer to "dynamic synesthesia" as a form of synesthesia. This is against a total of 252 hits for "synesthesia or synaesthesia" in pubmed Edhubbard (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research, fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unverifiable. Even if this describes a legitimate concept, it should be written into the journals before coming here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no evidence available NCurse work 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that this wikipedia is not notable and there are also very compelling policy reasons to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Old English Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fairly clearly fails WP:WEB; next, please. Ironholds (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the!? That's Wikipedia stuff!!! Strong keep, but let's see... Bigtop 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Old English Wikipedia is indeed a "trivial" thing according to such guidelines. I wrote it after finding multiple other articles about multiple other "trivial" (according to fore-mentioned definitions) Wikipedia language versions (Dutch Low Saxon, Zulu, Quechua, Simple English, etc.) I personally reckon it should stay... but, nevertheless, it doest't stand up well against such criteria. It has no sources because it would by necessity have to reference Wikipedia (like most other Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia that I've read...) (and I had the impression that Wikipedia articles referencing Wikipedia were unwelcome - per official policy?) Gott wisst (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. Please link me to any Wikipedia versions with articles that contain no proper citations as this does, and I'll be happy to AfD them as well. "other stuff exists" isn't a valid reason to keep something. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it has not achieved independent verifiability, and if people want to use it it can try to claim a link from the front page. By the way, does anyone use the language? I know there are no native speakers, but is it spoken even as a second language? If not, then the wikipedia itself should not exist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are a few second-language speakers out there who like to use the language (I am one); there are not so many as, shall we say, Latin (Latin Wikipedia=40,000+, OE Wikipedia=2,000+). Look up "template:user ang" - there are quite some who can - not so many who do (sadly) (if number of articles is anything to go by). Gott wisst (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not pass the basic verifiability guidelines. Ryan Norton 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add link to List of Wikipedias its not on this list yet, and it should be. i checked in at complete list of wikipedias at wikimedia, and the cutoff for having wikipedia articles appears to be around 10000 articles, from obviously notable languages. Unless someone can find independent third party notability for this interesting exercise, it doesnt warrant an article yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect as per Mercurywoodrose. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halifax Regional School Board. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brookhouse Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable public elementary school in Canada. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For a primary school to have its own Wikipedia article, it should be notable (a significant event happened there, etc.) This article contains nothing implying that the school is notable. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board per our usual practice regarding elementary and middle schools, until a decent article can be written about the school system there. Unlike the other school district articles in its category, Halifax Regional School Board makes almost zero mention of the schools within the district, and the authors chose to take the title literally, with a profile of the nine persons elected to that board. A very good article could be written about the school system that contains 137 schools, as opposed to 137 separate articles. Mandsford 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)1[reply]
- Redirect, with possible smerge, to Woodlawn, Nova Scotia#Schools, where it is already listed, per WP:OUTCOMES#Education. Recommend that the same be done with the articles on the other primary and middle schools that are bluelinked in that section. Deor (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Te Daré Lo Mejor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Original nomination by IP: Fails notability criteria for albums. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.(see below) FYI the title translated is "I'll Give You The Best". Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep - This is a failed nom as it meets the very criteria cited: WP:NSONGS. The second paragraph reads:
- "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."
- The album is the fifth release from Jesus Adrian Romero, who has an article and is notable on Wikipedia, and is one of six albums released. The presumption on Wikipedia via this paragraph is that if an artist is notable, his works are usually inherently notable once released. The album is available from Amazon.com at this URL. I am not sure what the rush is to delete this new article, but WP:BEFORE should be definitely considered. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rush. It was prodded first, which would have allowed for a week in which improvements could have been made. The prod was removed without any improvement to the article, so we find ourselves here instead. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Yes, there was a rush and the CSD and PROD were pushed by this anon IP all the same day as the article was created. I declined the PROD with an edit summary that indicated the artist was notable and this was the fifth album. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rush. It was prodded first, which would have allowed for a week in which improvements could have been made. The prod was removed without any improvement to the article, so we find ourselves here instead. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morenooso. --Slon02 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Key word in the sentence quoted by moreno oso is may. There is no evidence that is does meet the notability criteria. Simply being for sale does not show notability. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) BTW, 69.181.249.92, you may not know it but your nom is your iVote. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morenooso (switched vote). Note that the above is from the nominating IP Raymie Humbert (t • c) 02:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I ran the Google news results through Google translator [16] and there is coverage for this album, they talking about it. Read the summaries there. Dream Focus 10:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong talk 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:NALBUM, although the current sources are not very convincingly establishing notability. Article is still very promotional. SnottyWong talk 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to meet WP:NALBUM but might be better to merge (to the artist page?)... Willing to give this article time. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The sourcing of the article is much improved so that, while the notability of the topic might still be questioned, deletion is not appropriate. I therefore withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Radagast3 and others for their good work. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to be notable, just having perfunctory entries in long lists of similar plant varieties. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep because this AfD would set a really bad precedent leading to mass deletions of plant articles. This may be a POINT-making nomination, sadly. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point seems to be that we should have lots of plant articles regardless of their merit or quality. Please cite a policy which supports this right of plant varieties to be exempted from our usual policies and guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Raymie Humbert. I think that it's been generally accepted on Wikipedia that taxonomic classifications, even down to the species level, are notable enough to be kept just because they are what they are, but I haven't found any official policy specifically focusing on this. --Slon02 (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We once had a policy that said so explicitly, but that page seems to have vanished. However, editors in the life sciences certainly operate on that basis. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting Perhaps this is another Pokemon test in the making... Anyways my Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books searches shows a lot of literature for genus Bulbophyllum but only shows scant taxonomic data for B. rhodoglossum. I'm neutral for now.--Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Took me 3 minutes to find and insert at least some relevant information. I see absolutely no reason to set a precedent here. --Pgallert (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that you have added contain next to no information and the second, for example, has blank spaces where detailed sections are expected. It seems that a botanist found one specimen once. He may have claimed a species name as a scientific trophy, but multiple specimens are normally required for a species to be properly accepted as a single individuals may be freaks or otherwise unrepresentative. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then take another look. The time you should be able to provide, as you have saved some by not following WP:BEFORE. Name and taxonomy have been checked by the source, and the empty headings, inter alia, point to the fact that this species has not yet been cultivated - not too surprising for an orchid species from Vanuatu, if you ask me. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked for sources before making this nomination per WP:BEFORE. The links provided in the article were unsatisfactory as they either did not mention the species or did not seem to be a a reliable source. Both Google Scholar and Google Books have nothing for this species - nothing at all. Even now, no-one has turned up any significant coverage. What are the distinguishing characteristics of this species? How do we know that it is not a hoax or fraud of the Piltdown Man variety? There seems to have been no independent confirmation of the supposed finding and so this still seems a raw scientific hypothesis which lacks the secondary sources required for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The International Plant Names Index and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (University of Vienna) are both independent secondary reliable sources that confirm the species, when it was described, and where the description was published. Those sources don't typically deal in hoaxes and frauds. They are reliable sources. A description would also be nice - that would be in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis and in other offline sources - but for now we have a nice plant stub waiting to be expanded. I don't think you should be expected to know all of this, and I believe you did due diligence and WP:BEFORE. Checking in first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would be a good step for non-plant people, before nominating a plant article for deletion. Project members are used to that there, and are quite helpful. You'll also find that project members have a strong consensus, perhaps unanimously, that a verifiable species is inherently notable enough for its own article. This should probably be in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, but it's not there at this point. First Light (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that you mention both seem to be catalogues which uncritically repeat this claim of a species. So far as I can tell, this claim is still based upon just one expedition and specimen. But science depends upon independent confirmation of its hypotheses. The Heslop-Harrison affair indicates that even distinguished professors of botany cannot be trusted alone. A single source is not enough for such a claim. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly Wikipedia's job to sit in judgement on the scientific community: we report the scientific consensus. If that changes (as it sometimes does) we change our articles. In this case, the consensus, accepted by multiple experts, is that this is a valid species. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CW, the sources that I mentioned are secondary, neutral, academic Reliable Sources, not "catalogs". Either alone is sufficient to keep a plant article, because our job as editors (as Radagast3 points out) is simply to report what reliable, academic scientific sources state. If you have reason to believe that a fraud is being perpetrated on the scientific community in this case, you need to take that up with the scientific community. First Light (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The International Plant Names Index and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (University of Vienna) are both independent secondary reliable sources that confirm the species, when it was described, and where the description was published. Those sources don't typically deal in hoaxes and frauds. They are reliable sources. A description would also be nice - that would be in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis and in other offline sources - but for now we have a nice plant stub waiting to be expanded. I don't think you should be expected to know all of this, and I believe you did due diligence and WP:BEFORE. Checking in first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would be a good step for non-plant people, before nominating a plant article for deletion. Project members are used to that there, and are quite helpful. You'll also find that project members have a strong consensus, perhaps unanimously, that a verifiable species is inherently notable enough for its own article. This should probably be in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, but it's not there at this point. First Light (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep The nomination is a joke by somebody who thinks the oldest user of Twitter Ivy Bean is so obviously encyclopedic yet Bulbophyllum rhodoglossum a scientifically identified species isn't. This is why wikipedia is laughed at by some scholars in that cerain wikipedians are clueless as to what is encyclopedic. All species are notable for God's sake, just needs expansion. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of reliable sources about Ivy Bean which demonstrate the notability of that topic. Our topic here lacks similar notability and we need more than hand-waving assertions. Species do not have inherent notability because the concept is ill-defined. Originally, the idea was they were distinct creations of God, as in Noah's Ark. Now we understand that many organisms are quite plastic and that lower orders, such as bacteria, exchange genes quite promiscuously and so are not discrete creations. This family of orchids is similarly indistinct and our article tells us that "This large number and the great variety of its forms make this genus a real nightmare for a taxonomist: 120 sections and subgenera have been listed. Some of these may deserve a generic status. Several species have as many as ten synonyms. Up to now a general review of this genus is lacking. But as Carlyle A. Luer of Missouri Botanical Garden disentangled the similar chaos in the Pleurothallidinae, so we may expect that a phylogenetic study of this genus will gain us a better insight in this large genus." In other words, the status of this species is dubious and we should not have an article upon it until proper research and classification has been done to provide the reliable sources which are currently lacking. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'd agree with you that sources on the specific species are lacking on the Internet. I'm baffled though as to why you picked this particular articles when we have severla thousands similar stubs on wikipedia. I agree that such articles need sources to write a decent articles otherwise they will remain short stubs forever but a verified species is usually acceptable on here. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I arrived at this particular article by clicking on the random article link. The name is amusingly similar to Bulbasaur or the botanically named Ivy Bean but that's just a coincidence. I expect that there are many more such articles but such is the scale of Wikipedia - hundreds of articles are created and deleted every day. I am sampling some of this rich variety and acting upon what I find accordingly to our usual policies and guidelines. It is my habit to patrol Wikipedia and to vary my routine so that I develop a better understanding and do not become stale. Now perhaps you can explain what you're doing here, given our recent conflict at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think I have time to stalk you, you are flattering yourself. I saw the AFD message on Ser Amantio's talk page. Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the explanation which helpfully clears the air. My compliments on your new signature, by the way. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there's nothing weak about this keep. I assert that all species of organism are inherently notable. If not much is known about them with which to write an article, that means we need more research, not for the article to be deleted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a core policy that this is not a venue for original research. Scholars do not seem to have studied this putative species in any detail and it is not our role to anticipate them. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify what the problem is here. If this is a distinct species, then I assert that it deserves a page, even if that page is able to contain nothing more than a single sentence identifying it as a species and a taxonomy box. If the species is not identifiable as a separate species, or if the name is a junior synonym, then the name should be a redirect to the correct or closest species name. Be aware that we do have subspecies articles here as well (eg Western Lowland Gorilla) and breeds (eg Chihuahua (dog)) and even an emerging subbreed (Miniature Texas Longhorn). All types of organisms are inherently notable IMHO. However, I readily accept that species are more continuous than discrete, and constantly evolving, especially through animal husbandry. But for this article, that's a problem for the botanists to work on. It's not for us to decide the matter for them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to have been created in rote fashion by exploding a list. I see no evidence that botanists can or will be able to do anything with it because there are no sources with significant detail. Plant breeders create innumerable crosses and varieties and nature does much the same, it seems. We should confine ourselves to the notable cases because Wikipedia is not a catalogue or database of indiscriminate info. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been recognised as a species since 1913; there is no OR. Our policy has generally been that all recognised species are notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep on the grounds that this is a nomination by a silly editor that thinks Smelly socks is a good article, why on earth would you want to delete an article about a species of plant--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your recent articles edited include List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, Googly eyes and Princess Peach. Orchid growers will understand that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge To a list of bulbophyllum supposed "species."
CommentVerifiability at least must be solidly satisfied for an article about a species to remain. It is easy to make up a species name by adding a modifier to a root such as "Bulbasaurus" or "Bulbophyllum" or whatever. Most of the references in the long series of bulbophyllum stubs are internet sites which do not meet the standard of reliable sources. At a minimum. is it listed in standard handbooks of orchids? As a separate species, does that mean these flowers are "reproductively isolated" from other orchids, and cannot produce fertile offspring when cross pollinated, or does it just mean that someone saw an orchid with slight color variation from other closely related orchids of the same species and made up a new name for the "species" he discovered? Flower fanciers tramping through the woods have a high incentive to "discover a new species." Appearing as a member of a long list as in the German language reference to the present article is not that convincing. There are scads of bulbophyllum stubs referenced only to internet checklists and the like, with no more information that "they are a species." A more encyclopedic solution might be to include this one on a list of other bulbophyllums "species." Edison (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This is an astonishing description of how botanists go about their science. Is your mistrust towards their methodologies backed by experience? --Pgallert (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, science is full of operators and shit merchants who will seek fame by claiming an "AMAZING DISCOVERY" which is not borne out by painstaking laboratory analysis. You claim "Bulbophyllum clopathia" (an orchid you found near a path) is a new species? Prove it." Edison (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This species has been recognised since 1913. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, science is full of operators and shit merchants who will seek fame by claiming an "AMAZING DISCOVERY" which is not borne out by painstaking laboratory analysis. You claim "Bulbophyllum clopathia" (an orchid you found near a path) is a new species? Prove it." Edison (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an astonishing description of how botanists go about their science. Is your mistrust towards their methodologies backed by experience? --Pgallert (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements. I understand why the nom was made, but it now is a well-sourced, valid stub. Bearian (talk)
- Keep. If something is listed as a plant or animal species (not just a variety) in standard biological literature, it means that it has been described, with a fair amount of detail, in a "reliable source". Namely, some botanist or zoologist has at some point published an article in a peer-reviewed journal (or an equivalent venue) where he, at the very least, described a type specimen of the species. That article is, at least theoretically, can be read by anyone with access to a large academic library that keeps old journals in the field. Now, of course, a particular species may have been "closed" later on, when other experts claimed that e.g. the Brontosaurus is really the same thing as the Apatosaurus described by other researchers; but even in that case the "alternative name" (known as a "synonym (taxonomy)") should be kept by us as redirect, and the existence of that synonym (and the article that introduced it) ought to be mentioned in the respective article. Sometime there is a dispute as to whether a purported species claimed by one researcher is really a species or just a hybrid; (see e.g. Mauremys iversoni - possibly just a product of turtle farms). But even in that case the ensuing debate is documented by journal publications. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Described as a separate species" does not prove it is isolated reproductively. I could go downstairs and say "LOOK! An Orange cat. It must be a NEW SPECIES!" Did the flower fanciers do more than that to prove that this varient appearance is an isolated species? Edison (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're arguing against the biological species concept, and not successfully. Taxonomists use several very reliable indicators in different taxa to determine what are new species and what are subspecies, varieties, or forms. I mean this in the best possible way, but it takes years of training to appreciate the differences in forms, combined with biogeographical information, flowering time, or environment, that indicate a new plant is indeed a species not previously described. For example, I just returned from the International Carnivorous Plant Society conference in which a taxonomist was relating stories of his recent trips and preliminary data. He noted that preliminary data indicates there are several species present in a few different species complexes, but there is going to be a lot of hard work ahead to document them properly in order for their recognition. This is not hand-waving; this is hard science. Taxonomy is an educated and well-informed opinion, of course, and disagreements over taxa do occur. And we do rearrange things with new molecular information. And we new information arises, we update our plant articles! We could always use more help, though, care to quit griping and get writing? Rkitko (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal - as I proposed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurama (season 7), the question of what should happen with this article is best left to those writing the subject matter (in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants). AfD is not the best place to determine the correct species name, whether a species is distinct, etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously notable, as previously agreed and further discussed above. —innotata 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. It's generally been accepted that all species are notable, and Google finds plenty of stuff. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you use Google indiscriminately then you'll find items like our own article. These are not reliable because they are amateur and just repeat or catalogue the original finding. If you go to Google Scholar, then you'll find nothing for this species, nothing at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not in the habit of using Google indiscriminately. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Radagast3. All species are considered notable and their articles shouldn't be at AfD. See also WP:DEFACTO. —fetch·comms 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any verifiable species is inherently notable. This one has been Verified with Reliable Sources. First Light (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - like any other validly described species, it has been the subject of a scientific paper. The validity of this species is affirmed by secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: see the Granulifusus musasiensis AfD. As an obvious keep, it's clear the nominator made what must kindly be described as a mistake. This is not reason for comment-war. Close, move on, continue to improve this on-line encyclopaedia.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - species that is verifiable, so notable. Granted, the article could use some expansion, but it's notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I note there is one merge vote but not actually any delete votes. Snow is cold and hell is hot. StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, obviously. The nominator seems to have a problem with the biological species concept and a misunderstanding of what science requires when new species are named and how science operates when species are sunk into synonymy or shuffled around in rank. None of that is a reason to delete. Rkitko (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The species concept is rather dated, as discussed above, and seems problematic for Wikipedia in that estimates of species are of the order of 100,000,000 or so.
- Review of improvements Radagast3 and others have done some good work to improve the article's sourcing. I particularly like the Kew checklist which provides a good audit trail showing who accepted the entry and why. And now we have a link to the original entry in Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis so that now, for the first time, I learn what colour the plant is, ("Die Blüten sind weiss, das Labellum rot mit gelber Spitze."). I remain unconvinced that the plant has sufficient notability to warrant a full entry as we usually require multiple, detailed, independent sources for this. But we are now happily past the point where deletion would be sensible and so I shall withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Tully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm aware of the difficulties of trying to find sources about a dancer who's fame predates the internet but it was unsourced going on three years and all I could find is a single passing mention (and that's assuming it's actually the same person, given the common name). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I have no particular opinion about the article as it stands but there are references available.[17][18][19] Corporation Cart (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first link is already in the article (a mere passing reference), the second isn't (but also looks to be just a passing reference) and while it's awesome that he wrote an entire book last year, the fact that it's just in 6 libraries may be a concern (that and we should have secondary sources, not primary). Like I said, I really don't know what to do with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - despite a lack of direct sources, it seems that Mr.Tully passes the general notability test easily. The article needs wikifying and sources, however. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He fails WP:TEACHER and WP:BIO. I couldn't find any independent sources to establish notability, and the sources that were brought up by Corporation Cart mostly provide only passing references of him, as Ricky81682 mentioned. --Slon02 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he seems to have just had a standard career as a dancer/dance instructor/choreographer - I don't see any evidence of notability, even aside from the lack of sources. Yaron K. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramiro Helmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to have been a bit of an attack when it was created. Nothing much available in quality citations and what we found was pretty much one event anyways, as per this discussion at the BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Thor Halvorssen Hellum. Helmeyer seems to be known only for his role in the 1993 bombings. Redirect would at least enable content to be salvaged in the appropriate place. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to either an article about the bombings, or to an article about the drug trafficking group he seems to have been linked to (including Adolfo Ramírez Torres), which seems to have been responsible for the bombs? I don't like redirecting one person to another - it's often confusing, and even when it isn't, just doesn't feel right. Rd232 talk 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I filed the original BLP/N report on this. Beyond the one event, I really do not see the notability of this guy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a rough consensus to delete and after three weeks no sources have been presented for this BLP. Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colette Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP of professional bodybuilder. I'm not in a position to ascertain whether her achievements make her pass WP:ATHLETE, but it's at any rate not evident that they do. Sandstein 05:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it true that: "She was the only American to win the overall title at the World Universe." Is that a major tournament? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence to establish notability. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A champion athlete within her sport - although it is, admittedly, a fringe sport. The article needs sources, not deletion. Qalana (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only sources found were trivial or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feliu Ventura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician, claims of winning a minor magazine award, no RS can be found giving substantial coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Withdrawn, well done Phil. 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. I've put some sources in the article to substantiate this opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, I'm not sure exactly which of the WP:MUSIC criteria he is supposed to meet. The award seems to be a minor one (bestowed by a 'specialised' magazine), which doesn't strike me as a major award as described in criteria #8. The various collaborations don't scream "notability!" either, although I must admit I'm not familiar with Spanish music. If it could be clarified in detail how WP:MUSIC is met I'd be comfortable changing to "Keep". Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The subject meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC, which is more or less the same as the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Phil. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Excellent work by Phil Bridger, demonstrating clearly that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, or the general notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lance Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious promotional piece; no proof of notability. Playing a few gigs with the Goo Goo Dolls does not guarantee notability in itself. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He meets WP:MUSICBIO #7 as he is in the Buffalo Music Hall of Fame (not mentioned in article) and seems to be a big deal in Buffalo but that's it. The radio station he is on isn't national, so it doesn't meet #11. Overall, though I don't he meets notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSICBIO #7, as NortyNort mentioned. Since he meets that part of the criteria, he is notable enough to have an article. --Slon02 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – "Lance Diamond" + "Buffalo" gets 217 hits in my library's database. Now, it looks as if many are just gig listings—but many are not. I would argue "weak keep" in this kind of case where pretty much all of the articles are in local press, The Buffalo News, but the fact that articles span two decades counts for something, in my view: as we are both a general and a specialized encyclopedia, a singer that really does seem to be a "big deal" in a medium-sized city ought to be covered in Wikipedia. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Fajer Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted after being tagged as advertising, bringing here to community to assess after it was re-created. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up While there may be some promotional language among the sections, the company (specifically its Al Fajer Properties subsidiary) has been the subject of significant news coverage (not all of it very flattering). As long as the article can maintain a fair balance, I believe it deserves to be retained. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up per WikiDan61. There are enough reliable news sources for the article to verify notability, and the promotional language can be cleaned up. --Slon02 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up Needs some serious cleaning, stub it if you have to, but the subject itself clearly passes the verification criteria. Ryan Norton 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legislation and Policy Brief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article deprodded by creator. The subject is a relatively new journal with only 4 issues published yet. It does not appear to be indexed or abstracted anywhere and seems not even to have an ISSN. Not listed in such basic indexes as WorldCat, Library of Congress, or even JournalSeek. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:Ignore all rules. Everything that Crusio says is correct, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to delete this article. It's useful. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate notability. "The Legislation and Policy Brief is one of fifteen publications edited by law students at the Washington College of Law." One of FIFTEEN publications, at that one law school? Do we need articles on all of them??? At a minimum, let's wait until the indexing organizations decide this one is worth indexing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Washington_College_of_Law#Publications. It doesn't seem right to delete this publication, as Andrew Gradman said, but I don't think that we should ignore rules in this case, since the publication doesn't seem notable. I'd rather just take the useful information from this article and merge it into it's publisher's article so the information is not lost, but Wikipedia's policy on notability is still followed. --Slon02 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Significant publication. If we can have an article for every episode of South Park (and hurray for that, seriously), it's probably not going to kill the encyclopedia to have a dedicated page for every serious legal publication to come down the pike. Killing this would add nothing to the Wikipedia project and would reduce our information base. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And don't forget all the minor sports people that had 10 seconds of fame. But: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a significant publication. It is possible that we would do better to have articles on all actually published periodicals, but we have decided otherwise, and a reasonable amount of consistency is desirable. We have decided analagously for almost all topics, but otherwise I cannot make a valid analogy between the relative importance across totally disparate subject areas DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I searched every database I have access to. No one has ever heard of or cited the journal. Not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marti Rulli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP that does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability criteria. Perhaps one day they will have a "significant body of work", but there is only a single novel with a smattering of local reviews. The 'interviews' included are linked to blogs and personal websites. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V, 0 news hits, bio sources are all WP:SELFPUBLISH. Fails notability per WP:AUTHOR. --Whoosit (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Propaniac (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Korni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the article makes one claim of notability (won "Star Factory-1"), there are zero sources and no other claims of significance or importance. Google hits aren't too promising, with YouTube and directory sites as the primary hits. Having trouble finding an interview or review that indicates significance — Timneu22 · talk 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The PROD lasted five days and was removed by a sockpuppet of the article creator. The band is clearly not notable, and would have been deleted via WP:PROD save for abusive socking. Enigmamsg 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The following can be used as sources for the article. [20], [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], etc, etc,. They are more than notable. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources presented above show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The multiple sources noted by Russavia demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch·comms 02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thy Catafalque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC. They don't have multiple releases on notable labels, they have no third party coverage in independent reliable sources; all I've managed to find is webzines and blogs. No claims to notability whatsoever. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't have releases on notable labels, they are an underground act. However, I came across a review on Blabbermouth. It was deleted for an unknown reason. I might be able to find an archive. There is also a reference to Thy Catafalque on Post-Metal article. I am not sure either if this band meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I wouldn't delete it yet. If I don't find anything, probably the band is too underground for Wikipedia. — NikFreak (leave message)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of sources on Hungarian pages. There might be some translations. Also, there are some less popular reliable sites mentioning this band. The band seems to be pretty secretive, although they are fairly known in Avant-garde metal and Post-metal community. Some sources might be found, enough to make a very short article. I say we keep it for now. — Gahonzu (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both look distinctly like trivial mention to me, although I don't speak Hungarian. A single paragraph mentioning them in relation to another band doesn't qualify as extensive coverage in multiple third-party sources (per WP:MUSIC). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added references from two ezines to the article. And four albums in total seem to be a good reason to WP:Ignore the requirement of notable labels. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The band has been named on kultura.hu, a website maintained by the Hungarian Ministry of National Resources: [35] (the band pictured there is "Dalradia" though). I'd call that notable anyway. Here's an album review in Hungarian by what looks like a professional webzine. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The above sources seem to pass WP:RS Cyber ¤ Delia 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are loads of reliable sources about them on the internet; e.g. this article sais that their album 'Róka hasa rádió' is distributed and sold worldwide; the page is the online form of a Hungarian regional newspaper 'Délmagyarország/Délvilág', currently ranked 31th in the country according to the daily circulation. Encyclopaedia Metallum has an English article about them; here you can read an interview with one of the founders of the band. Quart.hu, a Hungarian music-related news site cites Rate Your Music by claiming they had the 3rd best international album in 2009. Discogs.com also created a page about them in English. --Burrows (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Additional sources: Thy Catafalque on ProgArchives.com and a Thy Catafalque interview in English --Aranyos (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The ezines clearly do not pass WP:RS in any way, shape or form. Prog Archives, like Discogs, MusicMight and Metal Archives do also not confer notability. That leaves the Hungarian sources, which I confess I am struggling to evaluate... being distributed worldwide is not a signifier of notability, and having released four albums is not grounds for invoking WP:IAR in the absence of coverage in reliable sources; in this case Hungarian media will be fine, as long as it is not simply a webzine. Print media distributed by a third-party source is your friend. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quart.hu is clearly not just a webzine, it's a professional page with an imprint. The kultura site is also reliable (government material). As to the article claiming worldwide distribution, the record distribution itself is not relevant but the source is the electronic form of Délmagyarország, an established print medium, so it is reliable and does create notability. Avantgard-metal.com (note #1 in the article), while looking semi-professional, has published printed magazines before and has a valid board of editors; it should not be disregarded. Epidemie records, the band's label is also not so trivial: they publish Aidan Baker's side project ARC and Aarni (and their split-off Nihil Umbra). All this adds up to passing the significance threshold. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, can't comment on the Hungarian sources as I'm struggling to ascertain their print status. However, I will repeat: Avant-garde-metal.com absolutely does not pass WP:RS; it has a couple of self-published releases (see fanzine) and is rejected out of hand. The label can't be used for notability without sourcing... notability is not inherited. I'd like to see more clarification about the Hungarian sources... the government one looked trivial (a single paragraph? Come on!) and the other you haven't made clear is print-published by a third-party source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I absolutely agree that metalarchives is a not any better than the yellow pages and can't be used I don't see how avantgarde-metal.com is a fanzine; but I guess we have a general disagreement when it comes to interpreting WP:RS, especially regarding online content. You're also right that notability is not inherited by the label, but with Epidemie and even more with Soyuz Music, which is in fact highly notable in terms of releases, the band has at least published one record on a notable label (see #5 at WP:MUSIC). Add to that the fact that a government source picks up on the circumstance, albeit in passing, that the band's last album has made a narrow 2nd place in a national Metal contest out of 70 or so albums. And then there is a full length interview from December 2009 in Hungarian on the website of the Hammer World print magazine who had previously published a shortened version in their November 2009 print issue (Google translation of the header). Add to that four online album reviews ("cd kritikák" > T) by a site that was once a print mag (see their "kontakt" link) plus quart.hu and the Délmagyarország news site. Sum it all up: notability established. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found this too: album review by powermetal.de, a German for profit website. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, can't comment on the Hungarian sources as I'm struggling to ascertain their print status. However, I will repeat: Avant-garde-metal.com absolutely does not pass WP:RS; it has a couple of self-published releases (see fanzine) and is rejected out of hand. The label can't be used for notability without sourcing... notability is not inherited. I'd like to see more clarification about the Hungarian sources... the government one looked trivial (a single paragraph? Come on!) and the other you haven't made clear is print-published by a third-party source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quart.hu is clearly not just a webzine, it's a professional page with an imprint. The kultura site is also reliable (government material). As to the article claiming worldwide distribution, the record distribution itself is not relevant but the source is the electronic form of Délmagyarország, an established print medium, so it is reliable and does create notability. Avantgard-metal.com (note #1 in the article), while looking semi-professional, has published printed magazines before and has a valid board of editors; it should not be disregarded. Epidemie records, the band's label is also not so trivial: they publish Aidan Baker's side project ARC and Aarni (and their split-off Nihil Umbra). All this adds up to passing the significance threshold. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephan H. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mr. Miller, age 24, is an advisor to and spokesman for the mayor of Jerusalem. As such, he gets quoted a lot in news articles when someone wants an official response from the mayor. But none of the cited sources indicate that Mr. Miller is himself notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He seems to have gotten enough coverage besides his role as a spokesperson. The quotes should be taken off right away.Wolfview (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help your case if you could identify which of the sources cited in the article, or others that you have found, have significant coverage and are independent and reliable, as required for notability. At the moment it looks like the article is simply bombarding us with references without actually demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is not the subject of profiles or any other in-depth coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Press secretaries are significant players. It is useful to know something about them and their politics, background. This article is well-sourced. There is a full profile in the The GW Hatchet. And another in a paper that you have to pay to access. Then you have major newspapers identifying him as "a foreign affairs aide and spokesman for Mr. Barkat," New York Times, "spokesman for Jerusalem city" The Economist and so forth. Frankly, I wish we had articles like this on every press secretary to a major political figure or institution.AMuseo (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A student newspaper article about an advisor to a student association election campaign in a single university can hardly be said to be the kind of substantial coverage required for notability. And neither can passing mentions that say nothing about the subject apart from his job, however illustrious the publications that they appear in. Some press secretaries are notable and others not. We judge that by the same standards that we use for any other article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article started by WP User Shmiller2. In the lead he refers to himself as a "rising" political consultant. That's enough for me to bang the gong right there under WP:SELFPROMOTINGPRICK... Carrite (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saturday Night Fever (musical cast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no prose content, seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTDIR. — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR - this seems more appropriate for IMDB or similar. Ryan Norton 10:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although this is by no means a reason to keep, what's the rationale for deleting this article but keeping articles such as List of Zoey 101 cast members, Billy Elliot the Musical casts, List of Tarantella casts, etc.? — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, none of these articles even have sources. Oh boy. At least the other ones have an intro and blue links. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Billy Elliot one does, but yeah, you're right. And there are a lot more articles like this out there. Hope I didn't open too much of a can of worms here. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Billy Elliot article has refs for each actor, but not an individual ref for the particular show that would indicate who was in it. That should be needed, I'd think, in that type of article. But yeah, we may be onto something here. — Timneu22 · talk 17:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Billy Elliot one does, but yeah, you're right. And there are a lot more articles like this out there. Hope I didn't open too much of a can of worms here. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, none of these articles even have sources. Oh boy. At least the other ones have an intro and blue links. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.