Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 2
Craig McKenzie
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 last AfD closed as keep, and the DRV endorsed that close. Bringing the same arguments back here after being rebuffed a mere five days ago is not productive. Hence, nomination closed. Let it run for a significant period of time before bringing this back here, if it needs to be at all. Courcelles (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popular cat names
- Popular cat names (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 purports to list the most popular cat names in many different countries. As you can plainly see, the article has plenty of sources. However, none of the sources corroborate the others' information. In other words, every last source has a different list of the top 10 cat names. This can be evidenced by the table that I created for the United States section in this revision. That table shows many different versions of the top 10 cat names in the United States, all provided by equally "reliable" and "verifiable" sources. In light of this, it becomes apparent that no authoritative list of the most popular cat names exists, presumably because no one has invested the time or money to do a scientific survey of a random sample of pet owners (and, to be sure, an analysis of a pet insurance company's customers is not a random sample, it is an analysis of pet names chosen by people who insure their cats). This disparity is not necessarily a shifting in the popularity of names over time (as some would argue), but rather the disparity is a result of a complete lack of reliable information based on scientific surveys and studies. Therefore, by providing a list of pet names (for any country) numbered from 1 to 10, we are implying that this is an authoritative list of the most popular names, and therefore we are providing false information and original research.
Furthermore, just because a fact can be sourced does not automatically mean that it is notable. Wikipedia is neither a directory of everything that exists or has existed nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.
Therefore, I submit that this article be deleted because its content is not notable, and because no authoritative source exists to provide accurate information on the subject. Extended arguments on this subject can be found on the previous AfD's for this article and on Talk:List of most popular cat names#Unreliable sources. SnottyWong talk 23:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep Do you have any reasons for deletion that weren't debated the other week? A renomination this quickly eats away at AfD resources. Give the article some months for improvement and return here if/when nothing happens. ThemFromSpace 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep. This went through AfD and DRV in May (2 weeks ago). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a request to admins at AN/I that this AfD be closed. [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:36, 3 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yulchon
- Yulchon (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 am nominating this article for deletion because I do not believe it meets the notability requirements as described in WP:ORG. Specifically, the article provides no references and I have been unable to find any significant coverage from independent sources on my own. Furthermore, the article reads as only an advertisement of the services the firm offers. Aka042 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've despammed the article and added a couple of references. Based on the Korean Times article, it is a large firm, and this article would indicate that it has high profile employees. I suspect that as a Korean based firm, there's more to be found in non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the improvements made by Whpq, which establish notability. TJRC (talk) 20:31, 4 June 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 Transwiki to Commons. Transwiki to Commons (non-admin closure) --moreno oso (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of triband flags
- Gallery of triband flags (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:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of square flags, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of flags with stars, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags. —fetch·comms 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating the related:
- Gallery of quartered flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of striped flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of bordered flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with cantons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with circles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with crescents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Flags with crosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with triangles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags with headgear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gallery of flags by design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All the above are unsourced, have weak inclusion criteria, and do not pass WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Notice that Gallery of solid flags, Gallery of inscribed flags, Gallery of astronomical flags, and Gallery of flags with weapons are all soft redirects to Commons; Gallery of bicolor flags was deleted as transwikied; Commons currently hosts commons:Flags with stars, commons:Flags with animals, commons:Flags with humans, commons:Gallery of nautical flags, commons:Flags with buildings, commons:Flags with flags commons:Flags with cantons, which is similar to Gallery of flags with cantons, commons:Geographical flags, and commons:Flags with devices. If these are deleted, I see no reason to retain Gallery of flags by design, either. —fetch·comms 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. (Whichever ones don't already exist there) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Well, if you delete that you will leave the List of flags template full of redlinks. my second choice would be move it to Commons. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we just remove the redlinks or change them to interwikis--it's easy to solve. —fetch·comms 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you note, half the links in the template already go to Commons. —fetch·comms 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons As mentioned above. --Pstanton (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki all. WP:NOTREPOSITORY, etc., and per nom. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 11 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester Busy Bees
- Manchester Busy Bees (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)
Contested prod. No credible claim to verifiable notability. CosmicJake (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of WP:notability, i.e. of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No hits whatsoever from Google News, Books or Scholar searches above, and hits from Google web are either irrelevant (concerning a laundry service or a nursery school) or are not WP:reliable sources. Also I suspect the section describing the dance moves in detail may be in WP:Copyright violation of the "75th Anniversary Book" mentioned. Qwfp (talk) 09:14, 3 June 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 Transwiki to Commons.. Tone 14:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of armed forces flags
- Gallery of armed forces flags (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:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. —fetch·comms 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rename to "List of...". The content is an encyclopedic staple. See List of Canadian flags for a model, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian flags for a recent comparable AfD. Ty 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should remove all the non-free images in this list also? That's all very well with me, but this is still an image gallery without much supporting text. In this list rename, would it be reformatted, or what? —fetch·comms 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is not about the inclusion of non-free images in the article; it's about whether we should keep or delete the article. The discussion about the article content can take place in the normal fashion on the article talk page and elsewhere. However, the presence of non-free images is a strong argument for not moving to Commons, as Commons does not allow non-free images, so by default does not have the potential to provide a full reference treatment of this subject. Wikipedia does allow non-free images, when they are important for our encyclopedic and educative mandate. Treatment of the article in the "list rename" can be found at WP:LIST and in numerous list articles, including WP:FL. Ty 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does allow non-free content, but only on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's unlikely that the use of so non-free flags here passes the NFCC. —fetch·comms 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, as I have said, a standard editing matter, not an AfD one. Ty 17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does allow non-free content, but only on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's unlikely that the use of so non-free flags here passes the NFCC. —fetch·comms 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is not about the inclusion of non-free images in the article; it's about whether we should keep or delete the article. The discussion about the article content can take place in the normal fashion on the article talk page and elsewhere. However, the presence of non-free images is a strong argument for not moving to Commons, as Commons does not allow non-free images, so by default does not have the potential to provide a full reference treatment of this subject. Wikipedia does allow non-free images, when they are important for our encyclopedic and educative mandate. Treatment of the article in the "list rename" can be found at WP:LIST and in numerous list articles, including WP:FL. Ty 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it would be OK if it was called List of armed forces flags, as Commons doesn't do lists? Ty 23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A rose by any other name... Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it would be OK if it was called List of armed forces flags, as Commons doesn't do lists? Ty 23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to the Commons. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons, which is a much better fit for this material. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Ty 17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement of "transwiki to commons" is not a substantial argument. It needs to be shown why this material is more suitable for Commons and should not be part of an encyclopedia. There seems to be an assumption that Wikipedia does not host such material, but this is not true. The recent debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of sovereign-state flags resulted in keep. As Stifle has confirmed, this could with equal validity be termed List of armed forces flags. A list of flags can be a featured list, as with List of Polish flags. I agree the article is not suitable as it stands, but it has the basis of being a suitable article with appropriate textual commentary. I note that, until I just added it, the AfD was not listed at the list of Military-related deletion discussions. It is also categorised as I, "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic". There needs to be more time for input from editors interested in the topic, who might be prepared to work on the article, or alternatively give sound reasons why this coverage is not appropriate, e.g. members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, but who so far probably have not even seen the AfD. Ty 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons. This is indeed a substantial argument, and Ty misrepresents the guidelines on images in disparaging it. There have to be very clear reasons to keep galleries on wikipedia, and AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army show that this type of ill-assorted list without commentary do not rightfully have a place. If Ty is looking for input from the Milhisters who watch such deletion debates, my belief would be that any consensus would be against retention. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Transwiki to Commons" isn't an argument; it's a conclusion, just as "keep" and "delete" are; all of them need to be supported by an argument. I have stated above "the article is not suitable as it stands", but suggested that the topic itself is notable and suitable for Wikipedia "with appropriate textual commentary". Your argument seems to be that we should judge it as it now appears, not as it could be if properly edited. This is not normally a rationale for deletion. If you mean that Milhisters would not see a gallery or list of armed forces flags, even if well organised and with appropriate sourced commentary, as being valid, then that would be an argument to transwiki. If that is the case, I would consider their opinion to carry considerable weight, but the rationale for that should be explained. That rationale cannot simply be that we do not host these types of articles, as clearly we do, and they can, like List of Polish flags, reach featured status. Ty 05:01, 12 June 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 Transwiki to Commons. Tone 14:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flags of the American Revolution
- Flags of the American Revolution (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:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. —fetch·comms 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a list or a proper article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons, which is a much better fit for this material. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 11 June 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 Transwiki to Commons. Tone 14:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of Choctaw Native Americans
- Gallery of Choctaw Native Americans (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:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. —fetch·comms 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are suggesting transwiki? Ty 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep informative, visual and extremely pertinent to all Native American visual arts articles, of which there are several...Modernist (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Modernist. This is not a "mere collection" as referenced in WP:NOTREPOSITORY but an encyclopedic, in-context image gallery that serves as a valuable adjunct to Choctaw. Wikipedia could use more of these, not fewer.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So we can't have informative, relevant image galleries on Commons? I'm not sure why there needs to be a whole page of just images (and captions) of Choctaw people--the pertinent ones ought to be in whatever article they correspond to. There's no need for a Gallery of Germans or a Gallery of Druze; this gallery is never going to be near complete, and as useful as these images are, they should not make up an article by themselves. —fetch·comms 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find it useful and informative. It serves as a helpful guide to readers who are researching Native Americans, in particular the Choctaw tribe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki - Some text that describes the imagery, but not enough to be considered encyclopedic in nature keep here. The Commons seems to be a better place for this gallery. --Dlrohrer2003 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki per Dlroher and fetcomms comments above, this simply fits better on commons than here Yoenit (talk) 13:44, 8 June 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 transwiki to Commons. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of Durham University
- Gallery of Durham University (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)
Obviously fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY. This should be copied to Commons. —fetch·comms 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per indepent source of galleries/pictures, Ignore all rules and the Bill of Rights. By the rationale for deletion, there is no reason for Wikipedia to have the abiility to store media files of any type. Users should have the ability, no the right to determine where their works are stored. In my own case, I have googled my username and media pictures that I released into the public domain are being used for advertisements which is not what I desired. Had I known that others would corrupt my works in this way, I would (and will in the future) carefully consider where and how I license media files. Freedom on Wikipedia should not determined by the few even in an AfD. Granted the "D" is debate, but most users now interpret it to be DELETE. Ignore all rules and keep this basic freedom to determine when and how media files are stored. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTREPOSITORY specifically mentions pages that are mere galleries of images, not every image altogether. Wikimedia Commons is the appropriate place for large galleries as these--maybe that's why we have no Gallery of Duke University, or a List of galleries of universities? In any case, if you release a work into the public domain, it can be used for any purpose, so if you don't want it in ads, don't make it PD. It's not corruption, it's your own fault for making your work PD. There are plenty of noncommercial licenses available, so that just means you can't upload them here under an NC license. I see no convincing argument on your part to keep this--WP:INDY has to do with reliable sources--none of which appear in the gallery, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to keeping this page here in any forseeable way. —fetch·comms 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons - The images in this gallery are not described in much of an encyclopedic manner. So until they are I'd say move the gallery over to the Commons. --Dlrohrer2003 23:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Commons - morenooso's argument makes no sense at all, this belongs on commons Yoenit (talk) 13:48, 8 June 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.
Geoff Gehrke
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of most sad English songs
- List of most sad English songs (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 list like this is always going to be problematic. This is purely opinion, and there doesn't seem to be a reliable source for this. This is different from Time 100 or Afi 100, which publish their own notable lists. The current text on this article is from "AOL music" -- is that a reputable source for this type of list? And if it is, where is the reference? Any reference at all? In short: a problematic, opinion list without any sources is the primary reason for this AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 22:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Little prospect of LSC being addressed in the future as per the nomination; in particular the criteria being unambiguous and objective. Fæ (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Who knew Billie Holliday and Johnny Cash (among others) were English? This list is extremely incoherent—if it's a list of songs by English (i.e. British) musicians then it's just inaccurate, if it's a list of songs by artists who sing in the English language then it's just weird. As the other two editors mention, there's no way to determine what songs are "most sad" and thus no way to construct the list in a neutral way. Deletion is really the only option here, though the list did well to mention I Know It's Over—that song is totally sad, but to the point of being hilarious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Sad" is a value judgement WP:LISTV--Savonneux (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is for facts not opinions. And there are some other songs that I think are much sadder than some of these, how about Both Sides Now? Wolfview (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - AOL's opinion or poll is not notable. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is too subjective to be encyclopedic. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This poll isn't even properly referenced, much less notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The source is apparently this [2] list of 20 songs. Even back in the 90s when America Online was the most popular internet service, it would only have been among the many different things on aol.com, most of which didn't attract notice anywhere else. I think it's virtually useless, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it has no information about what makes any of the songs sad. Mandsford 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely subjective. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete AOL still exists? Gobonobo T C 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No list of saddest English songs that omits this or this can possibly be worth keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Or this or this or this? It would be fun to make such a list - we would all have our favorites - but Wikipedia is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 9 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serial organization
- Serial organization (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 dictionary-like entry on a seemingly vague topic. Pnm (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Serial organization is relevant in many different areas but the details are specific to the topic and renders this article a dictionary definition. Any expansion would be best served as part of the specific topic. For example, writing about serial organisation in the congitive sciences is different from serial orgnisation in biology. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:50, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inverse search engine
- Inverse search engine (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)
As there only appears to be a single "inverse search engine" available online at the moment, this article fails WP:Notability and may well be a subtle form of WP:Spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like WP:OR with no WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only 2 hits in google news. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:08, 9 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forbidden Boingo
- Forbidden Boingo (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 bootleg/pirate album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this bootleg fan-made compilation. Showing up on a lot of torrent sites doesn't equate to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series
- List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (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 should have made a group nomination instead, but despite it making an attempt at third party sources rather than throw in a bunch of character quotes, it still suffers from failing WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:FICT. Rohedin TALK 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Parallel AfD discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The following AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_gangs_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_series was omitted from the AfD list above. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only of interest to players of the game, and then either as a "how to" feature (against WP not a how to) or else a "yeah isn't that cool" feature (fancruft). The whole list should be boiled down to one sentence in the main article on the game, something like: "The game features gangs of various races and ethnicities with which players can interact, helping or hurting them." Wolfview (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This belongs on a gaming/GTA wiki, not here. Almost all of the list is unsourced and will never receive more coverage by media. It suffers from excessive fancruft and OR details that cannot be sourced. The individual gangs of the game do not inherit notability from the game and no reliable secondary sources establish enough notability to list every gang in such detail. This is nice, useful trivia for fans, but that is in direct contradiction to WP inclusion criteria. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fictional elements that should be covered in the plot synopsis and gameplay sections of the relevant games. Marasmusine (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per. WP:IINFO. Claritas § 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks the reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N or WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:02, 9 June 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. The "keep" opinion does not address the article's lack of reliable sources covering the subject. Sandstein 06:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mensa BE
- Mensa BE (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)
Having articles for individual national groups of Mensa International is a Bad Idea, as noted in Talk:American Mensa, which was deleted and redirected a few years ago (note that Mensa Switzerland is also a redirect) ... this article also lacks WP:RS to satisfy the WP:INC criteria. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty much all the article says is that Mensa has a chapter in Belgium. A list of national chapters' websites on external links in Mensa should do the job. I'm sure members of this organization are smart enough to understand that and will not be offended. :-) Wolfview (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG and general precedent against articles on local branches of large clubs (in this case, there's 50 of them). A redirect to the main article would be okay, if only to discourage re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conserve Can you image the size of the article Mensa if it describes national activities? We need too this kind of article to link subjects like IQ, gifted people at national level. I observe too that this kind of subject is not very well appreciate, extremely weird regarding articles on subjects like supporter clubs ... --Hcrepin (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 3 June 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) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Brackins
- Daniel Brackins (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:BIO for lack of substantial independent coverage. Independent coverage in the references provided is limited to a few lines in a local publication concerning his unsuccessful candidature for the US Congress; this does not suffice for notability. (Note: the Daniel Brackins who was the subject of the earlier AfD, a martial artist, is apparently a different and also not notable person.) Sandstein 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Nsk92. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A couple of mentions in local news, but no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BIO. --Qwfp (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant presence in Google news nor Google scholar; a long list of "publications" means nothing if there is no evidence that they have made an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google search indicates a large web presence with notable impact in libertarian circles as well as local news publications. He was also cited by a libertarian think tank [3] Iconoclast2007 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)— Iconoclast2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Can you provide links to this "large web presence" where it manifests itself in substantial coverage by reliable sources? The link you provide, [4], is neither: it's a brief citation in a blog. Sandstein 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numerous entries found when searching "Daniel Brackins" economics [5] Found at least two papers [6] and [7]. His website also seems to have notable impact with over 600 followers [8]. Gives talks to group on economic crisis with introduction by Ken Schoolland, a known libertarian economist [9] -- Yoshitora2001 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)— Yoshitora2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Google hits (see WP:GHITS), websites and (self-published web-)publications in any form do not confer notability. See WP:BIO for the relevant criteria. What matters is whether other people have taken note of him and written enough about him in reliable sources to give us the basis of a verifiable article. Sandstein 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in the article makes me think there's enough to go on. "notable impact with over 600 followers"? If they were all top-flight politicians (presidents, PMs, etc) maybe. 600 odd bods, no. The appearance of Single Purpose Accounts does nothing to help the case for survival, and if carried on may in fact hinder it. Be advised. Peridon (talk) 23:32, 5 June 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. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss Management Center
- Swiss Management Center (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:N, as in the previous AfD. The references given do not constitute substantial independent coverage. The Newsweek links are advertisements, and the rest of the references are mere rankings, indices, listings etc.; not the sort of coverage that indicates notability. Sandstein 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree with the assertion above that the cited sources do not indicate notability. Although fatally flawed, rankings are immensely important to the general public and the high rankings possessed by this institution convey de facto notability. Furthermore, there is an assumption of notability for accredited institutions. (I agree, however, that the article needs considerable work and should more clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject.) ElKevbo (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an accredited degree granting intitution with some coverage in reliable sources. [10] and [11] supplement the ranking inclusions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This university is just about as notable as other universities such as the University of Phoenix or Argosy University. Further it has been ranked by the Financial Times, a well known publication that also ranks schools such as Harvard University. Also accreditation is a valid and reliable source. A Google search will indicate that the professors there have published research. Iconoclast2007 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this article is seems that they are now named SMC University: [12] I would suggest changing the Wikipedia article title to SMC University. Iconoclast2007 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have edited the article to accurately describe the Financial Times source, which says in a note at the bottom, "40 of the top online MBA providers. Schools are listed by the number of enrolled distance learning MBA students. This is not a comprehensive list." Thus it is not being described by the FT as one of the ten best online schools in the world. I would also note that being accredited cannot be a reason for notability without consideration of the status of the accrediting bodies. I don't know anything about the accrediting bodies for this college, but if they are being used to support notability then some evidence should be presented that they are reputable, as there is no such evidence in their Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their accreditor is CHEA-recognized; no other assertion of reputability should be needed. ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CHEA doesn't appear to list any program of this school as accredited, see [13] (note that every other school listed has "business" listed in the "accredited program" column but that column for the Swiss Management Center is blank) and the specific entry for the Swiss Management Center which also has no accredited program listed. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the specific details of ACBSP accreditation so I can't really explain things. But their website says that this institution is accredited. (I wonder if some of the confusion may be related to the fact that ACBSP is an American accreditor but this institution is Swiss...?) ElKevbo (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CHEA doesn't appear to list any program of this school as accredited, see [13] (note that every other school listed has "business" listed in the "accredited program" column but that column for the Swiss Management Center is blank) and the specific entry for the Swiss Management Center which also has no accredited program listed. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their accreditor is CHEA-recognized; no other assertion of reputability should be needed. ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - School appears to be accredited by at least two relevant accreditation bodies, and there are adequate sources available to write a useful article. DickClarkMises (talk) 08:33, 6 June 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. The "keep" opinions do not adequately address the violation of WP:NOR, a core policy, inherent in compiling an editors' selection of "important" works, which does not cite any reliable sources that consider these works "important". This does not prevent a recreation of this list in a form that does not require original research. Sandstein 06:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of important publications in sociology
- List of important publications in sociology (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 does not seem like a proper subject for a WP article. How do we know which publications are important and which not? There are no references given, and even if there were they would only reflect their own authors' opinions. Wouldn't it be better to just mention the books in Sociology or History of sociology? Then each publication's importance could be explained. Wolfview (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Have you actually seen the criteria at the top of the article? They;re the usual ones used for such a list, and the inclusion of ay particular item is normally discussed on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like group OR to me. I do agree that the information is useful to people studying the topic. Wolfview (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the inclusion criteria make it encyclopedic to me. If everything is sourced, which could be improved, then there's no more OR. But article issues should not make it a delete. —fetch·comms 23:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the content and basic concept. Not sure about the "important" in the article title. That would probably be best explained in the introductory text. Ty 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems like a useful list...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's on a serious subject, and useful, and I'm not going to say delete-- but let's face it, Wolfview is entirely right that this is 100% original research... Mandsford 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it seems to me that deciding if something is "important" is no more OR than deciding if something is "notable". Of course the list could be improved by documenting which of the criteria the entries meet. Polarpanda (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:LIST, DGG, and Polarpanda. It is a useful list for students, our core users, and not completely random. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I respect the effort, but when it comes down to it, this is un-salvageable, unencyclopedic, original research. Wikipedia is not a syllabus or literature review, it's an encyclopedia. I would remind other editors that "usefulness" is not a criterion for notability. A publication is a single work that fits into a larger historical, theoretical, methodological, or biographical narrative: why is this work important? what motivated it? what scholars and work did it influence? how has it been interpreted or challenged? There's no attempt to explicate these contexts (nor can there be in a "list" format); just an ad-hoc section structure with a few bullet points. If there were such a structure, this information should be on the Sociology or author's articles. The inclusion criteria are so broad as to be laughable. The content should only be saved if this is moved to some Sociology Wikiproject support page. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, if one is interested in bibliometric statistics, it's feasible that this article could be retitled and reimagined as a "List of most cited articles in sociology." Even with such a distinct criteria as this, it's obvious the article would still be an indiscriminate collection of information. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets criteria for WP:Lists. Inclusion criteria could be strengthened but is by no means vague. There are many Sociology Bibliographies, this for one, [14] that would be sufficient to source individual list entries.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Due to vague inclusion criteria and due to original research that is inherent in the list name. --PinkBull 02:26, 10 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bim from Clear Light of Day
- Bim from Clear Light of Day (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)
POV-pushing article (or should I say essay?) about a character from a book that doesn't even have an article on here (the author of the book does, but redirecting to that would be a stretch). Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not much to add to the above other than it reads like someone's middle-school homework assignment. The author is of course notable, but this wouldn't be a useful redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Cullen (musician)
- James Cullen (musician) (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:NN musician. Fails WP:BAND Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Argolin (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've been watching this article since it was first created, and was unable to understand why another editor withdrew his own CSD A7 request. I believe it should have been speedy deleted on day-one, but was hesitant to over-ride another contributor's decision to withdraw the tag. -- WikHead (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It appears that he has found some modest success on canadian university campus radio stations as documented in the article. However, there is no coverage about him in reliable sources that i can find. Good luck to him in his career. No prejudice to recreation if he can build upon his college campsu success and get the coverage that would establish nt9oability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era
- List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era (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)
We already have an article named List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series, and almost all the references are straight from the quotes of the characters from the era. This should not have been it's own article completely independent from the main list. Rohedin TALK 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to branch listcruft into more listcruft. It looks like this material is sufficiently covered in the uberlist; delete from here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Delete and Move to appropriate Wiki. This is fancruft, trivia, not-notable and undue. A short list may be best in the main list article, but a separate article - no way. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this NN spinout, and severely improve the list from which it originated. Both articles suck at the moment, but there's room for an encyclopedic list of elements that span multiple fictional works within a franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both Lists Wow. I thought WP was written for the general public, not for players of a game to talk to each other. Wolfview (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite second the other list being deleted and short mentioned placed in main article instead. Fancruft beyond fancruft. — Hellknowz ▎talk 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least the other list gives an attempt at third party sources. Rohedin TALK 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite second the other list being deleted and short mentioned placed in main article instead. Fancruft beyond fancruft. — Hellknowz ▎talk 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - a small mention in the prose of Grand Theft Auto (series) or List of Grand Theft Auto III characters (and subsequent articles) is about all this deserves. --Teancum (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep both --Vic49 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. A parallel AfD is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (2nd nomination). — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both neither has the reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N or WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 9 June 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. There was some support for a merger with August Erker, but not enough that I should close that way. Naturally, anyone wishing to perform such a merge is encouraged to boldly do so, or open a discussion on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erker's Optical
- Erker's Optical (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)
Searching Google News and Books do not deliver any sources that suggest notability for this company. The one source provided is not enough to pass notability thresholds. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep The (reliable) source states that it is "the oldest family owned optical company in the United States" which asserts some significance. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if sourced. I saw this article while patrolling new pages. The original title was horrendous, and it has been renamed. I know nothing of this topic, and the article doesn't provide much info. The article does assert claims of notability but does not back up those claims with reliable sources. I vote delete unless someone can get valid sources, then keep. — Timneu22 · talk 19:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timneu, are you saying keep or delete? "Keep if sourced" and "delete unless sourced" boils down, I think, to the same thing, but the closing administrator can't rightly know at which time the article has had sources added for your initial delete (?) to be turned into a keep. Drmies (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I question the reliability of the lone source in that local business papers are not know to critically examine and follow-up on what they are told in interviews. In all likelihood, the St. Louis Business Journal is reporting what they have been told by the owners of the store. The main claim-to-fame of the business is that they were the official photographer for the 1904 World's Fair, however, I have different sources stating that William Rau was the official photographer of that event ([15][16]) and others stating that Jessie Beals was ([17][18][19]. Location (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So it seems there were several official photographers, including Beals and Rau. This source also states that Jessie Beals "became an official photographer", not the official one. Therefore I think it is absolutely possible that Erker's also sent an accredited photographer. De728631 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with August Erker. Rau and Beals were well known photographers and there are plenty of sources documenting their work. The same cannot be said of this subject. Given that Erker's was/is in St. Louis, it is more likely that they simply supplied material to photographers: [20][21][22]. The founder's brother, August Erker was a (non-notable) photographer [23] but he was a gold medalist at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics.[24] (Search Google News and Books for August and AP Erker to see if you dig up anything more substantial. I think there is more on AP, but nothing I would consider as encyclopedic or as noteworthy as August's achievements.) Location (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is pretty well an advertisement for a St. Louis retailer of eyeglasses and contact lenses, posing as a historical article about a famous photography studio. I'd have to see a source from 1904 as proof of whether the photographer was as notable as the specs company PR says it is. While the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair was notable, that doesn't mean that everything associated with it was. I'd like to see the article about August Erker expanded to include more than his athletic accomplishments, but I don't see this as a redirect to him either. Mandsford 12:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per De728631 at top and expand with August Erker info above, or merge as suggested. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Above user was blocked shortly afterwards for sock puppetry. Location (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This company may not be directly significant to history, but it's one of those little stories that dips into history on occasion. They were the official photographers for the 1904 World's Fair. This company may not have organized the fair of built the buildings, but they still played a role in the fair. The company supplied eyeglasses for Charles Lindbergh. They weren't sitting in the plane when Lindbergh flew over the Atlantic, but they were still involved in that event in a small way. Also, the co-founder was an athlete who competed in the first Olympic Games ever to be held in the United States. Loopygrumpkins (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the trouble with the "official photographers" and "supplied Charles Lindbergh" claims is that the only source for this is the company itself. (The local business journal simply appears to be reiterating their claims.) It could be true, but there is a lack of independent reliable sources for the main claim to notability. Certainly too weak, in my opinion, for a stand-alone article.Location (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Official photographers of the 1904 World's Fair, whose pictures were seen around the world, and preserved for history. What could make a photograph company more notable more than that? Plus the stuff Location mentions makes it notable. And as De728631 said up top, if its "the oldest family owned optical company in the United States" then its notable for that. Dream Focus 03:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient historical notability DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with August Erker until there is enough information to make more than a stub. SnottyWong talk 22:22, 9 June 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 main issues here concern WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. However, a sourced article can legitimately be about events that have not happened. Also, much of the parts that read like original research have been cleaned up (see diff). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars sequel trilogy
- Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy
- Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (5th nomination)
- Star Wars sequel trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, with slight failings of WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. This is an article about a set of films that are never going to be made and the article (even the opening paragraph) confirms this - "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series...currently, there are no firm plans to produce such films". Merge any worthy content to Star Wars, but otherwise this is worthless. Even though Lucas has touched upon the issue, it is trivial. Dalejenkins | 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge and redirect to Star Wars. --EEMIV (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. In the words of the article itself, "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series". Whether the article has 14 citations or 400, all it can ever add up to is vague speculation stitched together from here and there. Heck, half of the article seems to be quotes from George Lucas himself insisting that there is no third trilogy. There's no subject here to write about. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Crystal doesn't apply, since it's all verifiable, as far as I can tell. If it's merged, it can't be deleted per the GFDL. Notability is established by the references. It's disinterestedly written, so OR doesn't apply. TRIVIA doesn't apply because there is an obvious thread tying this information together, as well as its been filtered by the sources. FANCRUFT is an essay and in the eye of the beholder, and a number of people find the term offensive, so you may want to avoid using it as a reason to delete in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peregrine_Fisher. Article is more than adequately sources with many reliable citations. While Lucasfilm's "official story" on the sequel films *now* is that they were never planned, this is historically inaccurate, based on relevant cites over the years. And, as shown by the wealth of information here, this would overwhelm the main Star Wars article, and a separate topic is justified. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge per EEMIV.--Iner22 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a valid topic with reliable sources establishing notability. OR (if any) can be dealt with editing. Jmundo 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Do you guys realise this is an article about something that does not but one day might exist? That is not deserving of an entire article for itself, no matter how many references it has. I mean, WP:CRYSTAL says we have to delete an article about a film that exists but has not been released, yet here is an article about a film that does not exist nor is anybody planning to start making it. In conclusion, the logical decision is to merge it into the article about the film series. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It has enough references to pass both that, and WP:N. Even if it does have bits of trivia, it's sourced enough to not fail WP:OR, and even if it were WP:FANCRUFT, it's not unreasonable to say that the Star Wars fan base is big enough that (contrary to the essay), content is of importance to a large population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Update: I should probably point out that the main reason I'm opposed to just merging to Star Wars is because that article is too long as it is, and leaving this one separate makes it easier than merging and having to trim/fork off something else. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is claiming the exact opposite. It says that NO progress has been made on making another Star Wars trilogy. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're referring to the quote from WP:CRYSTAL, but I really don't see how no progress is contrary to that statement. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to exercise some logic here. I mean, there could be a ton of references indicating that there is no chance in hell a sequel to Citizen Kane will ever be made. Yet, we're not going to make an article called "Why Citizen Kane Does Not Have a Sequel" are we? I'm not advocating the deletion of this information completely, but there is no need to have a separate article about something that does not, nor ever will, exist no matter how many nerds have dreamed it should. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true, but at the same time the whole reason this is a notable topic is because according to multiple reliable sources at one point in time Lucas had expressed a desire to create a sequel trilogy. I think the fact that it is clear that at one point in time there were to be more movies made, and for that plan to completely disappear and furthermore be denied by the very people who planned it in the first place is the reason why there is significantly more diverse coverage in reliable sources than just a million sources that all say it will never happen, thus making it Wikipedia-worthy (IMO). Also, see my updated comment about merging the content above. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to exercise some logic here. I mean, there could be a ton of references indicating that there is no chance in hell a sequel to Citizen Kane will ever be made. Yet, we're not going to make an article called "Why Citizen Kane Does Not Have a Sequel" are we? I'm not advocating the deletion of this information completely, but there is no need to have a separate article about something that does not, nor ever will, exist no matter how many nerds have dreamed it should. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're referring to the quote from WP:CRYSTAL, but I really don't see how no progress is contrary to that statement. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is claiming the exact opposite. It says that NO progress has been made on making another Star Wars trilogy. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dalejenkins. No such films exist or will exist. At most it deserves a small mention in the main Star Wars article. Not notable enough to warrant a article on what at one point was a possible trilogy but never happened. TJ Spyke 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no reason at all why a proposed project would actually have to be made to be notable. There are well-documented discussions about the possibility that such films would be made, and therefore there is no reason we cannot document the discussions. The article meets all relevant standards: it passes all of WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NOT. As WP:CRYSTAL clearly states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That sentence could have been written with this article in mind. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, given the huge notability of Star Wars as a franchise, any credible discussions of further films to be made in the series are clearly not "trivial" as the nominator suggests. These discussions were credible when they first came to light, and as notability is not temporary, that means they are not trivial now. JulesH (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. During an earlier discussion, I found a few other sources that might be useful. This article, which originally came from the Star Ledger, was probably the best. (It's also available from Newsbank. Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That source is from an internet forum, so therefore fails WP:RS in a spectacular fashion. Dalejenkins | 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sppedy Keep Evidently notable and the nomination proposes a merger. I've often wondered myself what was happening about the final three episodes and expect that they will eventually come. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. My essential point is that topic is notable. The rest is just a personal anecdote for general interest of the editors who must labour through this tiresome repeat nomination which is disruptive, per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And which part of that has been broken exactly? Here is not the place to air your views I'm afraid - please read WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG. This AFD is far from distruptive, I sense the sour grapes of a Star Wars fan.... Dalejenkins | 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see: It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was last nominated 4 years ago by a different nominator. What a silly statement. Dalejenkins | 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems much improved since then while the arguments for deletion have not. What new fact have you brought to occasion this discussion? Anyway, I see that your nomination proposes merger and so this discussion should be speedily closed as an improper process for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD came to no consensus, so the delete arguments still stand. It's also interesting to note that your keep arguments appear to be the same. Also, whereas myself and others who want the article deleted have stated their reasons in deep explination, you have bluntly said that the subject is notable and have not expanded on it. Remember that AFD is a debate, not a poll. Clearly, you have not read WP:SPEEDY to. Dalejenkins | 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last AFD was 2 years ago, not 4 ([25]). JulesH (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems much improved since then while the arguments for deletion have not. What new fact have you brought to occasion this discussion? Anyway, I see that your nomination proposes merger and so this discussion should be speedily closed as an improper process for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was last nominated 4 years ago by a different nominator. What a silly statement. Dalejenkins | 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see: It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are lots of reliable sources about plenty of movies that are not going to be made. This seems like a non-topic, like Betamax in the 21st century. This could be blanked and merged instead of deleted, but I don't think there is much to salvage. If the movies are every made(sorry fans this is not going to happen) then is can be restored. Chillum 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Khalfani_khaldun. The article seems sufficiently referenced with reliable third party sources. Also (and even though I know someone's gonna throw WP:OTHERSTUFF up because of this) I find this little different from such unmade or cancelled films such as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, The Alien, Godzilla vs. Frankenstein, or Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main issue with your agrument is that all of the pieces that you point out were all actually produced or were in production, whereas the Star Wars sequel trilogy has never even been written or considered. For more detail:
- The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was temporarily cancelled, but is now in production again.
- The Alien was eventually adapted into a TV series
- Godzilla vs. Frankenstein probably should be merged with King Kong vs. Godzilla, I'll give you that, but again, it was actually written.
- Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil seems to have whole books or whole segments of books written on the issue.
- The Star Wars sequels have nothing in common with any of these and, despite the fact that you mention it, WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies, so I shouldn't have really wasted my time... Dalejenkins | 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, the speculation about a Star Wars sequel trilogy has received a lot of coverage in its own right. And many people (not just Star Wars fanatics) are curious about this topic. The article routinely gets a couple hundred views each day: [26]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether 3 or 3million people view this daily, it still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. And Wikipedia is not a fan site, this content belongs there, not on an academic encyclopedia. Dalejenkins | 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) This isn't "unverifiable speculation". The article makes no claims about the future. It simply summarizes what has been said about the possibility of a sequel trilogy. 2) What's trivial to you is useful information to others. It's all subjective. 3) There are several academic journals devoted to pop culture, and at least a few college courses about Star Wars, specifically. Pop culture has a place here. And what the heck, it's not like you're writing articles about T.S. Eliot or Soren Kierkegaard. Most of your articles are about British reality TV shows. Zagalejo^^^ 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether 3 or 3million people view this daily, it still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. And Wikipedia is not a fan site, this content belongs there, not on an academic encyclopedia. Dalejenkins | 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, the speculation about a Star Wars sequel trilogy has received a lot of coverage in its own right. And many people (not just Star Wars fanatics) are curious about this topic. The article routinely gets a couple hundred views each day: [26]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even going to acknowledge that comment with a response. WP:ATTACK. Says it all really. Dalejenkins | 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to stick up for the people who spent time working on this article. I'm not saying that your articles should be deleted. I'd probably !vote to keep them if they were brought to AFD. I was just commenting on your argument, which seemed unfair. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also read WP:EFFORT. Dalejenkins | 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made. Dayewalker (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an exemplary case of what WP:CRYSTAL was designed to not discourage: the fact that Lucas has changed his stories plenty of times has reported many times in RS, demonstrating notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That was interesting to read. With something as major as Star Wars, the subject is clearly noteworthy. And it references major news coverage on the subject. Dream Focus 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeeeep as a reasonable spinout article. Doesn't seem to violate any particular policy (certainly not WP:CRYSTAL, if three is any gazing to the future in there it can be removed editorially.) And as there are books on this topic, WP:N is easily met. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is pure speculation, a collection of referenced rumours and quotes means makes it a synthesis of original research by wikipedia editors. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but editors are urged to consider reorganization of this article with the main Star Wars, possibility making an article specifically about the films from Star Wars#Feature Films and the content here, with Star Wars remaining as the franchise lead. This passes WP:CRYSTAL and is sourced, but I'm not thrilled about it being talked about outside of the two other trilogies and thus the suggestion for reorganization. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and suggest merge, but that is neither here nor there The notability requirement's purpose is to make sure that there are enough reliable sources to talk about the article. Those reliable sources most definitely exist; I see the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine among the sources. The print sources especially make it clear that this is not just a WP:CRYSTAL issue. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Knowledge about a possibility of three films after the original series has been around for a long time. After the Episode III, Lucas has stated he wasn't going to make 7-9. It should be acknowledged. Quistisffviii (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (selectively) to Star Wars. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: These don't even exist. This is a WP:Crystalball article about some films that the CREATORS THEMSELVES DENY are going to ever be made. There is nothing at all to say these will ever exist. While a well-written article, it has no good content and should be deleted. A small section about these NONEXISTANT FILMS should be added to the Star Wars page. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of reliable sources confirm that there were at one time plans for a sequel trilogy, even if now there is no chance of it ever happening. Notability doesn't expire simply because people change their minds. DHowell (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: into Star Wars. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as second-hand crystal-ballery. Second choice is merging. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, verifiable, sourced to reliable sources, no more a synthesis than any other article and hardly breaching WP:CRYSTAL, since this article is about what has been said, not what will be said. Yes, there's an argument that this shouldn't be important, but that's another argument that smacks of POV. I can't see this as being guilty of UNDUE, since this has been reported upon by the BBC. Hiding T 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lucas originally described the original Star Wars trilogy as the middle trilogy of a nine-part story. That he since changed his mind doesn't change the original notability of the sequel trilogy, and it is not WP:CRYSTAL since the article is not dependent on whether or not the sequel actually ever gets made. If one were to bother to go back to hard copy sources from the late 70s and early 80s, rather than just rely on Google, they would certainly find information on Lucas' (admittedly limited) description of the sequel. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely reluctant delete. As a strong advocate in favour of Chronology of Star Wars, it pains me to have to agree with this nomination, however, the films do not exist! As a rule, something that does not exist cannot possibly be notable! There are no plans to create the films and the majority of the content of the article is speculation, thus, I must, reluctantly, conclude that it should be deleted, though any decent, referenced material should be merged into Star Wars, though I fear there's all too little of that. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (stricken- I'll elaborate below)HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I;m baffled by your stance. The Chronology of Star Wars doesn't exist either. Come to that, I'd like to see this argument expanded to cover all those things currently in non-existence. Maybe start off small, with Nothing before moving on to the big ones, like Infinity. After all, nothing and infinity by definition can not exist, they are just concepts discussed by people... oh wait, that's like the Star Wars sequel trilogy. All we need now is some reliable sources, what's that, the BBC? And it's a major part of the article. Well, I do declare. Hiding T 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't blame you, I am! However, I'm trying to take an objective view. Much as I believe Star Wars is worthy of the coverage it has, a film series that may or may not have once been planned but has indisputably been scrapped is not notable. The only substantial fact in the article is that the series will not be made! nothing and infinity are, at least, mathematical and philosophical concepts, though, perhaps you'd care to nominate them for deletion and we can continue this discussion!!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I think there's more than one substantial fact. Fact: Lucas originally planned significantly more than 6 movies. Fact: Gary Kurtz also knew of the sequel plans. Fact: All producers ever involved now deny ever having even considered sequels. Fact: Hamill stated that he originally promised Lucas to return and play a role in one of the later episodes. There's a lot more to the article than pure speculation, and being covered by both the BBC and Times alone is enough to establish notability for any other topic, so why not this one? KhalfaniKhaldun 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree. It's kind of like how we have articles on Carnival of Light, Paul is Dead, Big Numbers (comics), Hitler Diaries, Spaghetti tree et al. This stuff doesn't exist or didn't happen, but the fact that people discussed them and thought they did happen has made them worthy of note. This article can be better written and better sourced for sure, but that would involve people digging up the many print sources that exist. Starburst would be a good place to look. I've just found a great The Times review of ESB which covers the sequels, so I'm going to integrate that into the article. Hiding T 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I think there's more than one substantial fact. Fact: Lucas originally planned significantly more than 6 movies. Fact: Gary Kurtz also knew of the sequel plans. Fact: All producers ever involved now deny ever having even considered sequels. Fact: Hamill stated that he originally promised Lucas to return and play a role in one of the later episodes. There's a lot more to the article than pure speculation, and being covered by both the BBC and Times alone is enough to establish notability for any other topic, so why not this one? KhalfaniKhaldun 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE, I've added info sourced from The Times which speaks of how the initial idea of a wider series was merely an homage, and never intended to be made, which gives the article greater depth and coverage. I don't think this article merits deletion, it's more a case of working out the best way to utilise the information we've got, whether this is the best article title, or whether a merge is more appropriate. This is an issue with teh way we organise data on Wikipedia, that both integration and separation have strong arguments which can only be settled by discussing the apprpriate issues at the correct venue. This discussion isn't really about deletion or crystal balling, because the article isn't about speculating on what might be or might have been, but is about documenting the Star Wars phenomenon, and how it grew. Hiding T 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is extensive discussion of this issue in relevant media. Renaming/refocusing and other cleanup can be discussed elsewhere. Powers T 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge "somewhere". I love the fact that this is an acticle about a non-event. - jc37 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Very well refenced, calling other editors contributions CRUFT is uncivil: "...use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I've stricken my above advocacy in favour of deletion. I hate to admit it, but I've been swayed by the arguments made above and the lambasting I received for my previous stance from Hiding et al. I'm now maintaining a neutral position, though will follow this debate with interest. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 close, appears to be a bad faith nomination by a sockpuppet account. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars Expanded Universe
- Star Wars Expanded Universe (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)
Too long of an article. Most of this stuff is already covered. Pattersonandy (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DarrenJankins (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Invalid rationale to delete an article based on size. Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I saw a request listed twice and I accidently deleted this one which looked like a duplicate. Rohedin TALK 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I now fixed it :) Pattersonandy (talk) 17:40, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clara Caballero
- Clara Caballero (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 indication of importance whatsoever. The article includes "her measurements", which is ridiculous, and it states she is working on her first album. That's not notable. All "references" are: 1) links to own website, 2) Links to YouTube, 3) Links to Twitter. The website in the infobox is a blog. This is just a completely non-notable topic with no valid third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This person does not meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO, and the article appears to be for advertising this model. Previously deleted per PROD, created by User:Prettymixedprincess. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement unsupported by any WP:RS coverage, just WP:SPS from YouTube and the subject's own personal website. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 3 June 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. decltype
(talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Ennes
- James Ennes (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)
Unreferenced BLP; no sources have materialized in the two years since this article was tagged as such. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the Liberty had hundreds of surviving crew, what makes this individual more notable than the rest? Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject has written a book about this notable incident. The fact that none of the possible references from GBooks, GNews, and GScholar have been added to the article is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Internet searches indicate that the subject of this articles does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.--PinkBull 02:53, 10 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XITEX Software
- XITEX Software (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 can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:N insufficient coverage for it to pass. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:38, 5 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FlyingBird Software
- FlyingBird Software (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 can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:N insufficient coverage for it to pass. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:19, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bearsted FC
- Bearsted FC (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 local football team. Codf1977 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable football team per nom. Mo ainm~Talk 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - team plays in the Kent County League Premier League, at Step 11 of the English football pyramid. As I understand it only clubs that play at Step 10 and above are eligible for the FA Cup; this team therefore fails notability guidelines for football teams established at WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable football team. --Carioca (talk) 22:09, 7 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Bray
- Chris Bray (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 is clearly overly promotional in its tone and nature, shows a poor notability claim and is primarily referenced to primary sources (those put about by the subject or his sponsor/employer). --Narson ~ Talk • 15:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article is overly promotional and some sources are questionable. While the subject might have an accomplished career, notability isn't established. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like WP:AUTOBIO, with many non reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 4 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aidoss
- Aidoss (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 can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - its placement adver-spam! Can't find a ref beyond itself. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 2 June 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. Sandstein 06:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jpowder
- Jpowder (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 fails WP:NOTABILITY, a google search finds no significant results besides the developers own resources. Much of the text is copied from http://code.google.com/p/jpowder/ . There appears to be a WP:COI such that the page appears to have been created purely as promotional material for this specialist scientific software. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable promotion. Haakon (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is in a premature phase with no indication of notability. Pxtreme75 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 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 List of River City characters. Courcelles (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Molly O'Hara
- Molly O'Hara (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 Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of characters in River City#Present. I agree with the nominator that this fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters and the general notability guideline, but this would be a suitable redirect and page history should be preserved. Claritas § 16:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Along with the original reason for the nomination, this character is not listed on the BBC One Scotland page for the show. Other characters on the List of characters in River City#Present that are not listed and should be lumped in with this nomination are Bob O'Hara, Stella Walker, Murray Crozier. Movementarian (Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of River City characters. Inniverse (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect for its lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 8 June 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. As an article about the superstition, rather than the phrase. Sandstein 06:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bread and butter
- Bread and butter (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)
Textbook dictionary content - definition, usage, examples, and etymology. Nothing encyclopedic here. Powers T 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Powers T 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Textbook encyclopedia content – Whole paragraphs of prose, referenced to reliable sources (well, partially at any rate), in much greater depth than any dictionary would. Nothing dictionary-like here. Just a reminder: words and phrases are also acceptable topics for encyclopedia articles. +Angr 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whole paragraphs, prose, referencing, and depth of coverage are stylistic issues, not content issues. Stylistically, yes, this is certainly not suitable for most dictionaries. But I was speaking to the content, which is precisely that which would be covered by a comprehensive dictionary entry. Powers T 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Stripped of a few OR/pop culture references (which didn't seem to have any references to say what they actually meant in context) it's just a dicdef, and the references that are left are very dubious; who refers to a Russian web page as a reliable source on an English phrase?- Wolfkeeper 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me we need a List of superstitions that we could merge this to. In lieu of that, soft redirect to wikt:bread-and-butter. Fences&Windows 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, weak keep, this is about the superstition, not the phrase, so NOTDIC doesn't really apply. There's not much that can be said about the superstition, but there's a lot of sources that include this as a superstition:[27]. I still think we need List of superstitions, we don't even mention walking under ladders anywhere I can find. Fences&Windows 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are unsatisfactory as compendia of such contents because they will tend to become bloated. One source I came across today contained thousands of superstitions. When you have so many, it is better to keep them separate because they are easier to organise and read. And there's less trouble keeping out the unsourced and dubious additions.
- Keep, because I don't see it as distinctly different than the other 326 items in Category:English phrases and the other 148 items in Category:English idioms. I also just added it to the list of 125 items at Category:Phrases. The heading on the Category:Phrases page states, "The wikipedia does not have (or is not supposed to have) many articles on topics that are words or phrases (because Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide); but many articles are on topics that can be referred to by words or phrases, and these are listed here." I'm very unclear on what the difference is between a topic that "is a word or phrase" and one that "is referred to by a word or phrase." I don't think the current state of WP:NAD gives sufficient guidance on phrases, other than stating that articles are not to be usage guides for words or phrases. Alternatively, the deletion of this article should be done as part of a much larger project to purge WP of all phrases. (FWIW, I also fixed the missing citation.) travisl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I've understood it correctly, your argument is that a) you don't understand the relevant policies b) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists c) you've added a non reliable source which points to some web page somewhere. Is that's a fair summary of your keep vote?- Wolfkeeper 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty close. Point "A" was seeking guidance as to whether this topic "is a phrase" or is "referred to by a phrase". Further discussion below has clarified this for me, and shows that this is likely the crux of contention. Point "B" is an argument for consistency, but I appreciate you pointing out the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists essay, and won't pursue this line of reasoning. And point "C" was regarding my cite to a U.S. newspaper column that has been syndicated since the 1950s, originally written by the editor-in-chief of the American Heritage Dictionary and carried on since his death in 1994 by his son. But if that's a non-reliable source, yes, your understanding is correct. travisl (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that this may not be distinct from the other items in those categories. But that's no reason not to delete it. As Wolfkeeper pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFF is not considered a strong argument at AfD. Powers T 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I've understood it correctly, your argument is that a) you don't understand the relevant policies b) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists c) you've added a non reliable source which points to some web page somewhere. Is that's a fair summary of your keep vote?- Wolfkeeper 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Textbook encyclopaedic content per the Encyclopedia of Superstitions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I cannot fault the nominator at all on this one, since the article specifically stated that it was about a phrase, rather than about the superstition. As an article about the superstition, however, it can be every bit as encyclopedic as rabbit's foot. And the article certainly needs work, not just in adding context, but in removing nonsense like the vague mention of it having only been used in "the 19th and early 20th centuries", whatever the early 20th century is supposed to cover. Mandsford 13:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination seems faulty as it is contrary to both our deletion and editing policies. Rushing straight to AFD when you find a problem with an article is disruptive because it is disproportionate and uncivil. There also seems to be an agenda which should be dealt with elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that strongly about it, then the proper forum would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, although I cannot see anything in the nomination that would come anywhere close to an incident. With all due respect, the comment directed toward User:LtPowers would, in my opinion, qualify under one or more of these elements in the definition in WP:CIVIL: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." On the other hand, I don't see anything in the nominator's comments that would fall under that definition. Whether there is a history of hard feelings between two editors has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Mandsford 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems the appropriate place to discuss the nomination and there will be an admin along in due course - there is no need to go looking for one elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I "rushed" to AfD because I feel the topic is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. It is not something that could be fixed by leaving a note on the talk page of the article. If you have concerns about agendas and civility, either raise them in the appropriate fora or stop casting aspersions on my behavior. Powers T 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your conception seems to be that you criticise the work of other editors but that your work should not be criticised in turn. This is not the way it works here. Per WP:SAUCE, your nomination is fair game. As we go about the business of saving the article from deletion, we must necessarily rebut the nomination and so demonstrate it is false and/or foolish. There is nothing personal about this - it is a natural consequence of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said I "rushed to AfD", that I engaged in incivility, and that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Those are necessarily personal accusations. They have nothing to do with the merits of the nomination, and everything to do with my on-wiki behavior. If you truly feel I've been incivil in any way, or that my editing is disruptive, you should go through the proper channels, rather than make such accusations here. They are irrelevant to the merits of this article. Powers T 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your conception seems to be that you criticise the work of other editors but that your work should not be criticised in turn. This is not the way it works here. Per WP:SAUCE, your nomination is fair game. As we go about the business of saving the article from deletion, we must necessarily rebut the nomination and so demonstrate it is false and/or foolish. There is nothing personal about this - it is a natural consequence of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems the appropriate place to discuss the nomination and there will be an admin along in due course - there is no need to go looking for one elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that strongly about it, then the proper forum would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, although I cannot see anything in the nomination that would come anywhere close to an incident. With all due respect, the comment directed toward User:LtPowers would, in my opinion, qualify under one or more of these elements in the definition in WP:CIVIL: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." On the other hand, I don't see anything in the nominator's comments that would fall under that definition. Whether there is a history of hard feelings between two editors has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Mandsford 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike a rabbit foot which is about a physical item carried for luck, this is clearly about the words themselves. If you want, by all means try rewriting it to not be about that, but I don't think the result will be successful. Even if you were successful, it's not unusual that somebody like Colonel Warden would revert it out of hand and then vote keep.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be most unusual for me to have edit conflicts over such articles at AFD as I usually find myself working alone. I'm not quite grasping the difficulty with the phrase "early 20th century" but will keep it in mind for my next foray. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and restore the earlier version. [28] Listing times it has appeared in notable media, is perfectly acceptable and common for a Wikipedia article. Those who don't like it, can easily ignore that part, while it gives the rest of us something informative to read on how often it has turned up over the years. People are influenced by television, of course, expressions learned and used from there more often than any other source. Dream Focus 22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what secondary sources were given that showed that the particular usage that is being described here matched those usages? None. That's OR.- Wolfkeeper 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: I fail to see why it should be deleted. This phrase is highly notable via it's usage in media. I recall an example of the Angry Video Game Nerd using it in one of his reviews even though this doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. Rohedin TALK 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in the current form. I think the nom's concerns are taken care of now. As is, the article isn't about the words "bread" and "butter", nor is it about all uses of the phrase "bread and butter". It's about the superstition of uttering the phrase as good luck. The given sources verify the material and demonstrate the superstition's notability.--Cúchullain t/c 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. There's quotes around the phrase in the intro; and you can't take them away. It's obviously about that specific phrase and usage of that phrase. I mean, how would you translate this into Japanese or something without using that exact phrase? You couldn't you would have to use that exact phrase. The article is about the usage of the phrase. If it's about the phrase itself, that's a dictionary entry; and there's a whole other wiki for that.- Wolfkeeper 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah. It's about a phrase only in that the phrase is uttered as a good luck charm. In its current state the article's not about the phrase itself or any other use of it. Completely different.--Cúchullain t/c 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a general article on phrases that are uttered as good luck; it's about the usage of the term bread and butter and only the usage of that single phrase. There's a name for a book that describes how a term or phrase is used: a dictionary. It doesn't go beyond that, it just does that. It's simply a dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is about the usage of the phrase "bread and butter" as a superstition. It isn't about the phrase itself or any other use of it. And you do not need to respond to every comment in the AfD.--Cúchullain t/c 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:DICTIONARY. We can't have an article for every phrase that people utter. Gobonobo T C 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article should be rewritten to focus on the superstition, including the clasping and releasing of hands as well as the expression. As others have suggested, the real topic of this article is not a phrase but a superstition. Clean up can help make this clear. Cnilep (talk) 14:14, 5 June 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. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broda Otto Barnes
- Broda Otto Barnes (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)
On the same grounds as the previous nomination for deletion which resulted in no consensus after a very long debate and fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:FRINGE. Rohedin (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete despite edits by MastCell, myself and others to bring this up to scratch, it still falls far short. It seems this is because the subject does actually fail WP:NOTE, as effort was made to find sources to meet our criteria. Verbal chat
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the same reasons I gave in my earlier nomination. Hopefully this AfD will be somewhat less of a clusterfuck. I admit to some concern about the nominator's history, which seems a bit odd, but if we're discussing the merits of the article then I still think it fails notability criteria. MastCell Talk 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like he passes WP:PROF: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" is passed as his 1976 book Hypothyroidism: the unsuspected illness has oodles of attention from the natural medicine field. His work is now outdated, he has been latched onto by fringe groups for a long time (this from 1980[29]), and his work on hypothyroidism has been criticised (e.g. [30][31][32]), but WP:FRINGE cannot be a reason to delete an article about a person, no matter how ridiculous the fan-boy adoration by CAM advocates gets. You want to delete this because you don't like quacks quoting him, not because of a genuine lack of notability. He published in JAMA,[33][34] The Lancet,[35] Science,[36][37] JBC, and other medical and scientific journals a number of times over several decades from the '30s to the '70s, presented at FASEB,[38], and his work was prominent enough to be quoted in the abstract of a review in Geriatrics in 1979 on hormones and heart disease:[39]. He was quoted as a medical expert in the press over several decades, e.g. [40][41][42][43][44]. Much of the coverage of him and his work is hiding behind pay-walls and on dead trees in libraries, so do watch out for FUTON bias. Have a browse through this pre-1990 book search to get a feel for how much coverage he received over the decades:[45] Also, the nominator is a new account intimately familar with Wikipedia processes such as AfD, ANI and RfCs. I wonder if they need to be on the receiving end of another TLA: SPI? Fences&Windows 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right. The difficulty is to use the available reliable sources (dated, often not easily available, and often primary sources) in the face of massive attention from unreliable sources (which happen to recent and online). I have generally found this a nearly impossible road to navigate, at least on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you'll volunteer to help bring the article up to speed with the sources you've found, and watchlist it going forward, then I'll change my !vote to keep.
Regarding FUTON bias, I have to admit I became disheartened after searching extensively - in the library - for Barnes' 1945 Lancet publication (which our article assures us exists). It does not exist, as best I can tell - although during the search I came across some fascinating work from 1945. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right. The difficulty is to use the available reliable sources (dated, often not easily available, and often primary sources) in the face of massive attention from unreliable sources (which happen to recent and online). I have generally found this a nearly impossible road to navigate, at least on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you'll volunteer to help bring the article up to speed with the sources you've found, and watchlist it going forward, then I'll change my !vote to keep.
- Keep Hmm, did he play pro ball? Needless to say, if Dr. Barnes had been a professional athlete, we would not be having this debate. Wikipedia is still heavier on dumb articles than on smart ones, in part because we have more contributions on entertainment and sports than we do about academics and medicine, and in part because the latter have a much higher threshold to get over. It appears to be a well-sourced and remarkably balanced article about a physician who was notable or infamous, depending on point of view, for the information that he gathered and disseminated on hyperthyroidism, endocrine function, and human health. Mandsford 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable alternative medicine. The books were of widespread significance also at the time published: From WorldCat Identities: His main book, 3 eds. in english and chinese, still held in 423 libraries. For popular medicine books from the 1970's , that's significant. Review in the Townsend Letter, a major source for alternative medicine--unreliable for the actual state of medical knowledge, but a good source for what's notable within its field; Modern reference to it it in a reliable journal. Kent, S. "Hormones and heart disease.: Geriatrics. 1979 Jun;34(6):97-102. PMID 447079 (not just a casual mention: the abstract refers to him). I see from Web of Science & Pubmed that, besides the books, he published in major medical journals--Medline lists 12, WebofScience some additional ones. the journals include : several in JAMA, 2 in Science (journal) one in Lancet, several in American Journal of Physiology. I restored them to the article at the time of the previous AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 9 June 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 Unambiguous copyright infringement WP:CSD#G12 Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mu'allij
- Mu'allij (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)
First and foremost, the article is a blatant copyvio. That being said, the editor keeps removing the speedy tag. The article is also not in English and will never have value as-is. If anything, this should be userfied until the guy can translate it and remove the copyvio. I imagine someone will say "speedy" on this and I agree. But I'm here because speedy is constantly removed. — Timneu22 · talk 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, replaced copyvio tag. Hairhorn (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 15:13, 2 June 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 Robotboy. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robotboy (character)
- Robotboy (character) (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 Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or if valid references can be found for any of the unsourced content that has been removed from the article, merge that content to the relevant section in List of Robotboy characters (which is itself completely unreferenced). Deor (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of references found for this notable character. If you didn't find references it is only because you didn't look. I have now started to add references to the body of the article, but it doesn't help when editors keep deleting the content. That is not the proper way to conduct ones' self during an AfD. Inniverse (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Robotboy or to List of Robotboy characters. I appreciate that Innerverse has added references to content that originally seems to have been drawn by other people watching TV, but only one of these refers to the character in something other than context of the TV show itself (the DragoArt website that has tutorials about how to draw different cartoon characters). Hence, I don't see that the character should have a separate article. Mandsford 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news [46] and Google book search(Contemporary Theatre, Film & Television - Page 272) find it mentioned. I don't think you can talk about the series without mentioning the main character in this particular series. Dream Focus 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's futile to ask, but which of those Google hits, exactly, do you consider to be substantive sources about the character Robotboy, rather than the series? Deor (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Mandsford. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Robotboy. It's pretty clear that the show is notable, but that the character has no notability outside it. Reyk YO! 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect character does not have the sources to meet WP:N and WP:V Shooterwalker (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Mandsford. SnottyWong talk 23:14, 9 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global Hotel Alliance
- Global Hotel Alliance (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 is an article about a business alliance between a number of small,questionably-notable hotel companies. The alliance itself has no substantive press coverage - plenty of passing mentions in articles about chefs, and lots and lots of press releases - but nothing that attests to its notability in its own right. The article itself is mostly written in management-speak and is overly promotional, but if that was all that was wrong, I'd be fixing it instead of nominating it for deletion. Delete as nominator. Thparkth (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I wouldn't go so far as to call the participating hotels 'questionably-notable', promotions like loyalty programs and similar tend not to be article subjects and I don't see this as any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: overtly promotional with negligible independent sources. Note as well that the author is the company's marketing director. – Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. All I could find at Gnews was a few press releases. Some of the hotel chains may be notable; the Alliance is not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 9 June 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 per WP:CSD#A7 Polargeo (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The max loki
- The max loki (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)
{{db-g3}} was denied, but this certainly does appear to be a blatant WP:HOAX, as "Loki Institute for Environmental and Social Research" shows no sources. Further, why is the title "The max loki"? This really falls under {{db-a7}} also. This thing should just be speedily deleted, but since that was declined, here we are. This article is nonsense, and there is no indication that the author is actually working on anything. Did I mention WP:COI also? — Timneu22 · talk 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per A7, seems to be something someone made up one day. Claritas § 16:26, 2 June 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Climbing to New Lows
- Climbing to New Lows (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)
Per WP:NMUSIC, demo albums are presumed non-notable, unless significant third-party coverage exists. A quick google search reveals a plethora of file sharing sites, but not much in the way of independent coverage by reliable sources. Therefore I do not see why this demo album merits its own page. Imperatore (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
- Delete, then Redirect. It's true, demo tapes (and similar) are almost never notable enough for articles, but a redirect to MGMT discography would be harmless enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article has one reliable source with significant coverage, but that isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As far as I can see from a quick skim, the said reliable source only has that one sentence about this demo quoted in the article. Therefore it is by no means significant coverage. Imperatore (talk) 18:00, 2 June 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.
I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the socking causing confusion to the debate, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnie Pemberton
- Bonnie Pemberton (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)
Contested prod. I can find no evidence that the subject of this article satisfies the principal criterion of WP:BIO ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") or the specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Of the references it contains, the first two are not independent, and the other two are different copies of the same list of recipients of a nonnotable award—the Cat Writers of America Certificate of Excellence. Of the book reviews listed, the first one might scrape by; but the next two are in blogs, and the final one is a nonsubstantive entry in a library's list of books about cats. I'm finding nothing reliable and substantive about this person herself. Deor (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original PROD nominator. The individual does not meet any of the criteria outlined at WP:AUTHOR, and the lack of any idependent coverage shows she fails WP:BIO as well. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This author is notable per WP:AUTHOR as the creator of a independently reviewed and award-winning book. "The Cat Master" novel is generally notable because if verifiably meets through reliable sources the criteria found at WP:NBOOK, which is that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This article meets the minimum requirements for inclusion and that is all that it needs to be kept. Inniverse (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where in WP:AUTHOR do you see the criteria you've listed above? There are 5 points listed, none of which state "the creator of an independently reviewed and award-winning book". In addition, I don't believe that the Cat Writer's of America Certificate can be described as notable/significant award in the world of literature. If you want to make an argument for the book itself being notable, then an article on the book needs to be created. The author herself does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#3 - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work (I was paraphrasing). Inniverse (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Well, by paraphrasing you changed the meaning. The full sentence states "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That certainly does not apply in this instance. Unless it's your contention that the single book she wrote is "significant/well-known" and bookstore reviews are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The below listed multiple book reviews (already listed in the article) are all independent from the author, and only the last of these four reviews is sourced to a bookstore (as a "staff pick review):- Felinexpress.com
- A Year of Reading
- St. Charles Public Library
Powell’s Books: Staff Pick Inniverse (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a cat wesite, a blog, a library and a bookstore. That is a very large stretch to assert that those reviews are notable in any way. Your unconventional views on notability criteria are apparent from your talk page. I note that you also duplicated the Bonnie Pemberton at The Cat Master (which is also up for deletion). Given you have only been editing under this account for a few days, something tells me this isn't your first kick at the Wikipedia can. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the kind of article where the pure absurdity of it all makes me laugh. Its not harming anything, but the "Cat Writers' Association" award? "Bonnie Pemberton wrote 'The Cat Master' to remember her real cat, Buddy, who had died; and to make it about her other cats, Zekki, Cookie and Pouncho (Cookie had her named changed to Pris for the book and I guess Pouncho is Jett). When Bonnie wrote the book she stopped for two years after Buddy died finally publishing it in 2007." Its hard to square this article with prevailing notability standards, sadly.--Milowent (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, surprisingly enough. I was on the fence after reading the AFD - there didn't seem to be strong evidence of notability - but then I found this source, which I think tips it into 'keep':[47]. Taking the sources covering the author and the book together, she has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, if only just. (I don't see the need for separate articles on the book and the author, though - we should only keep one and redirect the other, and I'd say this is the one to keep.) Robofish (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." An interview on a cat Web site is a primary source. Deor (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It is a source that is independent from the subject. Inniverse (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's the subject of the article talking about herself. That makes it a primary source. See footnote 2 in WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly mentions interviews. Deor (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken. It is the source in which the interview is published that makes it independent. If the author self-publishes her own interview then that would not be independent, but if her interview is published in a source that is independent of the author herself, then that supports a claim of notability. Every one talks about themselves, but only if you are notable will an independent source publish what you are saying. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the subject of the article talking about herself. That makes it a primary source. See footnote 2 in WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly mentions interviews. Deor (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." An interview on a cat Web site is a primary source. Deor (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep we have seen a decent start here. Needs work not deletion. Not against nominating this again if I am wrong. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Inniverse blocked as sock of Azviz.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news shows [48] as a valid news source, and it did an interview on her. Dream Focus 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book may be notable, but there does not appear to be enough significant coverage to validate a biography. Perhaps the article can be renamed and the content of the article can be reformatted into an article about the book she authored.--PinkBull 02:58, 10 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prem League Live
- Prem League Live (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 website: no media coverage to indicate notability as required by web content notability criteria. Proposed deletion tag removed by creator. Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or else delete. Certainly not notable at present, but as it's only just started it may become notable in the future. As such, userfication looks to me like the best option for now. Alzarian16 (talk)
- Delete - insufficient coverage to merit an article. Recreate if and when it ever becomes notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable website. GiantSnowman 12:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 17:15, 5 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Cole
- Daniel Cole (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 be a vanity page. Well written, but apparently by the subject (see history). Most cites are to subject's own work and all are from local Colorado newspapers. Mgcsinc (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was researching an AfD nomination of my own for this but was forestalled by Mgcsinc's nom. All of the references in the article are to the texts of pieces Cole has written as a "guest columnist" for a local Colorado Springs newspaper, to articles (mostly in the same newspaper) in which he is merely quoted, or to articles in which he is not mentioned at all (numbers 20, 21, and 22, at least). I can find absolutely no evidence of the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:BIO requires. In particular, the subject fails every criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Deor (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, and the true reason for the article is apparently to stuff a big ol' clump of external links to his own guest columns in his local newspaper. No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement unsupported by any WP:RS coverage. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (from nominator): Is this A7 speedy-deletable? I don't have a good concept because I'm fairly inexperienced with these things, but I don't think the article actually makes a credible notability claim. Just curious. - Mgcsinc (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - my own opinion is that the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion fairly narrow and strict on the criteria. Something with this many references, regardless of the reference quality would be best served through AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any sourcing that would establish this person as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pathantar (software)
- Pathantar (software) (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 product. Codf1977 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, NN software product ... Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emmanuel (spirit)
- Emmanuel (spirit) (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 verifiable notability or coverage outside of a few tracts by (Spanish language) believers. No secondary or third party independent sources. Was redirected to Chico Xavier. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS. AlexHOUSE (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Godvliet
- Bruce Godvliet (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)
Speedy contested, but it's way out of my league. Pun intended. Elevating for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't pass wp:athlete. Per WP:Athlete you should play at a professional level, and Bruce, has, helas, only played at an amateurial level. In particular doesn't pass Wikipedia:NSPORT#Football_.28soccer.29 --Sulmues Let's talk 13:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails ATHLETE. Fails GNG with no independent coverage outside of general sports journalism as expected from low level local players. Not part of enduring annals of history.--ClubOranjeT 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:48, 8 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brody emerson
- Brody emerson (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)
Actor with only one very minor role to his credit, in a film that hasn't even been released yet. May become notable someday, but not yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. One role as "Best Friend" in a movie that hasn't been released and doesn't have an article of its own yet does not establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as waaaaaaay TOOSOON. Brody emerson has only one unnamed credit.[49] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following comment was copied from this page's talk page -- I believe the article's author intended to weigh in on the discussion:
My client is a new up an comer. He is already featured on IMDB.COM, If they think he is notable already then I would think it should be okay on the site to. He is already ranked 149,601, out of millions in the world. He also has other movies that are in post production but none have been given the green light yet. So until that time all Brody has is this one movie that has 5 big stars in. It may be a small role but its STILL a role and he has made a name for himself in Hollywood. He is also recognized already to ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by APATALENTJS (talk • contribs)
- Comment If Emerson is your client, your page amounts to promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, it is generally noted that if one has to use the phrase "up and coming" in relation to a subject, that subject is not yet notable enough for an article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WikiDance61 is correct. The manager/agent of the subject is exhibiting conflict of interest (COI). It appears to me that the author is either the subject himself or a close associate - COI again. And by the way, IMDB does not screen actors for notability, they provide cast and crew lists for film and television. Being listed as a cast member on one project does not, in and of itself, make said cast member sufficiently notable for these pages. The article is very poorly put together, with no references or citation to back up claim of notability.Evalpor (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went into the article and straightened it up, just to show good intentions and to make this discussion a bit easier. I added two IMDB links, corrected some spelling, and reformatted. At least now editors can now see, at a glance, what's what. Evalpor (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. (Also the article's creator couldn't even get the capital letters right in the title, which really gets my goat... grrr.) Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 5 June 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 American Idiot. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Idiot tour
{{FYI, there is a page caled American Idiot World Tour That article can replace thid one|M}}
- American Idiot tour (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 concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to American Idiot, at least for now. I'd say the tour is pobably notable, given what a massive cultural impact American Idiot had, but right now this has no real content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to American Idiot as per Starblind Codf1977 (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Makes no assertion of notability WP:GNG. No source for above mentioned cultural impact. --Savonneux (talk) 23:29, 2 June 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) 02:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directi
- Directi (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 company fails to meet WP:CORP, is non-notable, and should be deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This company is notable as the first ICANN-accredited registrar in India. Inniverse (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have sourced the article now. It meets WP:GNG through coverage in indian mainstream newspapers and magazines (business, technical, general - company has got coverage in all sorts of media). Just click the Gnews link about.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quite notable in India. Sodabottle has already added references. utcursch | talk 14:49, 2 June 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gray Loeffler LLC
- Gray Loeffler LLC (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 company, recreated, speedy contested. delete UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of third party coverage. Jminthorne (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – lacks non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Isn't the appropriate rule that applies to whether something is deleted the following:
- A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talk • contribs)
- Comment -In an AfD, an appropriate guideline is WP:COMPANY. Jminthorne (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talk • contribs)
- Comment - So the 3 journalistic articles which provide mention of the firm's lobbying activities (Forbes, LA Times & Huffington Post) already cited in the article are not significant enough I take it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I can't speak for anyone else, but Forbes and Huffington appear extremely trivial to me. I couldn't find any mention of Loeffler in the LA Times links, but that may be due to a broken link. Jminthorne (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – As I indicated above, I concur with Jminthorne. ttonyb (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Or at least, consider this a respectful, tentative dissent to preclude a snow-delete, before the creator has a chance to add references about the history of this firm. This lobbying firm seems to have a number of notable (or potentially notable) members (e.g. [50][51] Its current name appears to be new and doesn't have a lot of coverage, but a search of its previous incarnation as The Loeffler Group reveals stronger claims. I note that there are more than 100 hits for "Loeffler Group" at Google News Archives. As usual with such searches, a lot of the results are pay-per-view and discerning the exact content can be elusive, but it does seem that this firm was reasonably notable for its relationship to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign (see, e.g., a 2008 complaint that "suggests that a lobbying firm called The Loeffler Group LLP may have subsidized the salary of McCain's National Finance Director, Susan Nelson, a former Loeffler Group employee"[52] and other coverage of the firm's relation to McCain[53][54]. And here is a 2007 article about their lobbying for the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.[55]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepMost lobbying firms are very hard to document, but I'm prepared to go by the indirect indication that when the ex-chair of the House Budget committee heads a lobbying firm, the firm has a notable influence. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I modified the "find sources" template by taking out the "LLC."[56] If the article is kept, the "LLC" should be removed from the article name, per Wikipedia naming conventions.--PinkBull 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: go with DGG. Dewritech (talk) 13:28, 10 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Liddy
- Katherine Liddy (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)
Nomination on behalf of User:121.73.149.66, rationale is: "Definitely not notable under WP:Author" Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I'm the nominating user but was having problems with my account, and figuring out the Afd process. The problem with this article is that this person is not notable as an author. I came accross this article when trying to find some information about this person: I certainly didn't expect to find it on wikipedia, although I note that she has a notable husband. She may become sufficiently notable in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, could someone remove the other AFD Rangataua huntaway (talk)
- Done, removed the duplicate. --Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article fails to establish notability. dsol (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "she is considered one of New Zealand's most promising young poets". 'Promising' means 'not quite there yet' in my book. Looks like it may not be long, but WP:CRYSTAL means we cannot take the long view on 'promise'. Peridon (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Note that the refs do not give notability. Two are blogs etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recent edits, since the AfD tag was added, have improved the page. However I don't think they do anything to change the fact that she does not meet notability. Other content, such as that relating to Fiona Kidman, could be merged into rewrites of other pages. Perhaps an editor could be given permission, alternatively, to retain the article on their user page in anticipation of the fact the author may become notable. Rangataua huntaway (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep technically, sufficient reviews for notability, though it is borderline. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 9 June 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hill, Back, Dallaglio
- Hill, Back, Dallaglio (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 is about a partnership of three England rugby union players. No reliable sources are referenced. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and the article reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia article. Relevant material could be sourced and merged with the main England rugby team article, but a stand alone article is not necessary. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Favonian (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote keep -- obviously, bad faith nomination.' This is a famous back row unit who started 38 matches together, including the 2003 world cup final. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Copyvio of [57] removed. noq (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual players are notable, the England rugby union team is notable, but please provide reliable sources to support the assertion that a particular combination of players for a selection of positions is notable enough to warrant its own article. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article content is perfectly relevant. You are only allowed to vote once and you've already had your say. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. It is a discussion. We do not tally up the votes for and against at the end. We weigh up the arguments. There may be 10 people saying "keep", but if they do not provide valid reasoning then they do not count for much. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article content is perfectly relevant. You are only allowed to vote once and you've already had your say. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual players are notable, the England rugby union team is notable, but please provide reliable sources to support the assertion that a particular combination of players for a selection of positions is notable enough to warrant its own article. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources backing up that this is a notable combination of players. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this user clearly knows nothing about rugby and is engaged in a personal vendetta. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced. Please note, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they no nothing and have a personal vendetta against you. noq (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But could really do with more sources and that matches started section needs serious cleaning up. It's not a complete rubbish page, just needs a bit of work on it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 10 June 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 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cherie (pornographic actress)
- Cherie (pornographic actress) (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:PORNBIO and GNG - Only 1 award nomination, not across multiple years. EuroPride (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. It was already nominated for a deletion in 2006, but the decision was to keep it. Therefore it stays. Norum 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The 2006 nomination was withdrawn because it was established that she had been nominated for an award. Being nominated for a single award no longer satisfies WP:PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 19:56, 3 June 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 Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robar Training Specialists
- Robar Training Specialists (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 private career college. Author has a COI and no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7.Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep (by page creator) — The Robar Training Specialists school is unique in North America for its ability to send its students to robotics manufacturers. Robotics training is not common in the region and the industrial focused and manufacturer experienced hands on training it offers make it unique and significant in the continent of North America. This should be clear grounds for its importance. Please note that this article has already been declined for deletion just a few days ago. MartyRobar (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not speedy — The speedy deletion recommendations above "per A7" are inappropriate because A7 does not apply to schools, public or private. The page creator should be given the 7 days this AfD will be pending to prove the notability of the school through reliable sourcing. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:GNG. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. A web search finds Robar Training Specialists listed in various directories of training companies and technical schools, but there are no reviews of the school in notable journals or independent sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 3 June 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 recreation of a page deleted after a deletion discussion WP:CSD#G4. Issues arrising previously which led to the deletion were in not addressed. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Floyd
- Chris Floyd (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)
And back to AfD we go... still looks NN. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same as before, no real claim to notability and sourcing that all goes back to stuff that Chris Floyd wrote. To me, this article does not look substantially different than the one that was deleted and should be speedily deleted (again). Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caribmon (talk) Is this a political gesture? Because I do think Floyd's history at Science & Spirit - one of the UK's most distinguished and prestigious intellectual magazines at one time - alone merits his status here. I think your decision is a political move - because in fact, the entry was heavily augmented with links when I rewrote it. Note below. Author, Award winning writer (project censored) et al. I don't want to get into a fray about this. I think it's ridiculous that you feel Floyd should be deleted. There are far less notable journalists than him in Wikipedia.
- Comment – I am always intrigued by those that want to blame a deletion on a hidden agenda instead of looking objectively at the Wikipedia requirements for inclusion. There is no vast conspiracy here (at least that I am aware of) nor is it appropriate to accuse the editors of being involved in one. I suggest you read WP:AGF and recognize this is a community of volunteers and that making unfounded accusations serves no purpose except perhaps to cheapen the credibility of your inclusion arguments. ttonyb (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caribmon (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC) This entry was completely rewritten and resubmitted after deletion to meet standards of Wikipedia.[reply]
Over 30 links to articles written with some of the world's top scientists and intellectuals that Floyd interviewed and more. Not deserving to be deleted! Why are you deleting this?
Can it not be discussed. Don't you think the former editor of Oxford University's Science & Spirit Magazine qualifies to be in Wikipedia?
Aside from the sources all being linked in this new entry it, it is different and has been quantified with research.
Editors - please check http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&q=Chris+Floyd&spell=1 for Google News Archives
- The majority of articles are either not about him or are written by him. How does this meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:GNG? ttonyb (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note his articles in Salon, Counterpunch, Moscow Times et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribmon (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does having an article published in those magazines meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:GNG? ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caribmon (talk)He was the editor of Science and Spirit - not 'just' a writer. So I would say yes. It does.
Caribmon (talk) Note he also won a coveted Project Censored Award in 2004
Caribmon (talk) The ref links are all new - aside from the old ones which were deleted. As that seemed to be the major reason last time someone wanted to delete it. Floyd also was also published in book form - which has sold quite well - there are many new and used ones being sold and resold. Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com
Caribmon (talk) Other new ref links include the fact that his blog is popular according to compete.com and is syndicated by Google News Google News Source
Caribmon (talk) Note this is all new and augmented with links - that were hard to find - but out there. To me this does meet the standards. Yes. That is quite a list of intellectuals to have, as editor, interviewed, mused and shared time with.
From 1998 to 2000, Floyd was the editor of Science & Spirit, an Oxford-based quarterly journal dealing with the contentious relationship between religion and science. His work there included interviews with such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins[1], Owen Gingerich[2], Daniel Dennett[3] , Steven Pinker [4], Frans de Waal[5], V.S. Ramachandran [6], Freeman Dyson[7], Paul Davies, Lisa Jardine, A.N. Wilson, Susan Greenfield[8] and John Polkinghorne[9].
Caribmon (talk) He is also a regular guest on the Scott Horton Radio Show link to antiwar.com
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (copyvio) by UtherSRG. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China pyrography
- China pyrography (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:HOWTO content, spammish Falcon8765 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for how-tos and essays and that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—drivelly, borderline-notable how-to guide. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI know it initially contained a lot of non encyclopedic instruction info but I've removed this. I think actually if you look beyond what was written initially this is actually a very notable topic in Chinese and a verifiable, notable art form. I think if more sources could be found and some images this would easily be an acceptable encyclopedia article.- Still a notable topic but speedy delete -it's a copy vio of http://www.chinapyrography.com/about_nangyang_pyro.html. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:53, 2 June 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.
David Harker
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Per G3. No evidence that a player like this exists at all. Even if they do, A7 could be applied since there are no credible claims of importance. SoWhy 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will Diaz-Graham
- Will Diaz-Graham (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)
Page proposed for deletion because: "Hoax. Completely unverifiable, which is impossible if some of the claims in the article were real." Prod contested with one source changed, but the source has no results for this person.[58]. If confirmed as a hoax, should be speedu deleted as a G3 vandalism. Fram (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence such a player has achieved notability. most claims (such as training with Capello and England side) are pure fabrication and no evidence found to back up other claims. Would support G3 and so tagged. --ClubOranjeT 09:21, 4 June 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. Risker (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minister of State for Security
- Minister of State for Security (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)
Minor position, created a less than a month ago, filled by an unelected nonentity. As a post, it is not notable, and no reliable sources discuss it specifically. PROD-tag was removed for no reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Color me confused as to how this post is "non-notable." It was recently created, sure, but it is indeed a real position in the British government and presumably Lady Neville-Jones will actually be doing some sort of work. The post is of the same importance as the Minister of State for Police, also newly created, which was not nominated for deletion. The nominator's argument that the position is filled by a "nonentity" is obviously a bit silly—the person filling it is clearly an entity and indeed someone with a lengthy governmental career including a number of high ranking positions. I don't think an argument for deletion has been articulated aside from the nom personally not believing this is an important job, but were it so trivial I doubt David Cameron would have bothered to create it. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Finally the PROD was removed (not by me) "due to lack of a findable discussion anywhere" which seems valid, and certainly is not "no reason." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument mainly appears to be WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OSE. Can you find reliable sources which discuss this position specifically, rather than simply including it on a list of ministers who attend some committee or other? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick search turns up a couple of things discussing Neville-Jones in the position. [59] [60]. Obviously this is a new job, but as you surely know it is a split from the previous position Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. Will you be nominating that for deletion as well? How about Minister of State for Police? At the least they should be discussed as a group. Given that the position is new it does not have a whole lot of sources, but it's definitely a real job with at least some visibility. When Neville-Jones leaves someone else will fill it, and presumably the article will eventually list out a number of people who held the position. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be relying on WP:OSE to a greater extent than you should (as in, zero). I will review those other pages, and maybe nominate them for deletion, maybe not. But the fact that other shit exists is irrelevant here. We are talking about the page we are talking about.
- The news articles you mention do not discuss the position; the first concerns the individual, and the second is about a policy that she came up with. Compare that with, say, this article about the position of Minister for the Cabinet Office. That's the sort of thing that's needed. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't deign to lecture me (or any other veteran editor) about WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm obviously quite familiar with it, and I'll point out that the sentence that notes "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this" is germane. Furthermore, the "other stuff" is particularly relevant here TT: Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is not just a similar article, it's what this job used to be called! If you think that article should be around, then it's extremely strange to want to delete this one and would be akin to someone arguing that Immigration and Naturalization Service should be an article but U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should not (and yes, I know those agencies are more important than this position). I've said what I want to here and am going to let this go, but the general argument I'm making is that a position created by a sitting UK prime minister and then filled by a notable person who is "responsible for security and counter-terrorism" is inherently notable—all we need to do is describe what the position is and list who holds it in the years ahead. And as S Marshall notes, there is no way we would not want a redirect for this (it's very much a plausible search term), so AfD was not really the right route and there's no way this will be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick search turns up a couple of things discussing Neville-Jones in the position. [59] [60]. Obviously this is a new job, but as you surely know it is a split from the previous position Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. Will you be nominating that for deletion as well? How about Minister of State for Police? At the least they should be discussed as a group. Given that the position is new it does not have a whole lot of sources, but it's definitely a real job with at least some visibility. When Neville-Jones leaves someone else will fill it, and presumably the article will eventually list out a number of people who held the position. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument mainly appears to be WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OSE. Can you find reliable sources which discuss this position specifically, rather than simply including it on a list of ministers who attend some committee or other? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep, as per my argument in the AfD immediately below, except that instead of redirecting to the office of Prime Minister, in this case the option is to redirect to the post-holder's article.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We surely don't ever redirect government offices to the politician that currently holds them? And unless you can provide evidence that the post is notable (the onus is on you), the article should be deleted, obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not obvious at all, as I explained in the other AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We surely don't ever redirect government offices to the politician that currently holds them? And unless you can provide evidence that the post is notable (the onus is on you), the article should be deleted, obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to be a notable office. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously – do you have a single reference for that claim? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously a notable post. You can search through the thousand or so Google news results for newspapers in England mentioning the actions of those who had this post perhaps. Or I'm sure its mentioned in school textbooks in that country, and encyclopedias. Dream Focus 12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it's less than a month old, textbooks and encyclopedias seem unlikely. Though even if it were four years old, as the predecessor post was, I've never come across a reference source discussing the role as a role rather than to identify a person. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though it is a new position, it clearly exists, and as with all jobs and departments, it exists at the whim of the PM advising the Queen so to appoint. Codf1977 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and a WP:SNOW I would think. Even with no knowledge about the British government, I find it hard to believe that a newly created ministry within the executive branch [isn't] (oops) notable. If this were October 2001, would someone have said that the United States Secretary of Homeland Security was non-notable? Mandsford 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From context, I would think Mandsford may have meant to write "... executive branch isn't notable."—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. Thanks for catching that, Marshall. Mandsford 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Again, I find it hard to follow the rationale of the nominator. It is a named ministerial office, appointed by the Queen, In the government of a sovereign state and is therefore inherently notable. ninety:one 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but consider renaming to add the country name to the article title (other countries could have a similar position).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and identify which country (since other countries exist). A cabinet post of a major world power is notable. Edison (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NC-GAL, everything in Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom (and probably Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom as well) should be moved to "...(United Kingdom)" I suppose. ninety:one 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is necessary unless and until there is an obvious overlap - it looks like most countries other than the UK don't use the phrase "Minister of State for _____". Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree, and I can't really see that it's worth it, but the naming convention does require pre-disambiguation. ninety:one 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May be this is a case for WP:IGNORE Codf1977 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree, and I can't really see that it's worth it, but the naming convention does require pre-disambiguation. ninety:one 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is necessary unless and until there is an obvious overlap - it looks like most countries other than the UK don't use the phrase "Minister of State for _____". Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NC-GAL, everything in Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom (and probably Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom as well) should be moved to "...(United Kingdom)" I suppose. ninety:one 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per comments above, and second the suggestion of a WP:SNOW early close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Being a ministerial office alone makes the position notable. I also have a hard time believing that the "non elected" aspect makes any difference. The Leader of the House of Lords has never been elected and probably won't be at any point in the immediate future, however I don't see anyone rushing to delete the page.-[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 01:20, 3 June 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. A further merge discussion is encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minister for the Civil Service
- Minister for the Civil Service (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)
Minor and non-notable position always held concurrently with the British Prime Ministership. I have looked up all of the sources (including the 1968 Times article) and they do not discuss the position at all, merely mention it tangentially. PROD-tag was removed for no reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 06:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Security I'm a bit confused by the nomination. I understand that the prime minister always holds this position, but it is a separate portfolio, so to speak, one which began at a certain time for a certain reason. It's a perfectly legitimate encyclopedia topic, and if the sourcing is poor I'm quite confident that can be remedied. This article is akin to the one on First Lord of the Treasury though that "position" goes back much further. The nominator has not provided a reason to delete, and I would agree with the person who removed the prod that TreasuryTag should have maybe discussed any issues on the article talk page rather than prodding and then running off to AfD once the prod was removed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator has not provided a reason to delete. Which part of, "I have looked up all of the sources (including the 1968 Times article) and they do not discuss the position at all, merely mention it tangentially," isn't a reason to delete? The title itself is non-notable; or can you find any references to back it up? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm searching through the entire Times Digital Archive 1785—1985, to which I have a subscription, and I am finding no hits of "Minister for the Civil Service" except lists of Cabinet members since the 1960s. It seems that nobody has ever carried out any notable action with their Minister for the Civil Service hat on; this is genuinely not a notable position. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service seems pretty notable. But you're missing the point here. The Minister for the Civil Service did not always exist—it was created at some point and its role was delineated, right? It was decided that the role would be filled by the PM, and that has always been the case since, I guess, the 1960s. In the 1980s, maybe today too, the head of the Home Civil Service reported "to the Prime Minister in the prime minister's capacity as Minister for the Civil Service." This is hardly an exciting article, and I'm not surprised you don't find a lot about the position in newspaper archives, but undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post and its history. The fact that we don't have that now is not a reason to delete, and neither is "I looked at the sources in the article and they were not good." It's completely reasonable for a reader to come here looking for a basic description of the "minister of civil service" hat that all PMs wear and I'm sure we can construct an article that does that even if we are not there yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an article on a legal case does not mean that Wikipedia should have separate articles on both parties. "Undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post." Then go find them. Personally, speaking as a politics student with extensive access to university resources etc., I am aware of none. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation to the court case was meant as a refutation of your argument that "nobody has ever carried out any notable action with their Minister for the Civil Service hat on," nothing more. It's great that you're a politics student, but unless you're a specialist (as in a professional, not a university student) on the history of Her Majesty's Civil Service I would not expect you to be familiar with the kind of sources I am talking about. The fact that you are not is neither here nor there. I know less about the UK Civil Service than you do, I'm sure, but I know there absolutely, positively must be reliable sources (akin to this but more reliable) which briefly discuss the history and/or basic description of this job—do you seriously think there are not, i.e. that no one even knows what the job is or when it began? I think WP:COMMON is pretty relevant to this discussion as well. Now I'm really done with this but you can have the last word. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do you seriously think no one even knows what the job is or when it began?" Where on Earth did you get such a ludicrous idea as that? There are people who know, and reliable sources that state, what my GCSE results were and when I sat the exams. It doesn't mean that an article on my grades would be notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation to the court case was meant as a refutation of your argument that "nobody has ever carried out any notable action with their Minister for the Civil Service hat on," nothing more. It's great that you're a politics student, but unless you're a specialist (as in a professional, not a university student) on the history of Her Majesty's Civil Service I would not expect you to be familiar with the kind of sources I am talking about. The fact that you are not is neither here nor there. I know less about the UK Civil Service than you do, I'm sure, but I know there absolutely, positively must be reliable sources (akin to this but more reliable) which briefly discuss the history and/or basic description of this job—do you seriously think there are not, i.e. that no one even knows what the job is or when it began? I think WP:COMMON is pretty relevant to this discussion as well. Now I'm really done with this but you can have the last word. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an article on a legal case does not mean that Wikipedia should have separate articles on both parties. "Undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post." Then go find them. Personally, speaking as a politics student with extensive access to university resources etc., I am aware of none. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service seems pretty notable. But you're missing the point here. The Minister for the Civil Service did not always exist—it was created at some point and its role was delineated, right? It was decided that the role would be filled by the PM, and that has always been the case since, I guess, the 1960s. In the 1980s, maybe today too, the head of the Home Civil Service reported "to the Prime Minister in the prime minister's capacity as Minister for the Civil Service." This is hardly an exciting article, and I'm not surprised you don't find a lot about the position in newspaper archives, but undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post and its history. The fact that we don't have that now is not a reason to delete, and neither is "I looked at the sources in the article and they were not good." It's completely reasonable for a reader to come here looking for a basic description of the "minister of civil service" hat that all PMs wear and I'm sure we can construct an article that does that even if we are not there yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. I'm sorry, TT, but I really don't think you'll convince AfD that a national-level post in the British government ought to be a redlink. Posts that automatically go with the Prime Minister-ship, such as First Lord of the Treasury, can have their own articles if individually notable. If not then it ought to redirect to the Prime Minister's office as a plausible search term, but that's a discussion that belongs on the individual article's talk page; things only belong at AfD if there's a realistic argument for deletion over redirection, and I don't think that applies.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This post is not "individually notable" as you put it (or can you provide evidence to the contrary?) and should thus be deleted IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think S Marshall is saying that any "national-level post in the British government" is notable. Frankly it's rather silly to claim otherwise, but obviously we've both expressed our views so I'm going to leave it there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so we're back to it's notable and anyone who claims other wise is "silly" again. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think S Marshall is saying that any "national-level post in the British government" is notable. Frankly it's rather silly to claim otherwise, but obviously we've both expressed our views so I'm going to leave it there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This post is not "individually notable" as you put it (or can you provide evidence to the contrary?) and should thus be deleted IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be missing my point, here, TT. Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. If the post isn't individually notable—a matter on which I'm agnostic—then it shouldn't have its own article. But the fact that it shouldn't have its own article doesn't prevent a redirect. And if redirect is a realistic option, as it is in this case, then the nomination fails WP:BEFORE, which says that alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an AfD nomination is opened. See now?—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a section in the article about the PM, since the office is duplicated. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge it to Her Majesty's Civil Service since it'd fit nicely there. Dream Focus 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I still think it's worth keeping the article, I would be fine with a merge to this subsection of Her Majesty's Civil Service. That's clearly the appropriate target for a merge, obviously with a redirect to the subsection left behind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per First Lord of the Treasury. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge In the same way that President of the United States Senate is not treated separately from Vice President of the United States I see no reason why this couldn't also redirect to Her Majesty's Civil Service since it's among the Prime Minister's offices. Mandsford 13:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above arguments.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mandsford's argument, which is very well-taken. I'm relatively confident that notability could be established regarding the actual title, but that notability would likely be similar to the notability of "President of the United States Senate" -- part and parcel of a larger, more notable role. My secondary vote would be to Keep, but I think Merging is vastly preferable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight difference is in the case of President of the United States Senate vs Vice President of the United States the two post are linked by the constitution, in the case of PM and Minister for the Civil Service it is by convention and there is nothing to stop the current or future PM advising the Queen to appoint someone else as Minister for the Civil Service. As for the redirect to Her Majesty's Civil Service - so by the same logic should Home Secretary be redirected to Home Office ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that that is a slight difference -- emphasis on slight -- although I can see how one could disagree with this. As for your second argument, it seems pretty clear from the article that Home Secretary is far more independently notable, but I can see the problem you are raising. Do you have any support for a merge and redirect? If so, do you think redirecting to the article on the PM position is a better choice? I wonder if it might be. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No I see no reason to make any change, the position is notable, I agree not as instantly and as publicly recognisable as say Home Secretary. Besides if there is a redirect to be made, if you read the article, it would appear that the position is more closely aligned with that of First Lord of the Treasury. Codf1977 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that that is a slight difference -- emphasis on slight -- although I can see how one could disagree with this. As for your second argument, it seems pretty clear from the article that Home Secretary is far more independently notable, but I can see the problem you are raising. Do you have any support for a merge and redirect? If so, do you think redirecting to the article on the PM position is a better choice? I wonder if it might be. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Prime Ministership. Normally I'd say that all government positions are notable, but this one is for all intents and purposes a technicality to all the Prime Minister to retain jurisdiction over the Civil Service. Suggest adding a section stating the two posts that the Prime Minister simultaneously holds and why (but keep First Lord of the Treasury as a separate article because that was once a notable position in its own right). If someone finds more to write about this article, by all means keep it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although this is not a major area of my expertise, I believe there are historical reasons why this is at least nominally a separate office from the Prime Ministership, although the practice for many years has been for the Prime Minister to be assigned this additional title. As such, a separate article is warranted, although it might be a brief one and of course would note the practice of linking the two positions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Per all governmental positions being notable, First and Second Lords of the Treasury and the fact that Cameron could decide to appoint anyone Minister at any time.-[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Obviously frivolous and vexatious nomination per WP:SK. The nominator should be warned to observe our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: as stated above UK ministerial positions are inherently notable. The fact that so far this office has usually been held by the Prime Minister is irrelevant. In fact Paul Channon was Minster in 1979 Staff (15 December 1979). "Pay research; Bitter fruits". The Economist. London: The Economist Newspaper. p. 23. Retrieved 5 June 2010. as was Roibert Sheldon Staff (25 August 1984). "Thatcher's Whitehall". The Economist. London: The Economist Newspaper. p. 20. Retrieved 5 June 2010.. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems a perfectly legitimate (if unavoidably dull) topic for an encyclopedia; we're not harming ourselves by having it, and it saves adding a chunk of only semi-relevant material to our article on the PM. Shimgray | talk | 17:24, 6 June 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. Almost complete copyvio of http://www.bclna.com/bclna_about_historical.htm; too promotional to keep even if copyright permission was given. thisshould have been speedy deleted when it was written in 2008. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British Columbia Landscape & Nursery Association
- British Columbia Landscape & Nursery Association (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:ORG. hardly any coverage. [61]. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BabyCenter
- BabyCenter (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:NN web site - failed prod because previous prod was mal-formed. (yes, I know) Toddst1 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no credible claim to notability for the company. A search for sources failed to find anything. Could almost be speedy deleted, but perhaps the article has existed for too long for that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG ... also, Alexa Internet is not a WP:RS. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per following sources:
- Joe Szadkowski (May 19, 1998). "BabyCenter a treat for expectant parents". The Washington Times.
- Jon Swartz (April 21, 1999). "EToys Delays IPO, Will Buy BabyCenter". The San Francisco Chronicle.
- Verne Kopytoff (December 10, 2001). "Making a comeback - Web sites reborn as marketing arms for big companies". The San Francisco Chronicle.
- Julio Ojeda-Zapata (May 25, 1998). "Sites That Help Dads Get Comfortable With Firstborn". St. Paul Pioneer Press.
- Jean Scheidnes (March 3, 2001). "J&J buying BabyCenter from eToys". The Star-Ledger.
- Hillary Rhodes (December 20, 2007). "Move over Emma, Sophia tops list". The Post-Tribune.
- "Cool Sites". Contra Costa Times. November 9, 1997.
- Paula Schleis (June 26, 2000). "BabyCenter Site Can Help With Bringing Up Baby". Akron Beacon Journal.
- "`Michael,' `Sarah' Top Names". Tulsa World. January 16, 1998.
- Jonathan Rabinovitz (October 25, 1998). "Online Retailers Carving Out New Ground In E-Turf". San Jose Mercury News.
- And that's only page one. I'll shove these into the article's "Further reading" section for others to add if they got the time. Gary King (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep above sources make it easily pass WP:GNG NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found by Gary support notability. Inniverse (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources found by Gary King. Codf1977 (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - many reliable sources exist covering the site, and it has received two notable awards (a Webby and a NII Award). Robofish (talk) 21:28, 4 June 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) 02:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triangle control frame
- Triangle control frame (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 useful.
This page is a bit (extremely) unfocused. I left a comment for the article's author nearly two years ago ... and the focus of the article has not improved.
The general category is flight control systems. There is an existing article on Aircraft flight control system. Weight-shift controls are a specific sort of flight control (and the FAA uses this term extensively on their site and in their publications). From an engineering perspective, using weight-shift as a means of flight control (mainly used for smaller/simpler craft) is particularly clever, and worth mention.
The particular shape of the structural member grasped by the pilot (in the case of small craft) is not really significant. You could use an inverted-"T", bent-"L" - or many other shapes - for the same exact purpose (and many shapes have indeed seen use).
At this moment, the article for Weight-shift control redirects to Ultralight trike ... an instance of use of weight-shift control, but by no means the entire category.
I believe the best course of action is:
- Expand the Weight-shift control article, removing the redirect, and using some content from this article.
- Add a reference from Aircraft flight control system to Weight-shift control.
- Remove this article.
(Could just add to the Aircraft flight control system article, but I suspect that would tend to make the article too long and less focused.)
pbannister (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as there's no valid argument for deletion. See: WP:ATA. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - The nominator is advocating the re-use of some of this material to develop a weight-shift control article. I applaud that. But that does not requires deletion, and if as proposed, material from this article is used, then the attribution history needs to be kept by merging and then redirecting to the new article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 3 June 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. This is right on the line between keep and no consensus, but it's quite apparent to me there is no consensus to delete this article. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
İbrahim Bilgen
- İbrahim Bilgen (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 proposed speedy deletion, however the deletion tag was repeatedly removed by another user, in violation of WP policy. In any case this individual is not notable per the general notability guideline for biographies, and therefore there should not be an independent article about him. This information should be merged into the Gaza flotilla clash article, and the article deleted. Marokwitz (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid. The deceased was not notable prior to the flotilla, so this is WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to main Gaza flotilla raid, or to a separate page Gaza flotilla raid victims once names and information about those killed in the raid are made available.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjmustak (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Here's a list of names (and a few tidbits of information and pictures) of the victims: http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2010/06/putting-names-to-faces.html --Fjmustak (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many articles for candidates for mayor and MP in Wikipedia. Siirt has a population of 243,435. For example, Ben Konop, Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. There are not many Turkish editors in Wikipedia, therefore not all Turkish politicians have pages for themselves, that does not mean this article should be deleted. Kavas (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, and merge later: Gaza flotilla raid is not a good place for this. It should be merged to the article Gaza flotilla raid victims. Writing this article is not possible at the moment since Israel military has censored the exact number deaths and their names from the press so far. I suggest we keep the article for now till we get more information about the casualties. One can then create the article Gaza flotilla raid victims and merge this one into that. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the individual named here has no notoriety and his inclusion here is being used for personal ends as evidenced by the repeated removal of the deletion tag (in violation of WP policies), which was put in place in explicit accordance WITH WP policy for single incident/event. Other failed politicians had other significant biographical details worthy of entry - Ben Konop, mentioned above, is an appointed commissioner who has implemented numerous policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahveed323 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He was a founder of Virtue Party that took 15% vote in Turkish general elections. Kavas (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you produce sufficient evidence of the deceased importance/notability by reliable secondary sources (regarding his activities prior to his death), then I will have no objection to and will change my vote, however so far this wasn't done, in my research I did not find evidence of notability, and must assume he is not notable enough. Being one of the founders (out of how many?) of a minor and unsuccessful political party is not enough. Marokwitz (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Virtue Party is not a minor party. It took more votes than CHP which was founded by Atatürk. It was banned by the Constitutional Court of Turkey after taking 15.41% vote in 1999, it should be regarded as a success. The party was the main opposition party. Some of the party members were Abdullah Gül Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Turkish Prime Minister, Bülent Arınç Turkish Vice Prime Minister, Mehmet Ali Şahin Speaker of the Parliament of Turkey.Kavas (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Kavas. He founded a party which received 15% of the votes in Turkey. Then he was killed in this historical incident. Obvious keep. First Verse (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. Let's be clear that he was not "killed". He died of a heart attack.Cannot find my source. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Huh? What's your source for that ?Marokwitz (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It must be made clear that he was NOT the "founder" of this party. Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "A founder of that party", I wrote. Kavas (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable, died during an incident which hit the headlines worldwide. PatGallacher (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment is not based on wikipedia notability guidelines and policy. Is every person that died in a notable incident (For example, the September 11 attack) notable enough for his own Wikipedia page? See WP:MEMORIAL.Marokwitz (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect - seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of notability in his own right; if it wasn't for his recent death, I doubt he'd have received a Wikipedia page. Robofish (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is not my friend, relative, acquaintances, or anything. My first page was Neslihan Kavas on Wikipedia, they said that I was her, but I am not. Dear editors, do not call me people who I am NOT. Kavas (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- the boat death may be the issue that brings him clear notability,, but is is not the only notable thing in his life. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a founder of a political party and a pioneering television channel with several reliable sources, although having "died during an incident which hit the headlines worldwide" is insufficient in itself for an article. In relation to the comment "if it wasn't for his recent death, I doubt he'd have received a Wikipedia page", it is simply unfortunate that he wasn't created until after his death but this is often the way. Wikipedia is incomplete in that regard. --candle•wicke 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no proof has been given that makes him notable enough for a own page in Wikipedia (WP:PEOPLE). But, he is notable enough to get a sentence in Gaza flotilla raid article. --Kslotte (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Candlewicke. The death in a highly publicized incident does add somewhat to his notability. Though that by itself wouldn't suffice, the totality of factors is enough. JamesMLane t c 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Particularly: subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, there are a lot of claims in this, but even if they were true they are passing mentions. WP:POLITICIAN does NOT include candidates. Owning something, is not criteria for notability. Dying is WP:ONEEVENT. Finally: you have to meet at least one criteria, there is no doctrine of totality.--Savonneux (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is linked to sources. Exists perfectly as a stub Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid or Gaza flotilla raid victims. Was not notable prior to the event, so this is WP:SINGLEEVENT. The event itself is indeed highly significant, but the individual's role within it is not a large one Maashatra11 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a founder of a notable party explains why he was famous. Also the references are there (with some of them published too, that's the most important thing). Minimac (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not "the" founder, he is "one of the" founders. If he's notable only for being one of a certain political party's founders, I'm really wondering where are all the other founders' articles? The fact is that he didn't have an article prior to that event. Period. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "a founder" not mean "one of the founders"? This person may not have had an article until they died but this is so often the case and has happened at least once today. Floribert Chebeya's death has just been announced. He was a leading activist in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the 1990s but despite this 20-year career he did not have an article either until he died. Andrei Voznesensky is an important poet who died this week (he is on the Main Page). His article looked like this on the day he died and there has been considerable improvement since (even before the Main Page appearance). The appearance/non-existence of an article at the time of death gives little indication of importance. --candle•wicke 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX --Savonneux (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not about notability but about the idea that dead people with no article cannot be ever be notable if they had no article before. It doesn't work like the Nobel Prize where it is a race against time to make sure they have it before they die. The person ought to be notable as well of course. --candle•wicke 01:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX --Savonneux (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "a founder" not mean "one of the founders"? This person may not have had an article until they died but this is so often the case and has happened at least once today. Floribert Chebeya's death has just been announced. He was a leading activist in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the 1990s but despite this 20-year career he did not have an article either until he died. Andrei Voznesensky is an important poet who died this week (he is on the Main Page). His article looked like this on the day he died and there has been considerable improvement since (even before the Main Page appearance). The appearance/non-existence of an article at the time of death gives little indication of importance. --candle•wicke 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not "the" founder, he is "one of the" founders. If he's notable only for being one of a certain political party's founders, I'm really wondering where are all the other founders' articles? The fact is that he didn't have an article prior to that event. Period. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I imagine if Elizabeth May or Jim Harris in Canada had been killed in an international incident, that it wouldn't disqualify them from having a wiki page - if anything, the manner of his death justifies further. Obvious keep. KRNasir (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep big man in a small town, notable just like Norman Paech, and Aengus Ó Snodaigh. WP:Politician: "2-Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Pohick2 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Savonneux and Robofish. Unless there is evidence that he was more than just "a founder" of a fairly minor political party, I don't think this belongs (keep in mind that political parties are often "founded" by large groups of people who do nothing more than add their signatures to a founding document). Benwing (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because I do not see a reason to do otherwise. Menj (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I removed that he was a psychiatrist with a doctorate (seems to be a namesake), but the article is useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mr. Bilgen was certainly notable in Turkey prior to his killing; the absence of an article for him on WP is not evidence he was not notable. It is only evidence that there was no article for him. The evidence he was notable, is the fact that he was a public figure with a long history of involvement in local and national politics and media. His death makes him more notable outside Turkey. This article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ibrahim Bilgen died in a noble cause. He died as he strived with free men and women to deliver humanitarian aid to people under inhumane siege. His death will surely be a big inspiration for all freedom activists around the World. Removing this page is just an unethical attempt to bury evidences of the Freedom Flotilla Massacre. Why would someone adamantly insist on removing the page of such a noble man while the page of the criminal Baruch Goldstein is kept untouched? Mamrushdi (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah you're completely right. Baruch Goldstein doesn't deserve his own article, because he is a criminal. --Maashatra11 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. While the incident in which he died was notable, there are no indications he was personally notable. Edward321 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not exactly the appropriate place for this; I don't know about the whole process for nomination (and I'd probably screw it up), but there's an article for another one of the dead from the flotilla, Furkan Doğan, who is clearly not notable (much less so than the subject of this AfD). If someone could please nominate it appropriately, thanks. 207.216.57.226 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather go for keep and wait with the expectation that more sources with arise given more time. There is no reason we can't reconsider it later. Circéus (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep would be notable even without the recent raid. Founders of significant political parties are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 9 June 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.
- This was accidentally opened twice. Please ignore this .
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Payroll tax model
- Payroll tax model (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 claims to be, and appears to be, original research, is not notable, has no citations and likely is incorrect, and has been tagged for deletion for 3 years.Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article appears to have been created after editor's attempts to insert vanity edits into Payroll tax article were deleted: [62]. These edits also identify the editor as "discoverer" of the "model". AllyD (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sheesh. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a content fork from payroll tax and fails WP:OR. Gobonobo T C 20:53, 4 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coons v. Hallman
- Coons v. Hallman (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 is about a local lawsuit with no demonstration that this isn't simply news. Note that the article's creator claims to be the communications director for one of the parties to the lawsuit, so this is riddled with a clear COI and is clearly POV. Prod was declined by creator; other than one local news article added in the same edit as declining the prod, all of the sources are from the plaintiff's website. There's no evidence of notability here. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not news and can not cover every lawsuit filed. If the Sea Life Aquarium becomes notable then these facts can be reported there. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utterly trivial, and would not even be worth mentioning when the aquarium becomes notable, as i expect it will. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 80.84.55.221 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Local lawsuit at the trial court level in a state. Not concluded, therefore not notable for establishing any precedent. Not notable for any other reason. This is just newsy. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The citations of Goldwater Institute included a quote from one of our litigators (which was deleted in a recent edit) and a timeline entry about an action that the City of Tempe took (which is still there). Unless the entry in the timeline is biased – and it is simply a statement of a legal action, so I do not see how it could be – it is within WP’s policies to cite oneself. After this most recent edit, 2/3 of the references are from outside sources. WP allows citing oneself “within reason,” and I believe that this is within that policy line. A specific suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. Additionally, editing an article for a legal case of which you/your organization is a party is not an inherent conflict of interest, as dictated by COI, and is simply strongly discouraged. As such, it does not seem that the article is inherently in violation of COI and further proof of COI is needed. A suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. I can understand why there would be suspicions of COI and POV, but, given the specifics of WP’s policies, it seems that further evidence is needed to support this. Mr. Conservative (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010
- Setting aside the COI issue, none of this indicates in any way that the lawsuit meets Wikipedia standards of notability. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the general rules here in the past, and at WikiProject Law, are that most lawsuits are not notable until they become appealed; certain exceptions include those involving where both plaintiff and defendant are notable litigants. I can't see how this will have any precedential value even if it gets to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 4 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alief (belief)
- Alief (belief) (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 appears to be about a neologism that has been used in a few psychology and/or philosophy papers. Other than the paper by the person who coined the word (in 2008), the citations do not appear to be about the word even if they mention it. As such, it does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NEO. Jminthorne (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:NEO. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there -- I don't think the alief (belief) entry should be deleted. If you look at the Dennett article, you'll see that a full subsection (section 8) is devoted to discussion of alief http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/McKay-Dennett.pdf. In the Bloom book (which will be published next week), nearly 15 pages are devoted to a discussion of alief. Among those are the pages that the Chronicle of Higher Education published online this week http://chronicle.com/article/The-Pleasures-of-Imagination/65678/
"The Chronicle of Higher Education has long been the giant in the field. Founded in 1966 by Corbin Gwaltney, a former editor at Johns Hopkins University who still owns the publication, it quickly established itself as a must-read for college administrators and faculty. The Chronicle now has a print circulation of just over 85,000 and its Web site gets more than 10 million page views per month." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/business/media/14education.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonStevin (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there -- I'm happy to discuss. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.203.123 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. As an unfamiliar neologism that's used in reliable sources, this is a plausible search term on Wikipedia. I don't think it should be a redlink. But I agree with Jminthorne that this shouldn't be an article; as written, it's a dictionary definition. On balance I'm minded to transwiki to Wiktionary, and replace this page with a soft redirect to Wiktionary's definition of the term.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable philosophers use the termGreg Bard 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for the second day in a row, the Bloom article is the most read item on the Chronicle Web site (which gets 10Million+ page views per month) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.192.84 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everyone -- I think "alief" should be kept. While it s a recent coinage, it's been getting considerable attention within the psychology and philosophy of mind community. The most recent example, aside from the Bloom article, is that there is a session in the most recent Society of Philosophy and Psychology conference (SPP 2010) called "Intentionality, Biases, & Aliefs" ((http://www.socphilpsych.org/2010-SPP-Program.pdf). SPP is "the premier scientific and educational organization for philosophically interested psychologists and psychologically interested philosophers in North America" (http://www.socphilpsych.org/). The term has a similar status to philosophical expressions such as qualia, Swampman, and Direct Realism, all which are part of wikipedia. While it's admittedly a newer term it's clear from the SPP session that it's the sort of notion that contemporary scholars in the area are now well aware of. SimonSteven
- keep Term is used both in philosophy and cognitive science. Is discussed in peer reviewed literature. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Completely new to me, but there seem to be sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 9 June 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3
- Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3 (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)
since I stuffed up bundling this into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2 I'm nominating it here. no notability shown for this compilation album. having a bunch of notable artists does not make a compilation notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. prod removed saying "This is a ridiculous delete IMHO - Kitsuné are a reputable label and the artists involved are, in most cases, noteworthy (as expected for a compilation album)." duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search didn't seem promising. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Change to weak keep per the added review. Still not great, but it's significant coverage in a reliable source per WP:N. Huon (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As argued on the page for the second in the series, notability of artists and record label, combined with popularity of release and proper classification warrant inclusion in the wikipedia project. Particularly in light of the pitchfork review someone drummed up to support article.Stevezimmy (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular T · C 04:36, 2 June 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. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Warder
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}} . |
- Tom Warder (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 person. Warder is possible notable as the catalyst of his wife's (Marie Warder) campaign to educate the world about haemochromatosis, however he does not appear to be notable in and of himself. His "musical career" seems to have been limited to a stint in a South African military band, and his "inventions" are really no more than minor engineering tweaks to existing technologies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Argolin (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources supporting the notability of the topic, including multiple newspaper articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article does not cite "multiple newspaper articles". It cites
- a local newspaper claiming that Warder "invented" the incubator, when, in fact, he merely designed a larger version of an existing machine
- An article in newsweek that mentions "two South African inventors and an American associate", but not Warder by name
- An article in the Johannesburg Sunday Press regarding his invention of the pop top machine (which may or may not mention him by name).
- The other citations in the article are about various aspects of hemochromatosis, but not about Warder himself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - subject of published secondary source material. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The secondary source material does not constitute significant coverage (a brief mention of the bottle-cap deal which may or may not have actually mentioned his name, since the author has changed the quoted text since the topic was raised, and a brief mention in a local paper about his incubator "invention" which was no invention but rather a redesign of an existing device). Coverage in the book The Bronze Killer cannot really be called an independent secondary source as this was a book written by Warder's wife. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular T · C 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no significant sources for significant personal accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Marked embellishment of sources to the point of original research. The very description "catalyst" indicates that others acted. Delete as not notable -- insufficient reliable secondary sourcing.Novangelis (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we don't want to bombard you, I am writing on behalf of a group of us who set out to test opinion concerning the deletion of this article, emailing, Facebook etc., and the response has been phenominal - a unanimous DONT! Some of the comments really make sense. He really ISBold text "The world's most common HHC patient, and it is a fact that not a single day goes by without someone, somewhere reading "The Bronze Killer" which, in turn, motivates the readers to check the Net to find out more about him. -- What better place to go for research, than Wikipedia. We don't think that the editors are aware of how many millions of people are now known to suffer from Hemochromatosis, and Tom Warder is also on YouTube. I have also been in touch with the publishers of the B/K and they report that people are downloading the eBOOK version of the book like crazy!
Our suggestion is that, if the main concern is that the article reads like an obituary, you could delete the EPILOGUE - BUT NOT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! Marie Warder is in touch with a former SAA colleague of Tom Warder, who now also lives in Canada, and he assured us that the Incubator was not just a larger version of the one that had been used for infants. It had some very specific features and, furthermore, the way it was fitted into the floor of the aircraft was also truly innovative.
I also see a comment about his band that is somewhat uncalled for. Reliable sources inform us that, the band he led after the war was amazingly popular. Played for the "Coronation Ball" etc. in Johannesburg, many other notable functions in the rest of the country, and was the "band of choice" for functions (Johannesburg Consolidated Investments and other large goldmining companies).
Please don't delete the article!
Murella (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main concern is not that the article reads like an obituary -- that can be fixed by rewriting the article -- but that Tom Warder is not inherently notable outside of his relationship to Marie Warder and her crusade to raise awareness of hemochromatosis. If readers wish to know about hemochromatosis, they can read that article; they don't need to read about Tom Warder to learn about the disease. The vast content of the article relates to his "accomplishments" outside of his role in the HHC campaign as a musician and inventor; accomplishments that do not make Warder especially notable. The mention of his condition and its catalyzing role in Marie Warder's campaign can be made at her article; outside of that, there is nothing much more to be said about him. If there are "reliable sources" to indicate that his band was notable, then an article about that band can be written citing those sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:22, 3 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Roccato
- Daniel Roccato (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:BIO and doesn't establish notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete True. Delete. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion." Quit a bit of coverage in a couple of local news sites as can be seen with this Search.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 23:12, June 1, 2010
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is all local news coverage. If we had something substantial from The Philadelphia Inquirer, that would be different; however, typical smalltown news coverage isn't enough, or otherwise all mayors would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable local figure - if the only coverage is local, that isn't significant press coverage for meeting WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO in general, nor WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the only press coverage seems to be the type of routine coverage in the local newspaper which all local politicos get. Valenciano (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Only local news. It can't even be argued that local news has the possibility of showing notability for a mayor because every single mayor in the whole world has local news. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 2 June 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 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Sussis
- Matthew Sussis (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)
Speedy delete. Sorry for this, CSD tags persistenly removed by sock. This is a non-notable person, possbily a hoax. No Google scholar hits for this person, no relevant Google hits at all. Hairhorn (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
........ you have foiled my plot. well done, hairhorn. (69.115.42.207 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 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 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Wright
- Elizabeth Wright (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 sources or proof of notability; it has been tagged for this for over two years and in all this time no sources have materialized. The only external link in this article is to the author's blog, which makes this page seem almost like an advertisement. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, take a look at the editor who created the article (Comradesandalio) and his talk page and edit history; although he is now inactive (has not edited since 2009), it appears as though when he was active he primarily spent his time creating articles about non-notable and/or dubious topics in an attempt to push a rather odd POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly Speedy delete, BLP with no assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I too can find no sources that would show notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 June 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 speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by HJ Mitchell. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AV Stumpfl
- AV Stumpfl (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 can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This business manufactures mobile projection screens and solutions for multidisplay production and presentation. Unambiguous advertising: ... offers a software-based overall concept for media control and building automation linking together existing standards under one user interface. It fits for unprecedented installation and mobile applications enriched with touch panel interaction.... used worldwide in cutting-edge attractions... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Blatant advertising. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 2 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TinyKRNL
- TinyKRNL (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 is a stub, lacks any references, questionable notability. Rohedin (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see no significance at all. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cancelled software that (apparently) never got very far in development. No Google Books or News hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Software that actually never released. Pxtreme75 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Of too trivial significance, if at all, to ReactOS, to consider merging. --LoneRifle (talk) 12:50, 4 June 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 Children of Peace International. Consensus is to merge, the AFD on the suggested target has been closed "keep" and this article has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Binh Rybacki
- Binh Rybacki (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:BIO. no significant indepth coverage [63]. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability as organization founder. Article is written to form with links, needs to be flagged for lack of footnotes. This is a piece that needs mild editorial modification, in my estimation, not the death penalty. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Children of Peace International as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Peace International. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 20 May 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, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Children of Peace International per User:Whpq and our comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Peace International.--PinkBull 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I originally closed this as redirect but decided it best to keep it open until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Peace International is closed. However, I left the redirect in place per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 1 June 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) 00:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP and the other AFD has been relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Children of Peace International per Whpq. Seems pretty clear to me that the two are inseparable in notability. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 23:23, 7 June 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a "per nom". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Children of Peace International
- Children of Peace International (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:ORG. most of the coverage is not indepth and merely relates to fund raising events held by this group. [64]. Note I am also nominating this organisation's founder Binh Rybacki, so I feel redirect to this person is not valid in this instance. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Children of Peace International and merge Binh Rybacki into the origanisation article. Rybacki's notability is primarily in founding the charity and are inextricably linked. [65], [66] are articles that area available for view covering her and the charity rather than specific events. The news story identifies a PBS documentary covering the charity. There are also several news articles behind pay walls that look to be articles about the subjects, and not mere event announcements. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 20 May 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) 00:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lionelt (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why the sources provided are not sufficient? "Per nom" doesn't address that. -- Whpq (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User: Whpq. The Children of Peace International and Binh Rybacki may not be notable enough for each to have a stand-alone article, but the aggregate of sources indicate notability for one article covering both subjects. --PinkBull 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin. I have closed the AFD on Binh Rybacki as redirect per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought it might be best to leave it open until this one is closed. However, since it's still unsourced I left the redirect in place. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Children of Peace International and merge content from Binh Rybacki into article, as per Whpq. Seems pretty clear to me that the two are inseparable in notability. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 23:27, 7 June 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. No objections to deletion. Sandstein 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madeleine Hutchins
- Madeleine Hutchins (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 entertainer. Passing mention in 2 reviews of 1 stage play. GregJackP (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction. Those reviews are of different plays, staged in different continents. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment furthermore, the McCarter Theater is one of America's most important and venerable playhouses. The production there was reviewed in the New York Times and a number of other papers. While I realize that this does not, in and of itself, make the subject notable, it does indicate someone who should be taken seriously in this discussion. Evalpor (talk) 20:08, 20 May 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, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two references are nor sufficient to establish notability for a stage actress. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 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) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 2 June 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Bell (child actor)
- John Bell (child actor) (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 removed; Non-notable WP:GNG child actor; privacy concerns; lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BIO, WP:BLP Chzz ► 07:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Joal Beal (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not yet meeting the notability requirements as outlined at WP:ENT. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actor meets WP:ENTERTAINER as he has had significant roles in multiple television shows and other productions. This actor has the significant and regular role of "Anthony Weaver" in the notable television shows "Life of Riley"; and also has the significant and regular role of "Toby" on the notable television shows "Tracy Beaker Returns". He may be a young actor, but his roles to date do meet the guidelines for inclusion. Kugao (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2010
- Delete The article states that he plays "recurring" and "supporting" roles, e.g. minor roles in those series so I guess that the fails the guideline, as those roles are not really significant. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
- 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, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is more than a little misleading. He did not have a role in the legendary 40s/50s show Life of Riley which it links to, but a minor modern UK sitcom that happens to recycle the title. Does not pass WP:ENT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 2003 Demo
- July 2003 Demo (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 per WP:MUSIC and Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 May 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) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:59, 2 June 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) 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Like It Rare 2
- I Like It Rare 2 (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 per WP:MUSIC and Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 May 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) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC,totally fails notability. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS, absolutely no evidence of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:28, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Hill (racing driver)
- Joshua Hill (racing driver) (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)
Page proposed for deletion because: "Fails WP:BIO. Very notable family, but he has not received sufficient attention for himself yet." Contested because Channel allegedly made a program featuring him. No evidence for this has been found, and there are no Google News articles about Joshua Hill[67]. Fram (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seems to be more commonly known as Josh Hill, and there is some coverage [68], but enough to establish notability? Nuttah (talk) 14:36, 30 May 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) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Goes not currenyly meet guidelines for notability. No prejudice against recreation should he become notable in the future. Edward321 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 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 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Slaiki
- Malik Slaiki (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)
Originally WP:PROD, then contested by article author with no reason at all. The subject is a Belgian-Algerian footballer who plays in the Belgian Second Division, which is not fully professional according to WP:FPL; therefore the subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NSPORT. In addition the subject seems to fail also the general notability guideline, so he is non-notable in my opinion. Have your say. Angelo (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:29, 2 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hiranandani Estate
- Hiranandani Estate (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 not denying that this estate may be notable, I believe it's currently simply advertising masquerading as an article, as shown by phrases such as "Along with simplicity of design and strong construction, the complex also boasts ". I think, in this case, it's best to delete the entire thing and start again - this time without any input from employees of the company! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not agreed, If article is not as per wikipedia guideline then we should contribute to article and make it as per guide line. If you think article is written like advertising then we can re-write it. I m not in favor of deleting, instead we can re-write it. KuwarOnline (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. This would appear to be about a private development complex, not an established place name: Hiranandani Estate is an upmarket condominium-styled township built by the Hiranandani Group in Thane city, a suburb in the Mumbai Metropolitan Area... As noted, the advertising style of this article is so sweetly promotionally slanted that just reading the text will rot your teeth. I gather that Indian use of township does not correspond to US or Canadian use of the term; here a "township" is a subdivision of a county. The article Hiranandani Gardens is similar in style and probably ought to share this one's fate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have stubbed the article and added a reliable source which describes it as "posh". So i kept the "upmarket" descriptor in the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:01, 26 May 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) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears large enough to be notable,and in the present version i see no signs of promotionalism, just description. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed, seems like the promotional material has been removed but the article does need expansion. Vedant (talk) 14:43, 2 June 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 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Cant
- Lisa Cant (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)
Declining speedy. What are the notability requirements for models? Just WP:BIO? Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I assume WP:ENTERTAINER should be used in case of models. Following the corresponding notability criteria, there appear to be sources to establish notability (coverage in several industry-related reliable sources accessible via Google News and Books). Furthermore, it represents a stub and is under experts attention of WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION. Zhernovoi (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete WP:ENTERTAINER is the correct guideline to use, however she doesn't appear to pass it. SnottyWong talk 17:23, 27 May 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) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable student model with zero references. TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:42, 6 June 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. Unreferenced OR. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Gremlins
- List of Gremlins (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 details contain poorly-written original research and character synthesis. Many of the Gremlins are not specifically named within the films and instead have been given names based upon appearances. The film articles, Gremlins and Gremlins 2: The New Batch, already cover the pertinent details described in this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Sottolacqua's reasoning. This article violates WP:NOR and the two film articles cover them sufficiently. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the information that does not violate WP:NOR into the article about the movie that the information is pertinent to. If it violates WP:NOR that information should not be merged and the article deleted. Spidey104contribs 14:47, 1 June 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) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Part of the compromise in Wikipedia's gradual move from away from its childhood days of having separate elaborate articles for every TV, movie or comic book character was that these would be consolidated into more compact articles. We still have some residuals from those early days Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Plunderer being the perfect example of insistence that a minor fictional character should have his own biography. While I wouldn't support individual articles about any Gremlins, Pokemons, Care Bears, Smurfs, Dalmatians, etc., neither would I support erasing all mention of fictional items. Sourcing to the sites on the web would be relatively easy. Mandsford 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the text in this article? These are essentially descriptions of Gremlins that appear for (at some points) mere seconds in the film with non-speaking roles. The List of Pokemon, List of Smurfs, List of Care Bears, etc. all contain details and exposition because the subjects have been presented in media as developed characters. The List of Gremlins is akin to listing every single zombie that appears for a few seconds in Dawn of the Dead. At most there should be a character section for Gizmo and Stripe in the main film's article. Additionally, the actual article is filled with original research, opinion, fancruft and minutia to an intricate level of detail. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the article could stand some abridging, particularly when it repeats information already in the article about the film, and I agree that there are problems in making up names (unless "Bat-Gremlin" is written somewhere), but again, this is the preferred form for describing fictional characters and there is nothing that can't be fixed with some editing. Remember that in Wikipedia's old days (I've been here since 2007), there probably would have been (and maybe were) separate "biographies" about "Gizmo" and "Stripe", and, worse yet, there are a lot of people who would have voted to keep such articles because they were about a major character in a popular film. Over the course of time, the character and episode articles that used to be representative of Wikipedia got folded into collective articles like this one. On the other hand, if someone were to create a brand new article about a gremlin now, it's likely that they would be referred over here. We can't close off every outlet that people have for a topic that is of interest to them. While I myself am not interested in Gremlins (I thoroughly despised the 1984 film, and never considered spending time on its sequels), other persons are. As I say, this is a compromise. I would much prefer to keep this "gremlin" of an article, no matter how imperfect it may be. It's far better than to figuratively put water upon it and have it multiply into lots and lots of horrible individual articles. Mandsford 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't "characters" – the only thing mentioned in several of the details for each Gremlin is a description of their appearance. There is no character exposition to expand upon since most appear for a few seconds in either of the film. The "other articles group similar characters into one article" argument does not apply to this AFD since the article in question includes minimal summary outside of appearance or what other characters in the film do when encountering the Gremlin. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the article could stand some abridging, particularly when it repeats information already in the article about the film, and I agree that there are problems in making up names (unless "Bat-Gremlin" is written somewhere), but again, this is the preferred form for describing fictional characters and there is nothing that can't be fixed with some editing. Remember that in Wikipedia's old days (I've been here since 2007), there probably would have been (and maybe were) separate "biographies" about "Gizmo" and "Stripe", and, worse yet, there are a lot of people who would have voted to keep such articles because they were about a major character in a popular film. Over the course of time, the character and episode articles that used to be representative of Wikipedia got folded into collective articles like this one. On the other hand, if someone were to create a brand new article about a gremlin now, it's likely that they would be referred over here. We can't close off every outlet that people have for a topic that is of interest to them. While I myself am not interested in Gremlins (I thoroughly despised the 1984 film, and never considered spending time on its sequels), other persons are. As I say, this is a compromise. I would much prefer to keep this "gremlin" of an article, no matter how imperfect it may be. It's far better than to figuratively put water upon it and have it multiply into lots and lots of horrible individual articles. Mandsford 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the text in this article? These are essentially descriptions of Gremlins that appear for (at some points) mere seconds in the film with non-speaking roles. The List of Pokemon, List of Smurfs, List of Care Bears, etc. all contain details and exposition because the subjects have been presented in media as developed characters. The List of Gremlins is akin to listing every single zombie that appears for a few seconds in Dawn of the Dead. At most there should be a character section for Gizmo and Stripe in the main film's article. Additionally, the actual article is filled with original research, opinion, fancruft and minutia to an intricate level of detail. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is pure in-universe plot summary. In the absence of reliable sources discussing the individual gremlins it seems better to have coverage of their appearance and behavior in the film articles where it already is. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appropriate combination article. The only solution to the back and forth over fiction is combination articles, where the individual parts of them do not have to be notable (they might be, and still the might be best written about in a combination article, or they might not, but there's enough information to include them.) Mandsford in my opinion has it right. the alternative is a set of random inclusions as the interest in the AfD discussion happens to be. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, entirely unreferenced OR. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - uncited original commentary. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 10 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Movie Review Query Engine
- Movie Review Query Engine (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)
Unclear if this organization satisfies WP:NOTE, and whether or not it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The article appears to function as a form of WP:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral Completely unnotable website. Completely fails WP:WEB and WP:N, and appears to be nothing but spam that managed to sneak in awhile back and stay hidden until they tried to pimp it more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to neutral. It clearly was spammed and is having serious COI issues from its editors, and I don't think the NYT blog posts provides much towards notability. However, in looking at Google Books there seems to be at least some indication of possible notability with 96 hits[69], including being mentioned by Roger Ebert in one of his books[70]. Leaning towards incubation to be completely rewritten from a neutral perspective and further research to see if the book mentions plus, as noted by C.Fred, searches outside of Google, can produce enough for a proper article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a lot of coverage, but it was written about in the New York Times, so it seems like the nomination hinges on the reading of "significant." I'd rather see more attempts at expansion and discussion on the talk page before I'm willing to axe this article. Based on the claims in the article about the subject's longevity, there should be more coverage (Wired archives, anybody?). —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think being given a short mention in a blog post is the same as actual significant coverage by the New York Times. That said, changing mine to a neutral based on comment above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I was able to find a lot of coverage for it (do a Google book search), but no significant coverage that dealt with the subject in depth. I wouldn't consider it spam; it seems to have been a significantly popular website at one time. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep some coverage, not in depth though [71]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 27 May 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) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a lot of coverage but discussed in reliable sources (see above). --Eleassar my talk 14:29, 3 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Nyttend, per G3: Vandalism. Non-admin close. — Glenfarclas (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The horney law
- The horney law (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)
Isn't exactly up to standards or a useful topic. --Sunao 00:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Its extremely useful!!!!! Now that i know its a law, I can invoke it and get chicks to invoke it as well. Of course, if this is actuall a hoax and not a law, it should be DELETED.--Milowent (talk) 01:05, 2 June 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Forman
- David Forman (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)
Unsure of notability. I declined a BLP PROD because I found sources, but they're hardly the most reliable. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 May 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)
- Weak keep Stuntmen did not used to be notable - they used to be invisible - but these are different times. The depth and variety of his experience, and his winning of an award at the Taurus World Stunt Awards, should qualify him as a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with above - winning an award for his practice makes him notable.Cptcrow (talk) 00:07, 2 June 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, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per career and awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:04, 2 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time Was (radio program)
- Time Was (radio program) (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 can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete a radio show running for a decade and a half would seem to suggest notability, but it was on a local station and I can't find much in the way of sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 2 June 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.
- ^ "A Trick of the Light: Richard Dawkins on Science and Religion".
- ^ "Eyes Wide Open: An Interview with Owen Gingerich".
- ^ "Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man".
- ^ "Mind at Work: The Computational Consciousness: An Interview with Steven Pinker".
- ^ "The Biological Origins of Human Morality: An Interview with Frans de Waal".
- ^ "The Limbic Fire: Interview neurologist V.S. Ramachandran".
- ^ "Disturbing the Universe: Freeman Dyson Wins the 2000 Templeton Prize for Religion".
- ^ "The Matter and Mystery of Consciousness: An Interview with Susan Greenfield".
- ^ "Science & Spirit - The Spirit-Wrestler: An Interview with John Polkinghorne".