Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 22
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sri Lankan Australians. The page was redirected for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.
The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sinhalese Australian
- Sinhalese Australian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - This article is not needed for everything in it is taken from Sri Lankan Australian. Plus most Sri Lankans in Australia are Sinhalese while Tamils in Australia are counted through language and not nationality, therefore the article is mostly about Sinhalese Australians.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:35, 22 March 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) 10:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Paradise...
- Searching for Paradise... (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)
Album by non-notable artist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Artist doesn't even have an article. fetchcomms☛ 00:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable and fails WP:CRYSTAL - "rumored" track list. (GregJackP (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Snow delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 23 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vann Johnson
- Vann Johnson (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:BIO notability Alan - talk 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm(Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines with the references at the bottom North North-West (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about the references doesn't establish notability? They look fine to me. SilverserenC 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is there an echo echo in here? Why is this person listed twice? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'd like more references, but he seems to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]- He meets the qualifications for WP:MUSIC. SilverserenC 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – NN backup singer, no significant awards or WP:RS coverage except as a footnote in articles for other musicians. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Apparently some of the editors who wish to Keep the article have failed to note that the subject is female! — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as author). Passes #10 at WP:Music, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.; namely, her role as a featured vocalist (not backup singer) for the album and video Tribute (Yanni album) which reached #1 on Billboard's charts, and also for her featured vocalist role for the television series The Singing Bee (U.S. game show). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sumerian Records
- Sumerian Records (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)
An list of mainly redlinked artists signed to a record label whose article we deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep. Nominating this article less than three weeks after an unopposed "keep" closure of the previous AfD seems unhelpful (on the merits, the article should be deleted, as I would have opined had I seen the previous nomination). Bongomatic 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep per Bongomatic. I won't close because I !voted keep last time. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of clear cultural relevance given its roster. It was kept at AfD less than a month ago, and I don't see a particular reason why that consensus would have changed so quickly. Chubbles (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Rather a waste of everybody's time so soon after the last AFD.--Michig (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above; Sumerian Records discography shows many albums that have either charted or have been reviewed by independent sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 27 March 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 Zynga. Content can be pulled from the p[age history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cafe World
- Cafe World (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 like a non-notable game just in Facebook, good sources hard to find through press releases and stuff. Also, correct title with accent Café World has been salted already. fetchcomms☛ 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable game. Swarm(Talk) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zynga as a plausible search term, however I couldn't find any reliable coverage for this game. --Teancum (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Why is this even up for AFD? Just redirect it and get it over with. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a notable game especially among Facebook users, and the article needs to be improved to assert notability, by introducing sources and related collateral. Reyrefran (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - No reliable sources were found in order to assert notability. If you can find any, please add them immediately (this is the last day for this AfD). Also, simply saying "its notable" is not sufficient. --Teancum (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked Zynga's own web site (www.zynga.com) claimed this is their third most popular game on facebook, but I'm not sure if Zynga's web site would be considered a reliable source or if the number of users stated there for this is enough to assert notability. Jon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - No reliable sources were found in order to assert notability. If you can find any, please add them immediately (this is the last day for this AfD). Also, simply saying "its notable" is not sufficient. --Teancum (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zynga These games are popular, having millions of users, and sources around the phenomenon or the companies are certainly out there. There's a making of article here on Venture Beat, which could be used as part of Zynga's history. The problem with this game and most of the others like it is that no fucker is interested in actually approaching it as a game and reviewing it, instead you get small posts here and there touting the number of users like high scores. Until games journalism does eventually catch up with releases that don't come in boxes or on platforms like PSN and Steam, obviously relevant releases like this will continue to lack the sourcing needed for a balanced article. Someoneanother 19:45, 29 March 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 living supercentenarians. Content can be pulled form the page history and merged. The argument that she may some day be more notable was not considered as this cannot be verified and is speculation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J._Reeta_Jones
- J._Reeta_Jones (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 page was ProD by User:Chzz and removed, so I'm bringing it to AfD for consenus... Chzz stated, "After searching, I cannot find any reliable sources to verify any of the information (per WP:BLP, WP:BIO). All I could find was a 1-line entry at grg.org, and a blog entry on wbtv. I can find no mention in any news articles." DustiSPEAK!! 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to anyone thinking of closing this AfD. The tag on the article page was removed with this edit and I've only just re-added it (with this edit) just over two days later. Therefore this discussion probably needs to be extended by a couple of days. Dpmuk (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/11/shes-celebrating-a-century-and-a-decade/
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10933285
here are sources. Longevitydude (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have expanded the article and put the sources in. I believe it is good enough to pass notability standards. SilverserenC 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extremely limited claim to notability (being a supercentenarian). Not only have there been thousands of supercentenarians (most of whom do not have articles) but she is also neither the oldest person in a country nor in the top 100 of all-time which (which seem to be more substantial claims to notability). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there i posted my vote, and the afd statistics better count my vote. Longevitydude (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i know shes not the oldest in her state, but she still gets attention, can we at least wait for her to die before deletion, while shes alive she has a chance of being the oldest someday. Longevitydude (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gets news coverage. Dream Focus 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. Notable - Does meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
superhappyperson was right the first time, she IS notable, she DOES meet qualifications for notability. Longevitydude (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect to List of living supercentenarians. Although she gets some news coverage due to her age I don't think this is enough to meet our notability requirements and isn't within the spirit of WP:BLP1E, although there may be several events (e.g. her birthday each year) they're still all related to one thing. Would also support a redirect to a "List of American supercentenarians" (similar to List of British supercentenarians) should someone create one. This would be my prefered option as then some biographical information would be kept. 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (Changed: Dpmuk (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Look, we can at least leave it up until she dies, she might live long enough to be the oldest person in Tennessee, then America, then the world, we must not delete an article on someone who could become more notable someday. Longevitydude (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were to occur it would be easy to restore the deleted article and, especially in the case of oldest in the world or in America, any admin would likely do this for you simply by asking them. It would also be acceptable to just recreate an article should such an events occur as circumstances would have changed enough to make this AfD invalid. Dpmuk (talk) 08:31, 29 March 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.
- Comment: This article should have been "merged" to List of American supercentenarians, not redirected to the less-appropriate List of living supercentenarians which is only used for list-format information, not biographical information.Ryoung122 03:43, 9 August 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myomassology
- Myomassology (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 new-age jargon; neither evidence nor assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Except that it is notable. I've added references to establish notability. There seems to be a number of schools and college related classes for it. SilverserenC 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - do you really consider any of those reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WiseGeek people are qualified. Not entirely sure if Massage Therapy 101 counts as qualified. She appears to be qualified, but it is debatable. Leader Spirit is a magazine. Full Circle is a store publication, i'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for those. SilverserenC 21:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News search provides ample coverage. Removing any searches that have "Irene" in them, gets rid of the coverage specifically directed at that one business. [1] They've had court cases to regulate it. There is a school that teaches it, the Michigan School of Myomassology in Berkley. Dream Focus 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all extremely trivial mentions. None of these Google News results discusses the subject in any detail. — Rankiri (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look inside the Detroit News article here. — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found no signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. GBooks, GNews and GScholar show nothing of value. GDefine, Encyclopaedia Britannica and all major dictionaries show nothing at all. As for the article's sources...
- [2] is a primary source blog.
- [3] mainly quotes a self-proclaimed myomassology practitioner and contains no significant coverage of the subject.
- [4] is an unambiguous advertisement.
- [5] is a tertiary source written by a freelance contributor, published by a website that takes topic suggestions from its readers[6].
- Silver seren, I know you mean well, but since it's not the first time you try to pass completely inadmissible sources as indicators of notability, could I please ask you to take another look at WP:N and WP:RS? Thanks. — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more sources. Rankiri, you obviouly need to go look at the other AfD's i've been involved in, because the number that I fail in is much, much lower than the number that I succeed in. Not even counting those that my involvement caused the nominator to withdraw. I understand Wikipedia policy perfectly well, but sometimes i'm willing to stand out on the very far outside limb of notability and try and catch something that I think is worthwhile. Sometimes I fail. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. SilverserenC 18:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning your motives. I'm saying that instead of spending ten minutes on double-checking each of your sources and explaining why they are inadmissible, I'd rather spend that time looking for more appropriate sources myself. If you keep in mind that personal blogs, press releases, and trivial mentions don't establish notability, it'll be beneficial for both of us. — Rankiri (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more sources. Rankiri, you obviouly need to go look at the other AfD's i've been involved in, because the number that I fail in is much, much lower than the number that I succeed in. Not even counting those that my involvement caused the nominator to withdraw. I understand Wikipedia policy perfectly well, but sometimes i'm willing to stand out on the very far outside limb of notability and try and catch something that I think is worthwhile. Sometimes I fail. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. SilverserenC 18:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Yes, it exists, but per Rankiri, none of the sources addresses WP:RS very well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the new sources in external links? Those have yet to be addressed. SilverserenC 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [7] is written by a graduate of Irene's Myomassology Institute. A single factoid is not significant coverage.
- [8] is basically a letter by Irene of Irene's Myomassology Institute.
- [9] has a couple of trivial mentions of the term without any context. The cover page has a personal endorsement by Irene of Irene's Myomassology Institute.
- [10] is an advertisement. Didn't you notice all that business information on the bottom of the page?
- [11] has no coverage of the subject whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No coverage of the subject? "and in particular by its provisions regarding the practice of myomassology" SilverserenC 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. That document's only mention of the subject is in the reference to a now repealed section of Michigan's licensing code[12]. From what I see, the case itself discussed the constitutional aspects of warrantless searches of massage parlors and had nothing to do with myomassology[13]. — Rankiri (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No coverage of the subject? "and in particular by its provisions regarding the practice of myomassology" SilverserenC 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the new sources in external links? Those have yet to be addressed. SilverserenC 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rankiri's excellent analysis of the sources. Reyk YO! 11:29, 28 March 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) 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writing Process Phase 3: Revise, Proofread, Evaluate
- Writing Process Phase 3: Revise, Proofread, Evaluate (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)
Essay. Not an encyclopedia article. It looks like it's probably copied from the cited work, but let's just remove it instead of suggesting a rewrite. Woogee (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTHOW. In addition, we already have an article Writing process that covers the topic in a somewhat more encyclopedic fashion. Every pedagogue who discusses this sort of thing does so in much the same terms, so articles based on all the particular "systems" are unnecessary. Deor (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now wondering whether the nominator would like to add the related article Writing process phase 2 to this AfD. If not, I'll prod it or nominate it separately. Deor (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously inappropriate, and probably copypaste. (Phase 2... has now been separately nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing process phase 2) DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 28 March 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 Closed as speedy delete per WP:SNOW. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melaine Atmadja
- Melaine Atmadja (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:ENTERTAINER. Only one real film. High School Musical 4 is still in the future, and her name does not appear on IMDb's cast list. PROD contested by IP editor. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vann Johnson
- Vann Johnson (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:BIO notability Alan - talk 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm(Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines with the references at the bottom North North-West (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about the references doesn't establish notability? They look fine to me. SilverserenC 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is there an echo echo in here? Why is this person listed twice? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'd like more references, but he seems to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]- He meets the qualifications for WP:MUSIC. SilverserenC 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – NN backup singer, no significant awards or WP:RS coverage except as a footnote in articles for other musicians. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Apparently some of the editors who wish to Keep the article have failed to note that the subject is female! — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as author). Passes #10 at WP:Music, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.; namely, her role as a featured vocalist (not backup singer) for the album and video Tribute (Yanni album) which reached #1 on Billboard's charts, and also for her featured vocalist role for the television series The Singing Bee (U.S. game show). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 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) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jonjo Rowlands
- Jonjo Rowlands (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 comedian. Won an award from a local newspaper and performed at a local music festival, and is a local radio personality. Apparently, that's about it. Sorry, but that's just not enough. Google turns up nothing more that I can find. Just doesn't cross the notability threshold. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Realkyhick. Jonojo Rowlands is a worthy candidate of a wiki page because of his accolades and progression into the national comedy circuit. There is no need to delete the page and it would serve no purpose. I have been looking for information on his stand-up and was pleased to find this page. - User:Fresh778 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.125.143 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources. "progression" means he isn't there yet. Woogee (talk) 23:09, 22 March 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) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ECompete-Online
- ECompete-Online (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 about a gaming website which provides no evidence of notability. The references are all either forums or the site itself. Very few relevant ghits - see here. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep failing to recognize the points I make in the article's talk page. I will paste them here: Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't consider a GotFrag interview to be a reliable source? GotFrag is one of the most (if not THE ONLY) reputable eSports news site in North America. Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I'd like to remind you that TWL's article which has been around since 2006 also only cite's itself and then one GotFrag article. I don't say this so you go ahead and propose for that to be deleted as well, but to instead show that for North American eSports, GotFrag is one of the most reliable sources you can get. Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this or this count as a notable reference? Those are two matches for the league that the broadcasting companies kept online Rafael 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CB-delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. While the line is often blurring between blog sites and mainstream media, the references for this article are not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Ikluft (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CB-keep I already made most of these poitns above but I figured I'd make an official "vote" with the information as it may help: While the article does cite itself multiple times, there it also cites GotFrag which is a reputable eSports news site for North America and thus DOES meet WP:RS. You have to understand that eSports is not a topic that is going to be covered by such news sites as CNN, MSNBC, ESPN or anything that big. Clearly GotFrag is not as big as those but it is the biggest news site for eSports in North America and Wikipedia does consider it notable seeing as it has a [GotFrag|wikipedia page]. Second, using google searches such as "eco league" or "ecompete online" you can stumble upon several other web pages which should prove WP:N namely this and this which are both shoutcasting companies for eSports (again, both of which are known in the eSports world) and then this which is a known server company which partnered with ECO to have coupon codes. Finally, I'd like to make the last point that TWL and CPL both mainly cite themselves. TWL has a reference from GotFrag and a server company whereas CPL only cites itself and then has one other reference from a reputable source. If those meet Wikipedia standards for WP:RS then I don't see why this article does not. Rafael 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that (1) most of the claims in the article cannot be verified and (2) there is no reason to believe that the site is in any way significant or notable. TWL, for example, claims 735,000 members which sounds pretty big to me, whereas ECO is less than a year old and is clearly struggling. The references to GotFrag are mostly minor news items about ECO's downtime, etc. GotFrag certainly doesn't seem to meet the WP:RS requirement of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And the essay here argues that "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics" - that doesn't sound like GotFrag to me andy (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GotFrag has forums but it also publishes articles. I fully understand where you are coming from by saying that the forums are not a reputable source on GotFrag. However, I really honestly do not see where you are coming from by saying that the article published about ECO is also not reliable. GotFrag is owned by Major League Gaming by the way (not sure if you knew that or not). Again, [here] is the article I am referring to. Moving back to your first point: the article makes very little claims that are not verified. Well, let me rephrase: a lot of the article is about how playing in the league would work. This is referenced by the actual rules...does that not seem logical to you? I understand that it does not help proving WP:N by citing yourself. However, I think WP:RS is validated for those aspects of the article by citing the rules. WP:N should be satisfied via the article and the three links I gave above (which are not yet in the article). So to recap, I feel WP:RS is satisfied by citing the actual league rules which DO back up a lot of the claims made on the article about the league play. And WP:N is satisfied via the GotFrag article, server 'alliance', and multiple shoutcast videos on demand. Rafael 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the information in the article--that it only supports three games, that it has been unstable, that it hopes for later expansion, the straight-forward conclusion would be not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also fails the website notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 23 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nivram
- Nivram (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)
Declined prod. My original reasoning for prod was "Article about an unnotable tribute band, searches fail to turn up the significant coverage required. Only reference given is that of their agents.". This was inaccurate though, the reference isn't for their agents - its for that of the Bootleg Beatles, and doesnt mention them. Reason given for declining prod was "clearly notable as one of the first tribute bands..." but i see no evidence for this so bringing here for your consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prior to this article being brought here to AfD, I've added a reference for the album having charted in Argentina, although I can't find a ref online. A book reference will suffice though, and thus the band satisfy criterion #2 at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. The evidence for them being one of the first tribute bands is a simple deduction from the dates. There is no attempt to make the reference you mentioned say something it doesn't - the ref states that the Bootleg Beatles claim to be the world's first tribute band, formed in 1980. Nivram were formed the same year, making the fact pretty clear. Again, I only have a written reference for this, from the album sleeve, but it is nonetheless adequate in my opinion. Online mention of the band is admittedly scant, but this is due to their activity being solely in Spain and Latin America, and before the rise of the internet. It does not necessarily mean they are not notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The place to find it would be here, according to the wikipedia sourcing guide, which I'd try myself if I spoke the lingo. As for the mathematics, thats not the case, as it doesn't allow for any other bands which may have formed in between. Sleeve liner notes are primary sources and not reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried there, but it does not show charts from that far back. Regarding the mathematics, we are talking about the time period between the end of March 1980 and July 1980 - not a huge amount of room for a large number of tribute bands to be formed. In any case, they were almost certainly the first tribute band formed in Spain, and I am trying to source that. An album sleeve may not be a reliable source with regard to a contentious issue, but we are only talking about the date a band was formed. The guideline I found states that "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution..." not that they cannot be used. This kind of primary source requires a secondary source to avoid WP:OR, which is the role played by the Gordon Poole Agency source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The place to find it would be here, according to the wikipedia sourcing guide, which I'd try myself if I spoke the lingo. As for the mathematics, thats not the case, as it doesn't allow for any other bands which may have formed in between. Sleeve liner notes are primary sources and not reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there does not appear to be any significant coverage by independent reliable sources as required by the general notability guideline. Any additional claim of notability must be backed up by reliable sources, extrapolating a claim from a date and other information is original research. As it is, the Wikipedia article on Tribute Bands suggests that there were some around in the 60's and 70's. Additionally even if it true the fact that no reliable sources discuss it seems to indicate that being one of the first tribute bands is not a particularly notable historic achievement. I can find no information on whether they charted or any information on the publication cited in the article, notability requires "verifiable objective evidence". Guest9999 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that neither Nivram's chart activity, nor the long-out-of-print Argentine book I have which outlines it, are mentioned on the internet, opens up the problem that often plagues more obscure subjects. The written word is still bigger than the internet in the respect that there is a wealth of information available in books that the internet has not found. The music notability criteria which states that notability is bestowed upon acts which have charted in any country is badly hamstrung by the expectation that 50-60 years of chart history in every country in the world will be somewhere on the internet. It isn't. Sometimes obscure books will be required and it's a shame if that's not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that paper sources - sometimes obscure ones - can be essential when building the encyclopaedia. In this case however as I can find absolutely no information about the book there is no way to evaluate if it is a reliable source. Can you provide any more information, publisher, notes, ISBN, etc.? I would also note that what is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (music) is that "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis added) - this implies that there are instances where bands that have charted may not be notable. Cases like this where there is an almost complete dearth of coverage may fall into that category. Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book publisher is Grupo Editorial San Rafael, but I can't find anything about them online - they may well have been relatively insignificant and/or defunct. No ISBN number, which I had realised isn't very helpful. Many smaller South American publishers (not so usually Argentine but often Paraguayan, Uruguyan, Chilean etc) were very slow in adopting the ISBN. The author appears to have been a local radio DJ. Point taken about the wording of the notability criteria. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that paper sources - sometimes obscure ones - can be essential when building the encyclopaedia. In this case however as I can find absolutely no information about the book there is no way to evaluate if it is a reliable source. Can you provide any more information, publisher, notes, ISBN, etc.? I would also note that what is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (music) is that "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis added) - this implies that there are instances where bands that have charted may not be notable. Cases like this where there is an almost complete dearth of coverage may fall into that category. Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I am sympathetic to the problems of sourcing, the real difficulty here is that the subject isn't notable and the strongest claims are not sourced at all ("one of the earliest tribute bands"). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sourcing is a problem, but this appears mainly to be an issue of obscure sourcing rather than no sourcing at all. I accept that the book source is obscure, but it exists nonetheless. I disagree that the subject isn't notable, in fact I am certain of notability, both in terms of the "earliest tribute band" status and the chart activity - the problem is the nature of the sources. I think it is fairly clear that they were a very early tribute band, and to say that's WP:OR is a little picky in my opinion. Wikipedia (or any other source) can only throw up two older bands, The Buggs and The Bootleg Beatles, the latter only being months older. I would add that that The Buggs article is even less well-sourced than Nivram and they did not chart anywhere to my knowledge. It is claimed on the list at Tribute band that they were "one of the earliest tribute bands", with no cite. This may suggest that this stuff is just not well-sourced, and this does not mean it is not notable material. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't know how we could expect to find a definite answer as to what the first tribute band ever was. I note that this 1979 New York magazine item, which predates the establishment of the Bootleg Beatles, refers to a Fats Waller tribute band. The source cited in this article saying that the Bootleg Beatles were the first tribute band doesn't specifically make that claim. Another one of the sources used in this article calls Nivram "totally obscure", and a third source is the liner notes to the band's own album. So if this article is to survive, it would seem that the justification for it to do so would be either (a) extensive coverage in reliable independent sources, which I don't see here; or (b) confirmation that Nivram's album actually did hit the record charts somewhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, a clarification of the claim in that article that the Bootleg Beatles were the first tribute band - towards the end of the third paragraph, the world's first tribute band were ready for a fresh challenge. This is a reproduction of the text on their own website (which would probably make a better source) here [14]. With regard to determining the first tribute band, I agree that it could be difficult, particularly given that sources seem hard to come by. But this surely does not mean that it's not a notable feat. The other problem is that the term "tribute band" could also be used to describe a band of musicians brought together simply to pay tribute to another artist, as, I suspect, in the Fats Waller case, without their actually being what we think of today as a tribute band, i.e. a band that tours and performs solely as a clone act of the original subject. I am still looking for further sources, and I may have to wait till my next trip to Spain to find them - if this article is deleted in the meantime, I can always bring it back with new sources. I'm a bit frustrated that the book source that I did find, that verified the chart entry, is rather obscure in itself, and there's no trace of the book on the net. I do understand how that makes life difficult. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected, having missed the reference in the third paragraph quoted by Bretonbanquet. However, I hope we can agree that the Bootleg Beatles' web site referring to themselves as the "world's first tribute band", and their agent quoting that description on the agency's web site, do not constitute reliable, independent sources that the Bootleg Beatles really were the first tribute band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely agreed, but there are other, more acceptable sources such as these [15], [16] which say the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No verifiable claim to notability, no secondary source coverage. The single offhand mention in the Scotland Herald may well be based on Wikipedia research. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 29 March 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) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell Demo
- Hell 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 demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Public Juju T · C 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS CTJF83 chat 06:07, 23 March 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 close Closing, page creator redirected (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spark (Amy Macdonald song)
- Spark (Amy Macdonald song) (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:CRYSTAL as it says expected to be the 2nd single and as it is unreleased single, fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 20:25, 22 March 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.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:34, 22 March 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canoodle.com
- Canoodle.com (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:WEB, I've looked but have not been able to find any sources to establish the notability of this website. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB, one reference found [17], but just mentions the site in passing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sourced from company website and passing mentions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable per WP:WEB. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 28 March 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 close and delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skating on ice with molasses
- Skating on ice with molasses (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 gives a definition for a phrase which does not appear to be used at all by anyone - Google gives zero hits for it other than the article itself. Even if the phrase were in common use, it is doubtful whether it would be encyclopaedic enough to justify an article, but as is there is no reason for this article to exist. Thparkth (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per WP:MADEUP, no RS can be found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete. WP:MADEUP, WP:OR. — Rankiri (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:MADEUP. I originally PRODed it after being unable to find a single Google hit for it or anything similar. But the author contested it saying "Because it was not found in Google, it was added to Wikipedia for reference and updates" - clearly not understanding about sourcing. -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per all above. Not much more can be said, I think... Peridon (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree about the WP:SNOW factor, but I listed it here because the WP:PROD was contested. Thparkth (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per WP:NONSENSE (by the way, I don't think the creator understands what an analogy is). Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have called it a metaphor... It is reasonably coherent, though. Peridon (talk) 20:11, 23 March 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) 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Galatasaray-Turkish Airlines Sports Club
- Galatasaray-Turkish Airlines Sports Club (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 amateur sports club, fails WP:CLUB. PROD removed without explanation by an IP. Any notable content could be merged into the main Galatasaray S.K. article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was going to say "Redirect to Galatasaray#Football Academy", but it seems a rather implausible redirect - a Google search for that phrase returns just 4 hits and there doesn't seem to be any mention on Galatasaray's homepage. There's nothing here worth keeping or merging. Bettia (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable amateur club. It looks like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 23 March 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 Too much passion on both sides for this one. Although notability may not be stellar, its there. User:Benjiboi summary was pretty convincing and not effectively countered. Mike Cline (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Kucinich
- Elizabeth Kucinich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete and Merge Notability is virtually zero (in accordance with WP:NN). She does not have any major significance other than being a Congressman's wife. Kucinich did not make it far in the primaries so his wife is even more insignificant. The article borderlines on trivia. This could be easily merged into Dennis Kucinich. Xe7al (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am more notable than this woman and I don't have an article Clearly non-notable. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Meets the GNG, and has enough separate notability to justify an article separate from her husband. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umbralcorax: Can you explain the basis for your position that she meets WP:GNG? Can you point to any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," other than such coverage based on her WP:INHERITed notability as the spouse of Dennis Kucinich, which is not qualifying coverage? TJRC (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't trump the General Notability Guideline, if she has 10 reliable facts from 5 reliable sources, that is enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a matter of "trumping," it's a matter of explaining. WP:NOTINHERITED says it best: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." Elizabeth has not done anything significant in her own right. She has not done anything notable in her own right. She would not merit an independent article if she did not have a famous relative. TJRC (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't trump the General Notability Guideline, if she has 10 reliable facts from 5 reliable sources, that is enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage independent of her husband. Her purported notability is entirely derived from the combination of her being married to a U.S. congressman and former candidate for U.S. President, coupled with the perception that she is attractive. Notability is not inherited, WP:NOTINHERITED, and her status as such a spouse, even coupled with her physical appearance, does not rise to Wikipedia notability standards. Arguments put forth on the talk page seem to center around coverage of her based on her spousal status; and coverage in local news in her hometown; and (perhaps, this is a bit unclear) an argument that a spouse of a congressional member or [former] presidential candidate is inherently notable. I don't think these are supportable arguments. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete- Frankly, I'm thinking that we should go through every single one of these to check for notability. Notability is not inherited. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't get this link to work. It's a category. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is little doubt that she would not be notable were it not for her husband. But that does not mean her notability is entirely inherited. A number of prominent news outlets have devoted coverage to her: [18] and [19] for example. Regardless of the merits of that coverage, she is independently notable as meeting WP:BIO --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is about her role in her Dennis Kucinich's campaign and her marriage to him. It contains 20 paragraphs, 15 of which are about her relationship with Dennis. The second has more on Elizabeth (30 paragraphs; 19 on her relationship with Dennis, 11 other), but even that shows how derivative of Dennis's notability this is. And this is in her hometown paper. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully understand your argument; it is a difficult call to make whether the Elizabeth Kucinich's of this work get enough coverage in their own right to qualify for an article. I happen to think the bar is crossed here (it is hard to call a national UK newspaper a "hometown newspaper") but reasonable minds may differ. No great loss if consensus goes against my "keep" here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is about her role in her Dennis Kucinich's campaign and her marriage to him. It contains 20 paragraphs, 15 of which are about her relationship with Dennis. The second has more on Elizabeth (30 paragraphs; 19 on her relationship with Dennis, 11 other), but even that shows how derivative of Dennis's notability this is. And this is in her hometown paper. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has been written about in several news magazines and has had segments on CBS, Fox, and NBC at least (doing a quick google inquiry). Yes, her notability stems from her husband, but now she is clearly notable since she was a potential future First Lady. Longevitydude (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please there are multiple nontrivial sources for this. Longevitydude (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable for the fact that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world. She is part of a very important marriage to Dennis Kucinich who is running for President. She has appeared on the Stephen Colbert show. There is no good reason to delete her. Please do not delete her. Longevitydude (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If verifiable information can be garnered from "multiple, non trivial sources" the the media has bestowed "notability". Notability should never be subjective. Longevitydude (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, keeping a page up because of "the fact that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world" and "she is part of a very important marriage." is quite subjective--one thing you just noted notability should never come from. By what I have seen, she had little impact during the campaign other than tabloid level articles about her relationship to Kucinich and her appearance. Xe7al (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, she is director of public affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.[6] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/10/rs-kucinich29.htmlLongevitydude (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the previous director of public affairs have a Wikipedia article? TJRC (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been able to find any information about who has been their public affairs director in the past. I searched both through Wikipedia and PCRM's website. PCRM did not appear to publicize who their public relations director was before Kucinich. Of course, if anyone can find it, please share. Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Washington Post source is actually a blog entry: [20]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
she has had a lot of media attention, didnt you see she has a lot of sources? Longevitydude (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's a notable figure who is frequently in the news. For example, she appears prominently in these stories at The Plain Dealer and Cleveland Magazine from last week. - Eureka Lott 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Plain Dealer article is coverage of Denis Kucinich's press statement that he did not support the health care reform bill in exchange for getting Elizabeth a job. The Cleveland Magazine article is about Kucinich's vote switch on the bill, with a passing mention of his wife. TJRC (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that too when I did a search through google news. Out of the few articles that actually had anything to do with her remotely, they were just passing mentions or minor news groups. Xe7al (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She has no notability aside from her husband. Everything that mentions her is because of her connection to him. Just supposition on my part, but I bet if she divorced him tomorrow, nobody would hear about her until she married the next famous guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject received significant media coverage, far out of proportion of other congressional spouses. Gamaliel (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The three most notable things about her is that she is the spouse of Denis Kucinich, has a stud ring in her tongue and is a vegan. If minor triva is needed to fill her article then she really has done nothing of note. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any notable content to Dennis Kucinich. This woman has had significant TRIVIAL coverage. A news search confirms this. Sources currently used are essentially trivial coverage. Moogwrench (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would definitely suggest merging any useful information from this article to Dennis Kucinich. A merge would not be difficult in this situation and would probably improve the quality of information. Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject received coverage from reliable sources, the definition of Wikipedia Notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing our current notability standards (I have changed my mind since we were last here). Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete.Neutral.Rankiri (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid we'll never reach a clear consensus on this one. The person has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources, but her individual notability is questionable to say the least. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WHY AM I NOT COUNTED IN THE AFD STATICTICS? I VOTED, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I DESERVE TO BE COUNTED!!!!!!!!! AND THREE AFDS IS RIDICULOUS, THIS BETTER BE THE LAST ONE NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULT IS!!!!!!!!!!! Longevitydude (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These statistics are useless. No closing admin should ever rely on them since this is not a majority vote. — Rankiri (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's policy regarding deletions: "Remember that the debate is not a vote, so recommendations on the course of action to be taken should always be sustained by arguments." Xe7al (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well she has had lots of coverage, plus she married to a very notable politician. Longevitydude (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She clearly meets GNG even if much/most of her coverage in books and news sources is tied to her more notable husband. This is, in part how US politics work, the spouse of the elected official at upper levels such as her husband is considered a benefit and liability so as a general rule plays it safe and doesn't make news eclipsing their elected official spouse. This, in part is why we don't fold Michelle Obama into her husband's article. Many spouses will never be more than a footnote in the elected official's biography but this is not one of them. She is interviewed as her own being for her own opinions, she is noted as a celebrity in various circles, etc.
- An unconventional political wife: Elizabeth Kucinich on health care, tongue rings and love at first sight
- A candidate's wife - Elizabeth Kucinich talks universal health care, jobs, Iraq war during Jackson appearance
- Mrs. K wants to give the big apes a break
- Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of candidate, visits Ely
- Speak With Elizabeth Kucinich Live Online Tonight
- Kucinich's Secret Weapon: For Kucinich, Honeymoon Phase Begins Before Taking the White House
- Mrs. Giuliani, Mrs. Kucinich Vie on the Trail
- Elizabeth Kucinich Talks Climate Change: Wife of Presidential Candidate Advocates Societal Change to Save Planet
- Dossier - Getting to Know Elizabeth Kucinich
- Kucinich: 'I'm A Democrat's Democrat'
- Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis
- All business: Kucinich's wife a straight talker
- The Queen, the Prince and a Potential First Lady
- The diminutive lion of the left; Ohio congressman's sunny certitude wins admirers for uncompromising stances -- but few believe he can win
- Essex girl fills White House race with lurve
- Candidate Spouses Adapt To A Tricky Role: Washington Post: Running Mates Try To Adapt An Archaic Stereotype To Fit Contemporary Times
- Bringin' Home the Bacon, Vegan-Style
- Election 2008: Kucinich's wife speaks out in Green Valley
- Kucinich's Words, Wife Are Turning Heads.
- Candidate Kucinich went and married the youth vote
- Kucinich Checks In: White House candidate's wife visits Modesto
- Potential First Spouses Prove Influential
- ESSEX GIRL ON THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE
- 2008 spouses shape role from Democrats' sides.
- Wives Of Presidential Candidates Discuss Health Care At Cancer Summit In New Hampshire
- The presidential candidates and trophy wives
I could go on but you get the point. Even if many/most are tied to her husband's work they still focus on her as well. Check each major paper and you'll likely find much more. Likely you can contact her to get more like these and more leads from her facebook and myspace pages. There is more than enough for a good article here. it will actually take time to dig through all that available. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. True, notability is not inherited. She got it the old-fashioned way. With coverage of her. "Notability is not inherited" does not mean that if you related to someone notable, you are not yourself notable. It means you are not ipso facto notable. She has attacked much coverage in her own right, and is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Obviously there is evidence of notability in the press so she is worth discussion in a BLP. However the only reason the press are interested is because she is someone's wife and being a "trophy wife" is not, of itself, notable. There would be a clearer argument if she were, say, a First Lady which of itself is notable. There is nothing in this article that would not be suitable for the BLP of the husband and a simple redirect to a personal life section can deal with anyone needing a link to her name. Ash (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the other keeps, especially benjiboi ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My reasons? Benjiboi presents (above) what seems to me a convincing case. Wingspeed (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Invoking WP:NOTINHERITED which is an essay to trump that guideline, which is based on the WP:V policy seems backward to me. Just look at the article, these sources easily meet WP:RS. This is not even taking into account that this has gone through AfD twice before, and was kept both times. Enough is enough, stop bringing the same thing to AfD, and let's go along with the community's consensus. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: It's not a matter of "trumping," it's a matter of explaining. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to note that the dates for the previous AfDs were three years ago. The quality of the article has barely improved since then--possibly pointing out an underlying issue (which I note further down in these responses). Xe7al (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source ... not whether editors think it is true" (WP:V). WP:NOTINHERITED has nothing to say about that. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't argue with that, but nothing in this AFD is about verifiability or truth. It's about notability. So I'm not sure what you're trying to respond to with this. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy or guideline are you citing then, that would make this subject non-notable? It has the multiple sources required by WP:GNG. If you don't think the sources in the article are reliable, then please state why. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG, as further explained by WP:NOTINHERITED. I have no idea where you got WP:V from. TJRC (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just point out that WP:NOTINHERITED is just a list of arguments not to make at AfD. I still don't see what you see in WP:GNG that excludes this article. If anything, it bolsters the keep arguments, meeting all of the requirements set forth. Which of the points is not being met by this article? —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
- Yes, any article can be deleted on consensus, in theory even a featured article, or the article on a president of the United States. That is the beauty of an informational !democracy. And as a reminder, this !vote is not a vote. That is another wonderful Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're forgetting the rest of the quote: For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This is why I supported this quote with the following quotes. Wikipedia is not a news organization. I would suggest looking at that link. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:NRVE: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
- What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the event would be found here at Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign, 2008 since most of the inheritably notable points on the article pertain in someway to that campaign. If you need dates, I would suggest looking at that article. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your theory is that news coverage in the sources used run from 2005 to 2010. That is not the description of a single event, like a kid in or, not in a balloon. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:NOT#NEWS ("flash in the pan"): Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
- The problem with your theory is that news coverage in the sources used run from 2005 to 2010. That is not the description of a single event, like a kid in or, not in a balloon. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous response to this question. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This again links to the point that most of the items in the article are of trivial value other than those pertaining to Kucinich's campaign.
- Quoting WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
- What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, see previous response to this very same question. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:ONEVENT (which I would suggest reading in full): When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
- What date did this one event occur on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, see previous response to this very same question that was posted here four times. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her role in Dennis Kucinich's campaign is disputable but his campaign was very short noting that his campaign is not "of sufficient importance" to require that Elizabeth needs her own article.
- I am going to change my official stance to Delete and Merge because it can be clearly noted that there is enough inherited notability to include her in Denis Kucinich. But I still can't justify having a separate page, especially when it is made up of a lot of trivia level information. I believe that the page is partly in the state it is since the article has so little reason to be stand-alone. I truly believe the quality of information can be improved by conducting a merge. I should have been a little more clear about that from the beginning. Xe7al (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is trivia? Wikipedia doesn't define trivia. It is just information that any individual doesn't like, even though it is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does infact define trivia. It can be found at WP:TRIV. ...and to quote WP:TRIV: This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.
- If you look at content policies for Biographies of Living Persons you can find WP:BLPSTYLE that I will also quote: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. I may suggest bringing this to the attention of WP:BLP/N if you want to dispute if that article contains strings of trivia. Xe7al (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if someone can get reliable sources and add content. If no one comes along in six months I will nominate it for deletion again. This category still should be looked at, which I will do. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this better be the last afd no matter what the result is, 3 afds is 3 afds too many, this better be the last one no matter what. Longevitydude (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- The question is what the function of the "Director of Public Affairs" performs waht is clearly a notable organisation. Is it "press secretary", or something more substantial. What other derictorates are there? If she was merely a politician's wife, I would say "redirect" to him. If she was merely a minor official of the organisation, I would say "redirect" to it, but with two potential links, that does not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, two prior AfDs ended in keep, and nominator gives no reason to deviate from prior consensus or suggest consensus has varied, which it apparently has not.--Milowent (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I noted that an editor apparently unfamiliar with the workings of AfD posted this comment on the article's talkpage: "Don't delete out of spite. Until Google starts a wiki and archives everything Wikipedia is what we have, and articles should never be deleted - only more should be added. Don't say other wives don't have one - ADD ONE THEN - we need to preserve knowledge for the future. She's the (intelligent) wife of a presidential candidate. Of course she should have a page. --IceHunter (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)" --Milowent (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While IceHunter's opinion is not couched in policy, I think they are trying to articulate a valid point of view, i.e., that the wives of significant presidential candidates are likely to be notable enough to support an article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable public figure with extensive media coverage. Nominator's assertions are unfounded. Robert K S (talk) 16:39, 29 March 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 Long War (21st century). Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology of War on Terrorism
- Etymology of War on Terrorism (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 seems to be a mixture of parts of other articles, namely Rationale_for_the_War_on_Terrorism (also considered for deletion), Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terrorism#British_objections_to_the_.22war_on_terror.22 and [21], a previous version of an article that was merged with the main War on Terror article, but most of which was dismissed as insufficiently supported by sources. All in all, I don't that the topic qualifies for an article of its own. JokerXtreme (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge: normally I would suggest a merge to War on Terror, but it seems like the parent article is way too large to sustain this as a section. The names the WoT have had and the usage of them (to include Long War (21st century)) have had plenty of third party coverage... seems like the ideas at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long War (21st century) (2nd nomination) would work better than deletion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merge with Long War (21st century) to anew article, as per the discussion in that nomination. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant parts to relevant articles. War on Terrorism (historical) redirects to War on Terror, but actually contains different historical material, and if re-created could make this article superfluous. Sussexonian (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- War_on_Terrorism_(historical) had some parts merged in WoT and others that were uncited and could not be supported discarded. I don't think we should revive that. Discussion from other AfDs suggests a new article named "Names of the War on Terror" or something like that. Personally I'd prefer a more elegant name. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:28, 28 March 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. Despite the commendable improvement work by DES, the consensus is that there is not sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage of this subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Studio 1 Photography
- Studio 1 Photography (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 was speedily deleted and overturned at deletion review. In my view, this organisation is not notable as the coverage does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". However, that's an on balance judgement which is why we are here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to be fairly trivial coverage. Disclosure: I closed the DRV as "restored to be discussed at AFD". –xenotalk 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:COMPANY, WP:PROMOTION. Doesn't seem to pass the notability guidelines. Blatantly promotional[22]. Should have used WP:G11, not WP:A7. — Rankiri (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable company promoting itself. Honestly the claims for notability are hardly credible, so I can understand why it was originally speedily deleted. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. So far as I can see, all the claims have been supported by citations to reliable sources, so i think they are fairly credible. Whether they amount to notability is of course another matter. It is obvious that this is a widely franchised business, with hundreds of branches. That alone is not notabality of course, but IMO it does contribute. The mentions in multiple news stories in connection with the Kiddie Kandids bankruptcy raises its overall profile. Together with the Utah This Week profile, which is in effect a review of the business, I think there is sufficient coverage to warrant an article. I admit that others could rationally disagree. However I maintain that this is way outside speedy deletion territory, either for A7 or G11. In form this is a neutral description of the business, no more promotional than any article about a company inherently is. If it is promotional in effect, that can only be because of lack of notability, which is a matter for AfD, not speedy deletion. DES (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I have added some additional references, including a mention of an award. DES (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources offer independent, nontrivial coverage of the subject. [23] is obviously a press release: it's filled with overly promotional language and its host is a church-owned advertising agency for public service announcements, cause marketing, direct response, and retail mall advertising[24]. The phrase "Best Budget Photographer in Utah" seems unverifiable: [25]. — Rankiri (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course that is a press release, that's why it is cited with {{cite press release}}, and the citation ends with "Press release. Retrieved 22 March 2010." A press release, which is a primary source, can be used to help establish the fact that the company made such an offer, of course it does not of itself establish notability. DES (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) That's why we have {{cite press release}}. DES (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Following DESiegel's excellent work improving this article I feel compelled to re-visit my preference for a deletion expressed in my nomination. Both limbs of the test of significant coverage in reliable sources are matters of degree. I don't think they have been met here. The coverage is of a very local nature and there are real questions about the reliability of sources that are either press releases or regurgitate press releases, or are puff write-ups that are probably paid for. Accordingly, I still think this article ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I freely grant that those are both judgment calls. I disagree with your view of the inthisweek.com piece, I see no indications that it is paid for, although it does seem to avoid negative reviews. However, it would be rational to feel that it was not sufficient coverage even if it were reliable in itself. Thank you for reconsidering the matter. DES (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides concise descriptions for nine of ten local businesses. The coverage of the subject is practically limited to its general manager's quotes. Also, the article is written by Amanda Chamberlain but the paragraph in question is written by Victoria James...by referral? I have no idea what it's about but it sure doesn't look like significant coverage by a reliable secondary source to me. — Rankiri (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I read it correctly "Victoria James" is the name of the "High-end" photography source being contrasted with Studio 1, and "By referral" is a sub-head, because that review includes the comment "But we hope you know someone who knows someone, because you can't even get an appointment without a referral ... unless you pay a $500 appointment deposit". That review starts with "...Utah's premier studio, Victoria James." Just to set the record straight. DES (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up. — Rankiri (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete a very solid bit of work by DES, but the sources are fairly weak. Only inthisweek provides any real coverage of the place in my opinion. A more in-depth review of the place would change me to a keep. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The coverage is not significant or indpendent enough to establish notability. The article from inthisweek.com is not solely about the studio, and when one examines the actual content, half of it quoting the studio's general manager. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 23 March 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 War on Terror. The content is available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism
- National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is an orphaned stub for more than 3 years and apparently its topic is not that notable. I propose adding the Defense Department's pdf in War on Terror's external links and delete this. JokerXtreme (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for deletion in the past. See previous discussion here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to War on Terror. Despite the previous AfD, I don't see this document being any more significant than the billions of others the US military produces. Its notability is dependant on the notability of the WoT itself (i.e. if this was the "National Military Strategic Plan for the Promotion of bahamut0013 from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant", nobody would care), and its third-party coverage is written entirely from the perspective of covering the WoT in general. It would make far more sense (to me) simply to merge this article into a section in the parent article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it notable enough to have its own section? Because at the time, we are struggling to reduce the size of the main article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe so, yes, in the sense of the plan as well as the document itself. Otherwise, I would have suggested outright deletion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a paragraph in a bigger section? I mean, Patriot Act is more notable, but it doesn't have its own section. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense as well. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything particular to suggest? Probably some paragraph to be inserted somewhere in the post 9/11 section of War on Terror. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense as well. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a paragraph in a bigger section? I mean, Patriot Act is more notable, but it doesn't have its own section. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe so, yes, in the sense of the plan as well as the document itself. Otherwise, I would have suggested outright deletion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to War on Terror. Significance of document declined with advent of the Obama Administration, but it is a historic marker on the evolution of US policy. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 27 March 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) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt dailey
- Matt dailey (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 Politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN Codf1977 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Otherwise non-notable person running for local city council seat. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Local level and a candidate not an office-holder: fails WP:POLITICIAN on two counts. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Announcing future candidacy on Facebook does not make someone a candidate for office. Even so, candidacy for local office is not a plausible claim of notability, and the article is not sufficiently sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject and probable vanity article. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin : you may wish to review the comment placed on Talk:Matthew J. Dailey before the page was speedy deleted (reproduced on the creater's talk page here) "Do not remove this page. If you do, I'll more than likely continue posting it until it stays up" Codf1977 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt Deletion is b/c it's nn, salting is b/c of threat cited by Cof1977. RayTalk 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt both this and Matthew J. Dailey. Oh wow. Maybe this Jkoch25 user is running black ops/false flag operations and trying to ruin this Dailey guy's reputation. Jeesh. On the other hand, he's also created "Smoke on the River" BBQ Competition — maybe he really believes his own stuff. --Closeapple (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: The entire article violates WP:BLP except the two words "Justin Sandbach" (which is sourced but isn't the subject of the article) and "The election for the city council will be on April 5, 2011" (which is merely unsourced, not a BLP violation). The main citation is to a blog entry apparently written by Jkoch25, and now blanked itself, from what I can tell. I've tagged it all so that it's clear why blanking the entire article is appropriate under WP:BLP. --Closeapple (talk) 15:20, 24 March 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) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen D. Apolinsky
- Stephen D. Apolinsky (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 lawyer. While he may have a few awards, there are no 3rd party sources. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject with a poorly written article. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources to establish notability. He was briefly quoted once in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; heck, I'VE been in newspapers more than that. Article created by an WP:SPA. (Also a case of Melanie's Law: Any article which refers to the subject by first name is likely to have WP:COI or notability problems.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is not significant coverage in reliable, and I stress reliable, sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 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.Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon This Rock (band)
- Upon This Rock (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Unsigned band of questionable notabilty. No independent reliable third party sources provided - claims to notability are sourced to primary sources or user-submitted content sites. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The site at Cornerstone should be reliable, as it is from the page of a well known music festival. Also, a link to Christianrocker.com will be added. An article in a newspaper will be published soon, and that will be added when it is published. Noahde (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A bio from a music festival they performed at does not establish notability, and it is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could find no coverage when I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless some reliable sources appear before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 26 March 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) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean360X
- Sean360X (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)
Possible autobigraphical/vanity article for an actor/model of questionable notability. Article makes lots of claims, but offers no citations to independent reliable third-party sources to back them up. No IMDB page for acting claims. Google search on award mentions only shows returns connected to primary sources for the subject - no indication these are notable awards. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems like an obvious vanity article. No notability that I can find. Evalpor (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article, full of puffery and unsourced quotes, no independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 27 March 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 due to lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune's Garden
- Neptune's Garden (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)
Book that is not notable - Google search turned up no sources, text links to book sellers' sites. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is valid. A google search of "Neptunes Garden Jeremy Gosnell" turns up links to all major book sellers. Barnes and Noble, Books a Million, Amazon and many others are carrying and selling this book. Also, the search I recommended will bring up the book's official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.228.185 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.125.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Unfortunately, people selling the book are not considered to be sources, and the site of the book itself is not considered justification for notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment In addition to a variety of book sellers a Google search, or search using any search engine will bring up independent review websites that have reviewed this book or offer a listing regarding it. Here are links to two:
- [26][27] Also a search on the publisher's website brings up a listing of not only the book but information regarding the author. I have provided that link as well.[28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.228.185 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.125.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- One Vote Per Customer, Please. None of those reviews come from a nationally known source. Once again, the publisher's or author's website is not considered to be a source for determining notability. Third Party Sources are needed. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [26][27] Also a search on the publisher's website brings up a listing of not only the book but information regarding the author. I have provided that link as well.[28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.228.185 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.125.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Please visit the book's listing at bookreview.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Here is a link to another independent third party source: http://likeitido.com/2010/03/11/neptunes-garden-by-jeremy-gosnell/7656 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- According to the WP:Notability (books), "The book [must have] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Most of the reviews mentioned are either services that anyone can submit their book to be reviewed, or trivial, passing mentions. Since this is a self-published book, it most likely is not notable. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A formal complaint has been sent against user Fiftytwo thirty based on comments made
- *Comment It's clear that you don't understand Wikipedia's procedures. Fiftytwo thirty is simply applying the normal Wikipedia standards for inclusion of a book in this encyclopedia. You can read those standards here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If any "formal complaint" has been filed against me, I have received no word of it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *Comment It's clear that you don't understand Wikipedia's procedures. Fiftytwo thirty is simply applying the normal Wikipedia standards for inclusion of a book in this encyclopedia. You can read those standards here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-published book via [29]. No independent recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So does the fact that this book has received multiple reader reviews on various retailer websites not qualify as independent recognition considering these readers were totally independent and unrelated to the author or publisher of the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.124.226 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 148.66.124.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep I checked some of the links that are given in this article as well as searching the book's author and title online. It appears that there are several reviews by readers and articles online regarding the story. These all appear independent of the publisher or author. According to this criteria, " The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" - I feel the article should be kept. I do feel as more independent sources of review or mention become available they should be posted as external links in the book's wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D c l8319 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — D c 18319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "Reader reviews" and "online reviews" do not count as independent or reliable sources - because they are anonymous and could be posted by anyone, including the author himself/herself or the publisher. Note that the rules specify PUBLISHED works; that is so that independence can be assured. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the proliferation of newly-created single-purpose accounts coming here to support the book is not very convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Reader reviews" and "online reviews" do not count as independent or reliable sources - because they are anonymous and could be posted by anyone, including the author himself/herself or the publisher. Note that the rules specify PUBLISHED works; that is so that independence can be assured. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The book is self published via iUniverse, which anyone can do, and I laud anyone who takes the effort to author a book. But a google archive news search[30] has no cites for "neptune's garden" and gosnell. I can't find any mainstream press coverage including local press. The author has done a good job of getting the book out there for reviews by random bloggers and friends, but this is very common for this kind of book, and unfortunately these are not the kind of sources that we mean when we say "reliable sources." I say this kindly to the author and interested parties as an editor who is a pretty strong inclusionist (meaning I am in favor of expansive coverage on Wikipedia), but wikipedia is not the place for an article on this book, at least at this point. When you hit a best seller list and/or get some newspaper books reviews, maybe things will be different.--Milowent (talk) 15:57, 30 March 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 as clearly unsuitable material, furthermore it seems to have been copied and pasted from http://insidevishnu.blogspot.com/2009/10/tax-audit-seminar-material-3cd.html and does not appear to have been released for re-use. –xenotalk 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tax audit under section 44AB of Indian Income Tax Act,1961
- Tax audit under section 44AB of Indian Income Tax Act,1961 (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 by author without explanation, rationale was "Article seems to be a cut and paste from the Indian tax instruction guide. Wikipedia is not a instruction guide."
My !vote is delete per original prod rationale. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per nominator; this isn't an article, it's straight-up tax code. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject probably lifted from an official website also making it a copyvio. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 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) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calligraphism
- Calligraphism (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)
From my research, this is a non-existent term, claimed to be a genre of Italian film. No sources provided, I was unable to find an external definition for the term nor any films classified as such either on Google searches, GNews, IMDb or English and Italian Wikipedias. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As of now, it apparently is a tag in an Italian movie database. Google (Calligraphism -font) doesn't turn up anything useful, and the article itself doesn't have any references. WP:V and WP:N apply. --Pgallert (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neoligism. Searches for "Calligraphism" and "Calligrafi films" return wiki-mirrors. The article's first sentence attempts to define Calligraphism, as "Calligrafi films are novel adaptations" and the rest of the unsourced article uses OR to further define the term by describing a perhaps representative film. While "Calligraphy films" are a phenomena and phrase with some usage within filmmaking, the specific word "Calligraphism" is not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 23 March 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 (G3, hoax) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Puerto Peñasco Political Crisis
- 2010 Puerto Peñasco Political Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete and salt. This article has been created repeatedly by the same author, and repeatedly speedy-deleted as a hoax. It is a recitation of a supposed coup d'etat in a non-existent place, replete with references to actual sources that nowhere mention the events described in this article. Needs to be AFD'd so that any future recreation under another title can be A4'ed without further delay. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen four or five attempts at this while I've been on newpage patrol, and I'm sure there are more. Needs to be deleted and salted. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, salt, ban. Hairhorn (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per above. (GregJackP (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:40, 22 March 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. Neutralitytalk 16:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hinterland (short film)
- Hinterland (short film) (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. Film of questionable notability, lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable amateur film, meets none of the criteria set out in WP:NF. Google search brings up only the filmmaker's profile on Vimeo, Gnews returns nothing. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No Reliable Sources available that deal with this student film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not much to add to the above. dramatic (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - guess what, I've made 4 short-films by now... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:42, 24 March 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 move to project space. Actually, this can be closed now. Consensus is that this does not belong in mainspace, but can go in project space. I'm going to move it to Wikipedia:British and Irish Historic House books recently published for now. Feel free to move it elsewhere. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British and Irish Historic House books recently published
- British and Irish Historic House books recently published (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)
R12056 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but probably move to a project page or WP space--these bibliographies are useful working tools at Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by article creator: The article will cover an approximately rolling 3 year period, hence always being recent (so the 2008 section will be removed at the end of 2010, etc). It is intended as a bibliography and sources section for all the articles mentioned in the first line, which would not be practical to split because of overlap and duplication. Not 'all' books will be listed, but rather those that significantly address the subject matter, and hence will not be 'indiscriminate information'. This article is not a directory, such as a library catalog listing, because it is selective, adds relevant comments and covers a number of topics which could not be duplicated by one single search criteria, hence the need for this article. These clarifications can be inserted in the article introduction, if kept. Andrewtriggs (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The PROD rationale was "Wikipedia is not a directory. Listing all books published on this topic in 2008 or later, regardless of their significance, appears to be indiscriminate information. There's no clear reason for making 2008 the cut-off, and in future years 2008 will no longer be "recent" (in other words, even if the article remains, there are obvious reasons why the title should be changed, but changing the title won't solve the essential problems with the topic)". I declined the PROD on a procedural basis, since we're at AFD now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to the project space. This seems to be a useful resource, as DGG notes, but it's inappropriate as an article. If the works themselves are notable (unlikely, as some haven't been published yet), they would have articles of their own. Is this associated with a Wikiproject that might take on the constant management such a list will require? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (I was the one who prodded the article and left the comments copied here by User:Ultraexactzz and responded to by User:Andrewtriggs. I had nothing to do with bringing the article to AFD, especially while my prod was still active.) The label of "indiscriminate information" here does not mean that there is no criteria at all for the items to be included on the list; it means that the list does not meet any criteria that justifies inclusion as a Wikipedia article, such as discussing only books that have made a significant impact on their field. If the only criteria for a book to be included on the list is its subject matter, then it is a directory -- or a bibliography, as the article's creator says. A bibliography is not an article. Propaniac (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 14:48, 22 March 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) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Ikin
- Edward Ikin (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)
Was prodded, and then someone nominated it for AfD without a rationale, and the prod was removed. Having just closed that AfD as a "speedy" keep, I'm renominating this procedurally. The PROD rationale was "WP:N (notability not established)". I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he doesn't seem to be notable as footballer, actor or performer/singer.--Karljoos (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unfortunately. I do not see sources even listed, my quick general search unveiled nothing... claims like "background student in Harry Potter films" not notability. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hasn't appeared in a professional match or played for his country at senior level. Fails WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to have done anything of note to pass WP:MUSIC WP:ENT and has not played high enough to pass WP:ATHLETE - age group caps do not confer notability.--ClubOranjeT 08:33, 28 March 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 is some disagreement with respect to how trivial the newspaper mentions are, but on balance the consensus is that the coverage is sufficient. (I also note that the article has undergone some substantial revision since the discussion began.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caribbean Policy Research Institute
- Caribbean Policy Research Institute (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 GregJackP (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also strongly promotional in tone and includes weaselly and barely-English text: ...works to promote evidence-based dialogue on development within Caribbean societies. In an effort to create better policies, the institute informs debate through the production of research-driven information of the highest quality to the wider public, including policymakers and influencers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree, the article is badly written and needs an overhaul, however that is not a valid argument for deletion. As for the notability of the organization, a search of the Google News archives brings up 134 hits, the majority of them in the Jamaica Gleaner. The Gleaner is a daily broadsheet newspaper that's been published for 166 years, and should handily meet the criteria for a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Beyond My Ken; the Gleaner is a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It passes WP:ORG; better editing would help the article. Warrah (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - check the actual articles in the Jamaica Gleaner - the majority of the hits are due to trivial mention in the byline of a columnist, whose bio identifies him as being affiliated with the CPRI. Trivial mentions of this type are not appropriate sources for notability according to WP:SOURCES. (GregJackP (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Really? The ones I checked (in Google News) are not like this at all. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 25 March 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) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carolina Aubele
- Carolina Aubele (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)
BLP w/o references nor assertion of notability. The article was created by someone who clearly works for her (or maybe even her). camr nag 12:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Alio The Fool 18:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:COI. I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources about her. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject Pemberton08 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 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) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cellien Studios
- Cellien Studios (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 only game they're attributed to have worked on was cancelled, and I'm not even sure the company still exists -- their website sure doesn't. Kamasutra (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Kamasutra (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per NawlinWiki. There was no attempt made to assert notability, and I can only find trivial coverage. --Teancum (talk) 11:56, 24 March 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. Making sure this is not used for POV pushing can be resolved through editing the page. There was some talk of merging but there is not yet a clear consensus on that subject, discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed grief
- Delayed grief (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 "spinnoff article coatrack" as indicated here. Some minor part could be merged into Grief#Types of bereavement, considering the removal of some OR and a non-RS blogsource. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, maybe merge some content and make it a redirect to Grief.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you beat me to it; I concur entirely, especially as far as coatracking is concerned. Salvio giuliano (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Merge, as long as no surreptitious and unfounded association between delayed grief and Amanda Knox is made, the article can be useful. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- KEEP. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN MORE WIKIHOUNDING BY THE MAGNIFICENT CLEAN-KEEPER: It is not legitimate to engage in WikiHounding of others to try to prevent their ability to participate in other articles. You went to this stub article only AFTER Wikid directed ME to the article consistent with the WikiHounding that you, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, engaged in with the Linda Carty article. Now you are following me here after Wikid directed me here on my Talk page. It is none of your business if he and I wish to collaborate on a new article. You are interested in this article only because he directed me to it. You were not interested in the subject matter otherwise, just as you were only interested in the Linda Carty article while I attempted to work on it-- but had to give up due to your WikiHounding. Stop following me around and WikiHounding me. ENOUGH! Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you know that this page (like any other) is not for personal attacks. And taking about hounding; Wasn't I the first one here? So who hounded down who and who is harassing who? Have a nice night.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amost forgot to ask: Is Salvio hounding you too since he posted here?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvio did not follow me to the Linda Carty article and delete all of my work there repeatedly as you did. Salvio has not used profanity towards me or any other woman that I am aware of. Salvio has not harassed me by repeatedly deleting my work on the Kercher article. Salvio has not threatened to 'get rough' with me, as you did. So his pattern of conduct has been very different from yours. Given your pattern of conduct, your proposal to delete this article smacks of WikiHounding. Don't try to pretend that you ended up here just as a coincidence after Wikid offered this to me as consolation after you WikiHounded me on the Linda Carty article and drove me off. No, it is not a coincidence that you came here.Zlykinskyja (talk)
- Uh. And how did you get there? Do you remember? I do. You got there from the same link I got there.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not a WP:Coatrack - no coats on this rack. In claiming that the article is a "coat-rack" there should be documented proof that the article contains, or had contained, a series of "coats" being hung as tangent topics within the text of the article. There are no coats, no list of tangent concepts not related to the subject of delayed grief, and hence, this is a frivolous AfD delete request, wasting people's time. Also, I did not invent the article's topic: Google matches 18,400 for "Delayed grief" or Bing.com states "15,000,000 results" for Delayed grief, and Yahoo! Search shows 14,300 results (for "Delayed grief"). This was one of numerous common topics missing from Wikipedia: I have created hundreds of new articles, with dozens about common topics, and frivolous AfDs do not help. -Wikid77 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: I suggest reminding people who submit AfDs that they need to provide proof, at the outset, that the alleged fatal problem with an article really has merit. Otherwise, generating a frivolous AfD is an enormous waste of time and resources. Wikipedia does not condone an AfD against "Lightning rod" by merely claiming it is a total WP:BLP attack on Benjamin Franklin, unless there are specific points of evidence. Likewise, WP does not condone an AfD against "Upgrades to Windows Vista" by claiming it is a "coatrack" for whom, perhaps Buena Vista? The initiator of an AfD needs to specify the detailed proof that a policy is being violated, as to the specific details of that alleged violation, rather than just cite vague policy links as wiki-lawyering against an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from author: I regret that this frivolous AfD has been submitted. I knew when I created the article "Delayed grief" that there was a high risk that it would be spotted in another user-talk page, then followed, and later attacked by people trying to limit the content of the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". Perhaps the AfD against this article is a veiled form of censorship, and should be investigated as a extreme violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: deleting an article to limit the spread of unwanted sourced information. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The term "delayed grief" reveals many sources on the main Google search and on both Google Books and Google Scholar, so I would argue that deletion would be unmerited in this scenario. However, since the main Grief article is only about 21-22 kilobytes in size, considering WP:SPINOUT, the content from the "Delayed grief" article as it stands could be merged into that page, as the nominator suggests. The same could arguably be done in the cases of other articles in the "Grief" category, such as Anticipatory grief and Disenfranchised grief, or perhaps a separate "Types of grief" page could be created. SuperMarioMan 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: It is premature to close down this article. It hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. This deletion is being proposed for illegitimate reasons by the person who started this thread, as noted above. This website should be about producing new and informative articles, not censorship. Zlykinskyja (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: it is quite patent that this article is merely a way of campaigning for Knox's innocence as noted by TMC-k, which is not allowed under wp policies. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The diff that Magnificent Clean-Keeper provides above makes it clear that the Wikid77 intended this as an "overlooked subject" relating to the Knox/Sollecito case. I had never heard of "coatracking" but, having read WP:Coatrack, this is it. I vote to delete the article and merge any useful stuff into Grief. "Useful stuff" does not include the uncited speculation about the state of mind of Amanda Knox. Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, there was a previous discussion on Zlykinskyja's talk page in which Wikid77 proposed creating a spinoff article, also related to the Knox/Sollecito case. At that time, I made a suggestion that they sought consensus before creating such an article[31]. However, my advice was deleted without comment or reply, so I have not commented further up til now. Bluewave (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "uncited speculation" in the article. Every statement in the article is tied to a footnote source: I have been creating new articles for years, so I typically provide a ref-tag footnote for everything, far beyond the sourcing required by WP:Verify & WP:RS policies. In this case, I used multiple, independent sources. -Wikid77 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Further cmt in response to wikid77. The uncited speculation that I'm referring to is the implication that Amanda Knox was suffering from delayed grief. There is a cite that she was "sobbing uncontrollably" but that doesn't mean she was suffering from delayed grief. You would need to cite a psychiatric report for that, not a notorious tabloid like the Sun (newspaper) which doesn't even mention delayed grief. Bluewave (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The diff provided by the Magnificent Clean-keeper is concerning, and the Amanda Knox case seems to have been a principal motivation for the creation of this article. The "Examples" section as it stands hinges mainly on the (unsourced) assertion that Knox and "delayed grief" are connected, when the only Google web search result that includes both of these phrases happens to be the article that is the subject of this deletion nomination. A search for "Amanda Knox" and "delayed grief" in Google News yields precisely zero results, making the Knox paragraph original research and synthesis. The rest of the article is above the level of a dictionary definition since it cites reliable sources, but on its own I would say that it is not enough to support a separate article when there is a prospective parent (Grief) into which it could be merged. While it is true that there is no deadline for article development on Wikipedia, the same essay proposes that there is no rush to create a new article "until its significance is unambiguously established." "Delayed grief" is a notable concept, but for the moment, on Wikipedia, it could just be included in a subsection on the main "Grief" article. SuperMarioMan 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "delayed" is similar to "postponed" (or "grieving later"), so a search-engine lookup should focus on "grief" plus "later" or "afterward" and then you will find more sources. To view a report about someone "sobbing uncontrollably" (days after her friend was murdered) as an original-research view, of grief, is a bit misplaced: instead, to consider intense "sobbing" as NOT grief would be original. There is no WP:SYN synthesis in this case: numerous webpages address Amanda Knox with the word "grief" so it is not a "synthesized" opinion of her behavior. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, the Amanda Knox paragraph collates two news sources (CBS and The Sun) and ends with the unspoken conclusion that Knox "sobbing uncontrollably" is an example of "delayed grief". A and B are therefore assumed to result in C, when there is no reliable source asserting that such a connection exists. The closest that one of the cited sources comes to supporting the assertion of "delayed grief" is the sentence in the Sun article stating, "[Sollecito] said Knox wept with grief and screamed: 'How could anyone do this?' However, effectively, it is Sollecito who is being cited, since the newspaper is simply reporting something that he said. The inclusion of the paragraph presupposes that Knox's behaviour was genuine and not a mask to divert the attention of the Italian police from her and Sollecito. Is there a source such as a medical journal in which Knox's conduct is specifically diagnosed as a case of "delayed grief"? The first sentence of the "Examples" section is strong in its sourcing, but rather undue prominence is allotted to the Knox paragraph while simultaneously there is no source explicitly bridging Knox and "delayed grief", or "grief" attached to synonymous adjectives such as "unresolved". SuperMarioMan 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not rocket science: "sobbing uncontrollably" during a conversation, days after a death, is an example of "delayed grief". This is not a medical mystery requiring a blood test and a CAT scan. The 2nd source confirms the first, by saying "wept with grief" plus, it even uses the word grief (just in case anyone thought "sobbing uncontrollably" wasn't), and then adds that she screamed about the death. Now just because there are 2 sources, that doesn't imply WP:SYN (advancing a "cause"), but you even claimed a synthesis when there was only 1 source, combined together with what... "the sound of one hand clapping"? The 2 sources are actually both: (A) delayed grief in sobbing, plus (A) delayed "wept with grief" leading to A+A, as both delayed grief. I don't see any hint of A+B=C "advancing a cause" here. You indicated that Sollecito must have lied about the weeping (why?), and I guess the police chief lied about the sobbing, or the reporters lied about those 2 interviews, or the reliable sources lied in print. Therefore, condemning the sources, it would not be delayed grief. That's not how Wikipedia handles sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the policy, we must not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". There is no "explicit statement" in either source that Knox's "uncontrollable sobbing" was delayed grieving. The CBS source, besides the fact that it is highly biased against the Italian judiciary, has nothing to say specifically on "delayed grief" (the subject of the article). The Sun — again, not the most reliable source of information out there — makes mention of "grief", but (and this is attributed to Sollecito) does not qualify it with "delayed" or "unresolved". People should be misled: they should be left alone to consider whether the sobbing is indicative of this precise form of grief. At most, Knox's sobbing is "grief" according to what sources tell us, but what is there to refute that it was not an elaborate deception to dissuade the Italian police? This would appear to be a fundamental problem with the inclusion of the paragraph as an example. Perhaps Knox's behaviour exemplifies "grief" in general, but then the encyclopaedic worth of the edit is lost. If we are to include documented instances of "delayed grief", we must ensure that they are categorised as such in the sources cited. Also, regardless of the above, the re-insertion of the content would give undue weight to the Knox case, and would do little to refute the case made by the Magnificent Clean-keeper that this article was created as a coatrack. As the page stands, I view it as containing too little content to merit separation from the main Grief article, hence the reason for which I favour a merge. SuperMarioMan 21:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment The accusation is being made by Salvio above that this article is somehow intended to present a positive POV view of Knox, yet the article has not yet even been written! (It is only a stub at this point.) So how can this be judged a "campaign for her innocence"! The converse could be argued: that some do not want this new article to go forward just in case it might present Knox in a light other than a bad light, as some are insisting on in the Kercher article. This is just more of the same old, same old, censorship by some of the same people on the Kercher article. I had just planned on starting this as a new writing project, when these other editors on the Kercher article try to delete it. Yet, I had not even had the chance to make a SINGLE EDIT. Sure looks like censorship to me, as in prior restraint. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been written and is (al)live, and being a stub doesn't change that. It is not a draft in user space or else. Further, you need to make your argument about policy as this is not a vote. To clarify, the article will be kept or deleted based on policy arguments, not on personal opinion.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote:"... I had not even had the chance to make a SINGLE EDIT yet ."
- Wrong: You chose not to edit the article as of yet.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: May I suggest you read this? Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment: This proposed elimination needs to be considered in light of the policies against Censorship. Please review. wp: Censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)
- Just plain wrong again and repeating your "censorship" accusations all over WP doesn't change that. Please read policies you cite and also those you where directed to at your talk page and, again, all over WP so you can make a compelling argument.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if I can't write on the Kercher article without hours and hours of obstructions, and I can't write on the Linda Carty article since you followed me there too and repeatedly deleted my text, and now I can't write on this brand new article (as Wikid invited me to do) since you want it deleted before I could make a single edit, the pattern sure looks like a type of censorship to me, to put it mildly. Maybe there is another word for it, but the general gist is that if an editor is being obstructed in participating that is analogous to a form of censorship. I think the doctrine of prior restraint provides (as a general form of analogy between Wiki speech and free speech) some background on how speech can be restricted even before it is actually written, and thus becomes a form of censorship. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so this doesn't belong here but you keep bringing up things that don't belong here anyways ,I'll respond to your comment.
- You can write at the article even if it is considered for deletion. It is even encouraged to do so to bring an article up to standard and then it might not be deleted.
- Comments about editors are not encouraged but highly discouraged and don't belong here or on any article's talk page as you made aware more than once. There are forums on WP where you can do so as long they are not unfounded and you include diffs to back up your claims. Anything else is considered a personal attack.
- As for the "free speech" issue you brought up you might want to read Wikipedia:Free speech for further understanding.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not waste even more of my time on these disputes with you, as you follow me around Wikipedia, by adding text to this brand new article. No one who values her time would add to an article that you and your allies from the Kercher article are proposing for deletion. What you are doing is unfortunate, because Delayed Grief as a phenomenon that is very little known and countless people could be helped with a well written, well researched article on the subject matter. When I lost a family member to the family illness as a teenager I did not cry for over a year, and could not understand why. It would have helped me a lot to have a readily accessible article to let me know there is an actual condition called Delayed Grief, which I had no idea about. So, now all those who are in need of similar information will not have it, thanks to your efforts. This is similar to what happened with Linda Carty, a woman who is facing the death penalty by lethal injection in a matter of months. I could have written a good article to inform the public of her desperate situation, but had to give up on her worthy story due to your WikiHounding of me there. No one wants to write when being WikiHounded, but you already know that. So to say I am "free" to write on this article while you try to get it deleted is utter nonsense. Zlykinskyja 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big BS and enough of that. As I said before, this is NOT the right page for your rants and don't take me as an excuse NOT to edit certain articles. This is getting more and more ridiculous and I hope some admin steps in and stops that nonsense at least here! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: As always, this is not the proper venue to debate merges, which should be done on a talk-page cross-linking both articles to allow authors of the other article to discuss impacts to their current text, as well. Perhaps remind people to start a talk-page debate based on merging, first, rather than generate a frivolous AfD disguising a merge proposal. Is there a current tag (such as "TRYMERGE") for templating these people, with an ambox-notice, to not submit frivolous AfDs for article contents they know, full well, are actually notable within an article? I'm thinking of something like the ambox-notice below:
- That type of ambox-notice, above, should be developed into a template-tag to keep people from submitting frivolous AfDs. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, is this an AfD, or is this meatpuppetry? Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge
and deleteI think this warrants a section in the Grief article, but given the current amount of information, not an article on its own. I think the Amanda Knox example should be removed, as there is nothing in it (or in the references) to identify it as an actual diagnosed example of delayed grief, and so that seems to be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I have no idea whether or not it is coatracking, so I'm not trying to judge it on that - just on the content of the article as it stands) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't merge and delete. That would transfer authorship and violate GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. I've seen a number of AfD's closed with a "merge" consensus, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign to Save Roan Plateau, which would lead to a second author copying a first author's words into the merge target, with the deletion of the merge source - how does that work without "transferring authorship"? -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:52, 22 March 2010(UTC)
- It is not about merging a longstanding article into another one; It's about deleting an article (that's what AFD stands for) and include some content in another article that already exists. Maybe TenPoundHammer should clarify what s/he means by "Can't merge and delete..." as it would mean no part of a deleted article could be merged, which is just not true.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the content of an article (I don't understand how the length of its standing matters) is merged into another one, surely the original is then deleted, and the two cases are the same, aren't they? Anyway, I agree, some clarification of what TenPoundHammer actually meant would help. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only difference would be that when merging a longstanding article we might keep it as a redirect and therefore the edit history would be preserved, which in this case would have no value.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, that's a point - but if the GFDL requires keeping a record of past authors, wouldn't keeping it as a redirect in this case at least satisfy that? (which could mean that it is just the "and delete" part of my recommendation that TPH believes is wrong) -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure wouldn't mind but I doubt that any reader would search using that phrase. Anyhow, that would then need to be addressed at WP:RFD.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that in my my "vote" as the nominator of this AFD I said:"...maybe merge some content and make it a redirect."--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I've changed my !vote to just "Merge" - should that be the consensus, whoever does it can work out the proper way. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable per Google Book search results which have significant coverage of "delayed grief" in multiple reliable and independent sources. See [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and many more. In addition, there are many journal articles found at Google scholar which address this topic: [40]. Edison (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why this subject shouldn't (or can't) be addressed in Grief?---The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A topic which has a great many scholarly references is deserving of its own article. This is the same reason World War 2 isn't merged to War. Edison (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why this subject shouldn't (or can't) be addressed in Grief?---The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is highly notable, as evidenced by others. Any issues with the article may be addressed by ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. If I were to edit it, I might add the example of Richard Feynman, who experienced delayed grief after the death of his first wife. Giving this example would not make the article a coatrack; it would just be an illustration of the concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment By Proposed Author: Please keep in mind that this article has not been written yet. Wikid77 started the article on March 19, and on the same day, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper proposed the article for deletion. (There has been an ongoing dispute in another article involving some of the same authors initiating or supporting this move to stop the new article). This new article has barely gotten off the ground. As a proposed author, (as Wikid77 and I discussed on my Talk page) I did not yet even have the opportunity to make a single edit prior to this deletion proposal. As one of the two people who had intended to do the work in writing this new article, I completely agree with Edison and Colonel Warden. It is indeed a highly notable topic. It is also a topic that is complex and needs detailed presentation to adequately inform and educate the reader. I think Edison hit the nail on the head when he made the analogy to why World War 2 wasn't merged into the article on War. Some topics need enough room for full explanation. There is no need to cramp the topic into the article on Grief. That will not do it justice. As one of the two people who had intended to write this article, I am not interested in a "merge." For me to be enthused about the topic and actually write it, I need enough space to feel confident that I can do the topic justice. If the only space I can use is in connection with a "merge" I probably will not be interested in going forward and actually writing the article. So for all practical purposes, the result of the vote is to either allow the article to go forward, or stop it in its tracks now. I am not interested in spending the time in reviewing all the scholarly research, only to have my work squeezed into another article when I am done. The seminal research treatise on Death and Dying by Kubler-Ross covers difficulties with grief and is quite long and detailed. For that type of research full space is needed and will be available by simply allowing a new article to proceed and explain this complex phenomenon in detail. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm neutral about whether the article should be kept or deleted, but your comment above makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. I understand you put a lot of work into the article, but that alone isn't enough for it to be kept. You also should understand that even though you created the article, it isn't yours. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment By Proposed Author: Please keep in mind that this article has not been written yet. Wikid77 started the article on March 19, and on the same day, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper proposed the article for deletion. (There has been an ongoing dispute in another article involving some of the same authors initiating or supporting this move to stop the new article). This new article has barely gotten off the ground. As a proposed author, (as Wikid77 and I discussed on my Talk page) I did not yet even have the opportunity to make a single edit prior to this deletion proposal. As one of the two people who had intended to do the work in writing this new article, I completely agree with Edison and Colonel Warden. It is indeed a highly notable topic. It is also a topic that is complex and needs detailed presentation to adequately inform and educate the reader. I think Edison hit the nail on the head when he made the analogy to why World War 2 wasn't merged into the article on War. Some topics need enough room for full explanation. There is no need to cramp the topic into the article on Grief. That will not do it justice. As one of the two people who had intended to write this article, I am not interested in a "merge." For me to be enthused about the topic and actually write it, I need enough space to feel confident that I can do the topic justice. If the only space I can use is in connection with a "merge" I probably will not be interested in going forward and actually writing the article. So for all practical purposes, the result of the vote is to either allow the article to go forward, or stop it in its tracks now. I am not interested in spending the time in reviewing all the scholarly research, only to have my work squeezed into another article when I am done. The seminal research treatise on Death and Dying by Kubler-Ross covers difficulties with grief and is quite long and detailed. For that type of research full space is needed and will be available by simply allowing a new article to proceed and explain this complex phenomenon in detail. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was that I have put NO work into the article because I never had that chance. Not even a single edit. The opening of the article page and the proposal to delete were made just hours apart, before I ever had a chance to even start writing. So my point is just the opposite. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do people realize that the proposal to delete was submitted just hours after the article had been originated, and that one of the two authors intending to write the article had not yet even made one edit yet? This proposal to delete is as premature as it can get.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily; WP:DEADLINE works both ways. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do people realize that the proposal to delete was submitted just hours after the article had been originated, and that one of the two authors intending to write the article had not yet even made one edit yet? This proposal to delete is as premature as it can get.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any concept of "deadline" needs to consider that people need more than just a few hours to start, develop and expand the article. There is no need to be a speed demon. There is no house on fire that I am aware of. Here is another point to consider: Don't demolish the house while it is still being built. It simply is not possible to get the whole thing done in just a few hours!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built Please consider the points in this article. It is great! Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't have much time but will take some to explain some things to Zlykinskyja and those who favor "keep". Anyone, including Zlykinskyja had by now more than three days to edit that article to bring it up to a decent standard to stay as a stand alone article and therefore prevent deletion and redirecting it to Grief, yet, nobody chose to do so. Why? The first thing to do for those who want to keep it would be to start a Delayed grief section at the Grief article which can be split into it's own article at some point when it gets to big for the main one; Or it has no bearing at all at the main article and has to be seen as a different issue. Does it? I don't think so and made it clear by nominating it. Please also read my follow comments whithnin this AFD where I made it clear that the subject itself is not the issue and I would prefer a redirect for now. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge. Grief would benefit from having this merged in, and broader topic would help readers contextualize the specific one. The page should be kept and redirected, as it's a reasonable search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 25 March 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick Trent Stanley
- Frederick Trent Stanley (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 page contains nothing that isn't already on the page for The Stanley Works and probably never will since there isn't much information on Frederick T. Stanley other than the fact that he founded the company. typhoon (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a more than notable city (New Britain CT; there are scores, probably hundreds, of articles on mayors of less sizable cities -- for example, there are articles on 10 mayors of Hoboken, approximately half the population of New Britain). Also the founder of a major industrial company, and listed in a relevant specialized encyclopedia, including material which could easily be used to expand the article in whichever areas the nominator might find insufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure he passes WP:POLITICIAN, but I do consider he passes WP:BIO for his business and political activities receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. There is lots of material on which a biography can be written. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A major business leader who passes WP:BIO. The article needs a strong rewrite. Warrah (talk) 17:11, 23 March 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 per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
India Tower
- India Tower (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 project is officially cancelled Soupysoap (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub and Keep. From media reports in Jan 2010, the plans for the tower exist, but they and the names are in flux. I found this and this which suggest that the project has been scrapped and has been changed to the Dynamix-Balwas towers (DB Towers) to be built at the same location. However this CNN IBN article continues to refer to it as India Towers. And a report in Times of India on 23 January 2010 (which also refer to it as "India Towers") says it is 105 stories and 300 m now. The article needs to be stubbed to a two line entry removing all the speculation about no of floors and height, till other media reports corroborate what is happening. However if reliable source reports can be produced to corroborate the cancellation, the article should be deleted--Sodabottle (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sodabottle. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sodabottle makes a good point. The tower itself has been renamed and redesigned and hence, there is no reason to delete the article. The project itself is still in the planning stage as numerous articles online state. The article just needs updating. --EfferAKS 21:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI have rewritten the entry to reflect only the information from the most recent news source available and have added a warning that information may change and the project is under construction.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:CRYSTAL requirements. Has two sources in article, and there could be many more. Dew Kane (talk) 03:35, 26 March 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will Buckley (journalist)
- Will Buckley (journalist) (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 to meet the requirements of WP:PERSON Regancy42 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject likely meets WP:BIO but is the target of vandals apparently due to publicity of the article on a radio program, awaiting protection from admins RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs improved sourcing, but he is the senior sports writer for an imminently notable newspaper. Notability may not be inherited, but his position in itself means he has "played a major role in co-creating...a significant or well-known work", never mind his contributions to other media. It is difficult to create articles on journalists, as google searches and the like will often turn up material they have written, rather than material about them, but I suspect that enough could be found here and here to create a decent article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No third party coverage, only blurbs from the publications he writes for. William Avery (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just on the first page of hits linked above, I find this third party coverage in The First Post. Not that I'd include that, because it seems like undue. But that's just the first page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Senior sports writer for one of the major national newspapers in the UK. His standing is therefore equivalent to someone like Mike Lupica or Bob Ryan here in the States. Blueboy96 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs 3rd party refs, but he's probably notable. His novel is published by an imprint of Harper Collins. Hairhorn (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't think the deletion proposer's right here. As he has been published and is a major British sports journalist, he does meet the requirements linked in WP:BIO. Strange Passerby (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if it is possible for any useful information from the original article before that was deleted to be restored, that should be done too. Strange Passerby (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Published author, national journalist for the Guardian newspaper and frequent pundit on national radio via BBC Radio Five. 80.222.132.98 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient notability is clear, deletion serves no purpose as no contentious material is present. Collect (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - RS coverage of his book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by others. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : notability established by sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. Pgallert (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Urbinati
- Rob Urbinati (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 individual does not appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Google turns up either trivial mentions of him (having only created regional stage plays) or information about an unrelated musician with the same name. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not sure I understand the meaning of the phrase "having created only regional plays." The discussion should not reflect the magnitude of production in regard to a playwright's work, but the impact and notability of the playwright's work. I am going to do a search today for reviews and articles, because I am not convinced that this writer is lacking in notability. Evalpor (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after just a few minutes online, I found several reliable third-party articles which discuss this artist in considerable depth. I concede that the article here is quite substandard, but there is more than enough material out there to revise and improve. Evalpor (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've begun revising the article, adding references and external links. This director/playwright has a sizable body of work, and it's going to take considerable effort to get the article where it needs to be. But I think it's becoming quite clear that the subject meets notability requirements. Evalpor (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I formatted the references so that they weren't just address links. He appears to be a notable playwright with a sizable body of work and is referenced in places like the New York Times. Clearly notable. SilverserenC 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's commendable, and the right thing to do at this point. Flagging the article gave some of us a chance to do some digging, so it's all for the best as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evalpor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what AfD does a lot of the time. It puts articles up to scrutiny and the notable ones get improved a considerable amount. Even I, as an inclusionist, see the benefits of AfD. I just wish we caught more of the notable articles, because a few do slip through the cracks. SilverserenC 07:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's commendable, and the right thing to do at this point. Flagging the article gave some of us a chance to do some digging, so it's all for the best as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evalpor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5. The sneaky re-creation is textbook Jvolkblum so consider this a speedy for multiple reasons. Wknight94 talk 08:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Rochelle Council on the Arts
- New Rochelle Council on the Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable arts organization with no reliable third-party sources given. Google search showed mostly self-promotion. Author has apparent WP:COI issues based on name - see both Nrartshistory (talk · contribs) and Nrarts (talk · contribs). Wknight94 talk 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. All the Ghits I found only mention the organization's name in passing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep was a city-created organization Dew Kane (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That alone doesn't make it notable; see WP:ORG and WP:PSTS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article was previously deleted by Wknight94 without any nomination for deletion being made. A request to restore the article was granted not more than a few days ago, and time should be allowed for further expansion. There are also similar articles in existance on the site, such as Fairbanks Arts Association - Allegany Arts Council - Black Creek Arts Council - and Hillsborough Arts Council - without issue. Nrarts (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article was userfied to User:Nrartshistory/New Rochelle Council on the Arts so you could improve it and then post back to main space. Instead, you created a new account and used the new account to post the exact same article right back into main space. I am being courteous by not just re-speedy deleting the article. Wknight94 talk 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the New Rochelle article -- it only merits a sentence in the Government section of that article. Warrah (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete It's an article created by a sockpuppet of a community banned user Jvolkblum. Minimac (talk) 07:03, 24 March 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 Neutral Milk Hotel. Never even released Black Kite 22:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty (album)
- Beauty (album) (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 demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:24, 22 March 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 Laura Pausini. This isn't even mentioned in her discography. Redirect as is usual in such cases. Black Kite 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sogni di Laura
- I sogni di Laura (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 demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why delete the article. But rules of Wikipedia... James Michael 1 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:24, 22 March 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. An unneeded content fork of material covered elsewhere. Did not redirect as this is a fairly implausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for the War on Terrorism
- Rationale for the War on Terrorism (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 seems to have no purpose whatsoever. All of this is covered in War on Terror and the article is a mess. JokerXtreme (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, speedy redirect to War on Terror. Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Doesn't seem appropriate as an article in its own right. Not at all. SmokingNewton (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikireader41 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unintentional WP:CFORK. Compare with War on Terror#US objectives. — Rankiri (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep states the facts on a historic event, which should be in an encyclopedia. Does not appear to take sides or say what the author's rationale is. Dew Kane (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is already covered in the main article. This article offers nothing new. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:59, 24 March 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big hair
- Big hair (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 basically a pseudo-article. We might as well have Ugly socks or Funny noses or Fat butts articles. There are no inclusion criteria, and to the extent that the subject matter can actually be approached in a sourceable manner (NB: the article cites zero sources), the individually named and known hairstyles that could be covered in the article, which have nothing in common at all other than that someone has a personal opinion that they are "big", have (in most cases) or could have their own proper articles. And "big" compared to what? Pretty much all non-conservative Western hair before 1995 would be considered "big" by today's standards, but will probably be "small" by standards in 2035 or whenever. Anyway, this non-article has had multiple people demand its AfDing since 2006, so I'm taking the time to make it official. I was actually shocked to find it a blue link when I ran into it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the expression is common, but I doubt it's encyclopedic. I presume we've already got articles on all the hair styles that would qualify for this moniker, so nothing lost. Rklawton (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've slightly expanded the article and added references. "Big hair" is in fact a standard general label for a wide variety of flamboyant and large hair styles, and as such the phrase has a surprising number of Google Scholar and Books references. I've cherry picked a few of them and added them to the article. Not identical or limited to bouffant styles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep - as a "meta" hairstyle, "big hair" is definitely a cultural/class phenomenon in certain regions of the U.S. and is recognized as such; on the election of G.W. Bush, Time magazine published a silly "politics and fashion" article call "Come Back, Big Hair - All Is Forgiven", which said almost zilch about "big hair" itself. There's now a good start on sourcing and the article looks improved. Studerby (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep fully sufficient sources DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets all Wikipedia guidelines --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is basically a pseudo-nomination - a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any basis in policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its in Webster dictionary, this a real thing. [41] Dream Focus 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is well sourced. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 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 SPEEDED due to previous AfD The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Omer Nadeem
- Omer Nadeem (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 fails WP:N and WP:BIO because the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. There are a lot of hits on a standard google search but most are junk; blog postings, photo and audio sites, and other nonreliable sources of information. There are only two hits on google news, both recent and none that are satisfactory. Much of the content is forward-looking in a manner which violates WP:CRYSTAL; focusing on who he is becoming rather than who he is currently. ThemFromSpace 07:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've removed some chunks of copyrighted material, and I notice that this article has a history of recreation after deletion. I would recommend applying salt this time. ThemFromSpace 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've requested speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4 as it looks like nothing has changed since the last AfD. I agree that it should be salted too. Smartse (talk) 17:44, 22 March 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 consensus is that there are insufficient sources to build an encyclopedia article rather than a medical dictionary entry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magnetism (neurological sign)
- Magnetism (neurological sign) (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)
Possible hoax. The editor who tagged this as a hoax wrote on the talk page:
“ | The only Google books hits that I can find are echoes of this article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] | ” |
My Google Books search for sources did not return any substantial results. I will withdraw this nomination if sources can be found to verify the existence of Magnetism (neurological sign). Cunard (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a borderline hoax. All the legitimate sources I found don't use "magnetism" and "neurology" in the same context. Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, the lack of references shows it is indisputably non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a hoax It's certainly not a hoax; see the KANNER scale. I don't know whether there are enough sources to justify a whole article on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per the fact that the topic is not a hoax. I do not know if this is notable though, so I am Neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, whether withdrawn or not, whether an intentional hoax or not. The basic statement of the page, that there is a clinical diagnosis in which the patient's body moves along with the physician's hand, is patent nonsense (I'm saying this as a professional neuroscientist). It simply does not happen, and defies basic laws of biology and physics. I looked at the KANNER link above, and it has nothing to do with this page. If sourcing can be found (lotsa luck!), then that's another story, but absent sourcing, the page should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep since nomination is withdrawn. If someone wishes to file another afd, it should be done based on these other concerns. Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I withdrew the nomination, I am uncertain that this article should remain in Wikipedia (the arguments that the lack of sources makes this non-notable are convincing), so I changed my delete nomination to a neutral vote. I request that the reviewing admin not close the debate as "speedy keep" or "keep" due to my withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On point of procedure, a nominator can change their !vote to anything they like. But if there are other editors who, in good faith, have recommended delete, then the debate remains open. If everyone says keep, and the nom says "OK, keep then", that's when a speedy keep comes into play. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that this is how the AfD process works. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as I don't believe the subject to be notable enough to meet our criteria. I'm inclined to agree with Tryptofish, above - There's some fantastical stuff being claimed, without the fantastic sourcing to back it up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is too specialized a detail to ever merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary or textbook.Novangelis (talk) 05:49, 27 March 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. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sourcesBeeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left Right Think Tank
- Left Right Think Tank (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. almost an ad. only 2 gnews hits [42]. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Does not fail WP:ORG. Left Right has received national television coverage via the state broadcaster ABC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oR4gMIkfs8. Left Right projects have also been discussed at length in the House of Representatives in the Australian Federal Parliament, 3 Feb 2010, pp.119-120 of Hansard. The WP:ORG guideline states:
Non-commerical organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.
The article satisfies both of these criteria, and therefore should not be deleted.
- notability is strengthened by multiple sources and significant coverage as per WP:GNG. which this org lacks. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I saw this article before and had concerns as to its notability or its prominence in independent reliable sources. I have also looked and can't find any significant reliable sources for this organisation. And to the "keep" vote above me - Hansard is a primary source, not an independent secondary source. The ref (I had to look for it as your page numbers were incorrect - it was p340-341) was simply a local member's speech about a community organisation. My local juniors' footy club actually gets more coverage in Hansard. Orderinchaos 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My page numbers on the Hansard were not incorrect. They were the page numbers for the initial proof copy, rather than the official Hansard published later. Hansard would be a primary source if the information related to the person who spoke in Parliament. However, the MP speaks as a reputable third party when referring to community organizations. Please show me where your juniors' footy club's aims and initiatives are discussed in Federal Parliament. User talk:Stonemac
- Delete, unfortunately the nom is correct here, and I am not seeing enough coverage in multiple secondary sources in order to adequately satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The organization has a high profile on university campuses in Australia, e.g., http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/notices/20090318/notices/left.html The organization is one year old so notability can be expected to increase over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.245 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Orderinchaos is righ about Hansard. I'm in Hansard myself and I'm thoroughly unnotable. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 28 March 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 all g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Hunter
- Royal Hunter (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)
Suspected hoax. A Google search returns no reliable sources to verify the existence of this purported American supernatural drama television series.
The user who tagged this as a hoax wrote on the talk page:
“ | If this is an official ABC show that has been airing since December 29, 2009, how come I can't find any information on ABC about it?
This seems like a bogus page that some fanboy of Legend of the Seeker created. If you view the history, my suspicions are probably true. XxSeraphimxX (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC) XxSeraphimxX[reply] |
” |
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Coast. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:
- List of Royal Hunter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Template:Royalhunternav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Both the list and the template have been created by Lumattias (talk · contribs) who created this hoax. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 22 March 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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn Coast
- Dawn Coast (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 user who tagged this as a hoax wrote on the talk page:
“ | Notice how the person who created this page along with the supposed TV series "Royal Hunter" credits himself as the show creator. None of this stuff he writes about shows up when I try to do a basic google search. If it were a real show, you would think that it would show up at least.
XxSeraphimxX (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC) XxSeraphimxX[reply] |
” |
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Hunter. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 22 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl Grogan
- Darryl Grogan (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)
Completely unsourced article about a filmmaker of questionable notability. No independent or reliable third party sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject and probable vanity article. Pemberton08 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless some indication of notability (secondary sourcing etc) can be provided. A quick google search found youtube videos but nothing substantial popping out. Maybe others would have more luck. Delete until sourcing is provided. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Gonna be tough to show any real-world notability for a skateboarder, as they rarely get coverage in reliable sources. They are part of a tight-knit community with a genre following and an in-sport notability system. I did find him in Skate Boarder Magazine, in a listing in the Skate Boarding Dictionary for doing something called the "Ollie 360 Fingerflip", and a posting showing he was written up in something called Automatic Magazine. Problem for these guys is that most of what is written about skateboarders in on the various skateboarding websites promoting products, so I am not overly enthusisastic about a few [43][44][45] that at the least do seem to act as further and minor verification that he at least is what the article claims. So what the heck is the "Freestyle Skateboarding Hall of Fame", and does his being included in it impart any notability? And aftr all this, perhaps the unsourced article Freestyle skateboarding tricks might be revisited as well... per WP:NOTAMANUAL. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice effort by MichaelQS, but I don't think there's enough there that's reliable and significant enough for WP:N or WP:BIO. I could find nothing in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:15, 30 March 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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billy J.P. Moses
- Billy J.P. Moses (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/Radio personality" of questionable notability. Article is wriiten like an advertisement, and disguises certain key points - claims to have worked for CNN are false, as coverage is from CNN's iReport, which is user-submitted video. No independent or verifiable third-party sources provided for other claims of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does lake verifiable sources, but I am in the process of posting them. NorthernNine (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable third-party sources have been added to the article. NorthernNine (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The majority of the article was copyvio and has now been removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For stable documentation of copyright issues, see [46]. Contributor has been advised appropriate means of verifying license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I feel a certain degree of sympathy for someone new to editing Wikipedia who puts a lot of effort into trying to make an article on a non-notable article acceptable, only to see their efforts dismissed. However, there is unfortunately no evidence at all of notability. the "references" currently given in the article are: A link to Billy Moses's own web site; two links to the same imdb page; a blog post which mentions Billy Moses, but does not give any support to any statement to which it is attached; a dead link; a link to a television clip telling us that he was one of the thousands who won tickets to the Michael Jackson tribute; a link to a video clip of him commenting on that Jackson tribute; a link to iTunes previews where we can access Moses's material if we like (not to a source which gives independent coverage of Moses); a link to a school's online "handbook" which does not even mention Billy Moses, but is attached to a statement that his mother works for a school district (incidentally the handbook does not mention her either, though it would be irrelevant as a source on him even it it did). That is all. None of this comes anywhere within a thousand miles of being significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and much of it is neither significant nor reliable nor independent. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The above list of "current" references was correct when I started checking them and preparing the above post, but while I was doing so the article was heavily edited, so the list may possibly not have been correct when I clicked "save". Nevertheless, a quick skim of the references available now suggests much the same situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I on the other hand feel no sympathy whatsoever. What I see here is someone trying to game the wikipedia system, to get his 15 minutes of fame. (For the record - AGF went west when I saw Northern Nine warning off someone who was merely trying to remove coyvios from the article - baad fail.) The Northern Nine Radio Network itself seems to be non notable; much less notable are those who make prograammes for it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now seen much more of NorthernNine's editing history than I had when I wrote the above comment about "a certain degree of sympathy". I was assuming good faith, but I have now seen enough evidence of bad faith that I agree with Tagishsimon. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The user is playing games. He's A7 in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.125.57 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 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 Nandi Awards. Content already merged.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B.N.Reddy National Award
- B.N.Reddy National Award (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)
Film award of questionable notability. No independent or verifiable sources provided to indicate actual importance - no sources provided of any kind. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability was turned up on Google. There are a lot of awards out there. Tisane (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is a relatively new award in Tollywood. Merge to Nandi Awards. It is a part of the Andhra Pradesh Government's state film awards (a named award to distinguish it from similar life time achievement awards that are part of the Nandi Awards bocquet)[47]. No new information can be added except a list of winners. So a stand alone article is not necessary. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Nandi Awards where this particular award has its context and sourcability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - i have added the information from this article to the Nandi Awards article. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:20, 27 March 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 consensus below is that the article subject does not have "notability" derived from coverage in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clipbucket
- Clipbucket (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 whatsoever that this product is notable. A prod was removed by someone with an apparent COI and without reason. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: What is the issue here? "Software with no notability" means what? ClipBucket is "notable" because it is the only open source (OSI-approved) video sharing script. Google search: "Powered by ClipBucket" generates over 700k hits. Looks "notable" from here. Fw.clipbucket (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)— Fw.clipbucket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, "software with no notability" means that this piece of software does not appear to be notable! Wikipedia's guideline for notability is found in WP:N. Now, you may say it is notable, but you need reliable sources that say so. The article has none, and a simple Google search means nothing. Look for it in Google News or Google Books: what you find there may help establish notability. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable sources in these results. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL... News for what? Books for what?
Any software with 700k users is "notable" with or without news or books.
- LOL... News for what? Books for what?
- Compare the entry to PHPmotion
You want to delete one, delete both, as well as the other video scripts on Wikipedia. - Fw.clipbucket (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you can't say I didn't try. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the entry to PHPmotion
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam, and fails notability. There's a passing mention here, but nothing but press releases and user-generated comments in news hits, and nothing but SEO in the first three pages of web hits. —Korath (Talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article about Non-notable subject, written like the back of the box would be if the subject wasn't open source. MMS2013 12:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced article about SourceForge software, a content management system designed for video sharing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The old article was written without any relevancy. but now i have attached all the relevant information with History and Background which includes lots of information if you want to know fully about clipbucket.116.71.190.218 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Pirate — 116.71.190.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep:This script no doubt is Notable, it has been in the market from last 2 and half years, It has a very active community. just checked the Alexa and compete rankings which shows website is quite high traffic without any paid traffic it is quite notable. This site have huge amount of back links with "Powered by clipbucket" which makes it notable. and in last the Source forge shows the avg of around 800 downloads per week. which is quite notable as well.116.71.190.218 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Pirate— 116.71.190.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: - Nothing really wrong with the information provided. Proof of notability will be provided when found but the fact that the script is notable still remains with about 700 thousand google keyword search. Mini4me (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC) — Mini4me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - having looked in depth for independent coverage, all I got was passing mentions and user-submitted content. This means that very little of the article is independently verifiable, and this is made worse by the promotional nature of the article. – Toon 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Consensus below is that sources are not yet sufficient for an article. If it is actually released coverage, either as a section in the Xbox article as a stand-alone subject, will be appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xbox 360 slim
- Xbox 360 slim (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)
Based on rumors. —Mike Allen 03:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because of CNet reference and this (blacklisted) one: http: //www.examiner .com/x-28759-Atlanta-Video-Game-News-Examiner~y2010m3d19-Noted-console-modder-analyzes-rumored-Xbox-360-Slim-motherboard Tisane (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Xbox 360, not necessary for a separate article, even if it did exist. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sole reference doesn't provide details or confirm the existence of the system ("nothing has been confirmed by Microsoft") and is chiefly a wishlist. The name "Xbox 360 slim" is itself based on speculation. Ponydepression (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CBALL. The existence, or even intent of existence, of the product cannot be verified and the article referenced even says as much. Kamasutra (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. The supposed maker of the product repudiates the rumors[48]. — Rankiri (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, back in August 2009. Tisane (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any newer sources contradict that claim? — Rankiri (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation." Go ahead and delete, but watch and see if this doesn't come out sometime around Christmas 2010. If I'm wrong on this, then hopefully I'll have better luck with the ten-million pool. Tisane (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Leaning not bogus" and "[e]ven if the photos are legit" is still extremely speculative. Besides, even if the product comes out later this year, I doubt that we'll want to keep the information separately from the parent article. PS3 Slim redirects to PS3. It's very likely that Xbox 360 slim will be used as a redirect to Xbox 360 as well. — Rankiri (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Full of rumors - Microsoft declined to comment, which leaves it even more shaky. --Teancum (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it is a rumor, but redirect if it is a real thing. If it were to be announced, and had enough information, we would make an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as with above and redirect if it is confirmed. -Harrypmgaga (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- is it so hard to understand WP:CRYSTAL? ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand it. It is only "crystal ball"ing if you have no proof. There are some sources for this. It just seems like even the sources are speculating though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand it, thank you. Speculation is not "proof", it's, well, speculation, which is crystal balling. QED. – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 25 March 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 noms rationale doesn't play out. Sources clearly show notability. As the for the technical nature of the subject or how the article is written, that's not a reason for deletion. Most of the articles in Category:Statistical algorithms are beyond comprehension by mere mortals. As for the COI issue. Not a reason for deletion. Mike Cline (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm
- Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm (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)
Appears to be an article on an obscure non-notable subject (which is also difficult to identify). No hits in GoogleScholar[49] and a single hit in GoogleBooks[50]. The article was created by User:Sitharama.iyengar1, so also seems to be a WP:COI case. In any event, fails WP:N, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm an article in the relatively new field of Distributed Sensor Networks (DSN). DSNs have a wide range of real-time applications in aerospace, automation, battle field management, defense, medical imaging, home automation, robotics, and weather prediction. On WP:N: The Brooks-Iyengar hybrid algorithm is notable because it bridges the gap between sensor fusion and Byzantine fault tolerance. Perhaps its notability is relative next to lists of every single Pokemon. But in the field of DSNs, it is notable. I get many more hits with the word hybrid in the title. This article needs a better introduction for the layperson, although the detail is good for a Systems Engineer such as myself to understand. The major ideas need to be introduced. Sensor fusion deals with combining the sensory data from multiple sensors and creating the equivalent of a more reliable sensor. The Byzantine fault tolerance is a mechanism by which failing sensors or faulty network connections between sensors can be ignored. I think the WP:COI issue is minimal and can be overlooked with other editors participating in the edit process. kgrr talk 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; first of all, this isn't an encyclopedia entry, it does little to explain the topic to a general audience. This could only stay with a total rewrite. But on top of that, there are some severe COI and original research issues. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article may be too technical for most readers to understand, but this is no reason to delete it. I think the initial edit by Dr. Iyengar was made in good faith. I believe the COI and "original research issues" can be addressed with other authors being involved. kgrr talk 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that COI is a significant consideration to keep in mind, but, more importantly, I still do not see substantial verifiable evidence of notability of the topic. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original paper, Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar (Jun 1996). "Robust Distributed Computing and Sensing Algorithm". Computer (IEEE) 29 (6): pp. 53-60. doi:10.1109/2.507632. ISSN 0018-9162 is referred by at least two books and a half of a dozen peer-reviewed journal papers. Google Scholar search showing 50 references citing the paper How many of these references do you need to establish notability? Books and journal papers are certainly considered reliable sources. If the paper is cited by other works and the paper is cited in several survey papers and at least two books covering sensor networks, then this satisfies the secondary source requirement. The other works are independent of Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar. Tell me what all you need, I will look it all up for you. kgrr talk 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep; True, "it does little to explain the topic to a general audience", but this article is not intended for a general audience. The article is easily understandable to anyone with a computer science degree. --Dc987 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal or a textbook. Hairhorn (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability has been shown. Certainly needs a popular science makeover but that's no reason to delete. --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I have added text to clear up the issues, but I'm not quite good enough to dumb it down to the point of a popular science makeover. Anyone that runs into the term will understand what the algorithm does. I have linked it into related articles. Etc. Let me know what else the article needs in order to survive deletion by the Wikipedia Thinkpol. kgrr talk 16:07, 26 March 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 article has been copied to userspace fore recreation under a different name. Salix (talk): 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dronedisco
- Dronedisco (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 reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Passed previous AfD in 2007 because it was "heading towards notability... ...at least for now" but the label does not appear to have garnered the coverage that was expected. Labels do not inherit notability from their artists. Explodicle (T/C) 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added sources. It appears notable to me. SilverserenC 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one of those discusses the label itself in detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 02:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment below. SilverserenC 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N: lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I have reviewed the sources Silver Seren has added but they fall short. They are all coverage for bands or artists on the label, but not for the label. Many do not even mention Dronedisco in passing. Few are reliable or independent, and none are significant. Note per WP:NOTINHERITED that notability for bands or albums produced by Dronedisco does not demonstrate that Dronedisco itself is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG. I was also unable to find any sources specifically covering the label, and my search included the ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and InfoTrac databases (plus others). --Darkwind (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The distinction drawn above between the sources about the artists rather than the label is important. Unless the label receives significant coverage in reliable sources - rather than incidental mentions - it is not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since most of the sourcing seems to be either about Burning Star Core or the writer himself, would it be better to rename or redirect and create other articles for these then, which deleting this one? SilverserenC 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we should just rename (since the article is about the label) or redirect to what's currently a redlink. Would you be OK with copying this to your userspace while you write an article on either C. Spencer Yeh or Burning Star Core? If the AfD closes before you read this, you can still get a copy. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by OlEnglish (talk · contribs) as G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bhabha Classes for IIT-JEE
- Bhabha Classes for IIT-JEE (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)
Appears to be advertisement for private school. CSD repeatedly removed by SPA possible sockpuppet. ttonyb (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11 as a page that is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)ttonyb]] (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This article is about as blatantly promotional as they come. Speedy delete tag repeatedly removed by editor with no editing history away from this article: I should say virtually certainly a sockpuppet. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 22 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voice driven cell phone services
- Voice driven cell phone services (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 was going to {{db-spam}} it, but I wasn't sure if simply listing products is a form of blatant advertisement. Anyway, since the PROD by another user was taken down, I'm bringing this unencyclopedic list of products here for discussion. Victão Lopes I hear you... 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that this is more simply a list of services than it is a page talking about the type of service. -CamT|C 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No clear indication of what the list should or should not include. noq (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also an essay of original research: Voice related applications have been pretty bad in terms of their utility. In late 2009, a slew of products are slowly changing the landscape and are finally meeting user expectations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a list of services. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This looks like a directory as a opposed to an article. Dew Kane (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete as G7 - author request. Other criteria may have applied as well (Test page, perhaps, as a malformed disambiguation page, or context for much the same reason), but consensus below seems clear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pazikas
- Pazikas (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 declined, stated that a fuller investigation needed. Unable to determine notability or relevance. GregJackP (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't even verify existence of such a clan. The International Register of Arms quoted appears to be a website where you pay to be published [51]. RayTalk 02:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1 - Lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Specifically, I'm unable to determine whether sources from a Google search might be relevant because I honestly have no clue what the article is talking about or what content it might be trying to describe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I concur, but apparently the admin did not, thus we are at the AfD process... (GregJackP (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Insufficient context, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Pazikas has been informed by The Armorial Register that since publishing the web page further information has come to light which has resulted in our having to remove his entry in its entirety.
We have been informed by a consultant whose expertise is in the XVth century nobility of North eastern Poland and Western Belarus and who has published works on the Lithuanian elites of the XVth century that having inquired further it is now apparent that the existence of an armigerous Radwan-Pazikas (Pazik, Pazikas) line from the XVth century is apparently simply a fantasy. We can not therefore accept that Mr. Pazikas has a right to use these armorial bearings or that he is of noble stock. The Armorial Register —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.78.116 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficient context. If the IP comment above is accurate, then this is apparently a hoax as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article has been blanked by creator, which can usually be taken as a request for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:42, 22 March 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 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the Blues
- Out of the Blues (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:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RayTalk 02:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 01:41, 23 March 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KLIA East @ Labu
- KLIA East @ Labu (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)
Cancelled airport, unlikely to be ever built. It was mentioned in the news for the roughly two-month period in 2008-2009, but after being shelved no one talked about it anymore. Half of the article is POV arguments for or against the proposed airport. IMO, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In my view, major controversial proposals that receive significant coverage (such as building an international airport) are unlikely to be ruled out on WP:CRYSTAL, even if they fail. There's more than enough here for a well-sourced article, as the sources actually in the article show. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 15 March 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, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mkativerata. RayTalk 02:30, 22 March 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 Sonata Arctica. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agre Pamppers
- Agre Pamppers (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 demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUM (no media coverage of significance, did not chart, etc. etc.). TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:11, 18 March 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) 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The relevant portion of WP:NALBUM is: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." However a Google news search returns several mentions in what appear to be reliable sources. The problem is they're non-English sources so I'm not qualified to assess whether they constitute significant coverage. There's also a surprisingly large number of GHits, considering it's a demo, but I can't immediately find any that are reliable sources. In the absence of analysis of the foreign language sources I'm inclined to err in favour of assuming the article creator's good faith and accepting that Agre Pamppers is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just a demo, fails WP:N.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that per WP:NALBUM demos can be notable where they meet the general notability guidelines of "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sonata Arctica. Fails the relevant notability criteria - we have no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources at this time. RayTalk 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure I've even convinced myself on this one but I should point out this passage from WP:N: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I suspect our difference of opinion here hinges on relative levels of belief that significant coverage would be forthcoming. Based on a cursory glance off Google Translates of those pages, I don't believe these constituted significant coverage, but I could well be wrong. RayTalk 02:59, 22 March 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 Full moon (disambiguation). Editors are free to merge verifiable information. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FullMoon
- FullMoon (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 demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 15 March 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) 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sonata Arctica as nn release in its own right. RayTalk 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Full moon as a {{R from mispelling}} or Full moon (disambiguation) 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Full moon (disambiguation), merge information (that can be sourced) into Sonata Arctica. Non notable demo tape by wp:music. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:49, 22 March 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) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libyans (band)
- Libyans (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability besides the appearance of one song in Rock Band 2 (the inclusion criteria for which is becoming very large as of late). No sources exist beyond those of blogs or the Myspace page already listed under external links. WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails all of the WP:BAND criteria. The claim to fame here is that one of their songs, "Neighborhood," is a bonus track on the soundtrack for the Rock Band 2 video game. That's really stretching for notability; this band might be notable one day, but they aren't now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per A Stop at Willoughby. RayTalk 02:26, 22 March 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Computer Boy
- Computer Boy (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)
Youtube views does not demonstrate notability. Google news search turns up 0 results. — Dædαlus Contribs 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Independent significant coverage at (of all places) Christian Spotlight on Entertainment. It screened at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival in 2000. The actors are argualy notable. It's marginal, but there. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per DustFormsWords. There does seem to be some coverage and reviews focused on the film. But this is about the weakest of possible keeps. RayTalk 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am seeing enough coverage as shown above by DustFormsWords (talk · contribs), in addition to other measures of notability including the cast and Film Festival screening, that warrant keeping this article. -- Cirt (talk) 13:42, 26 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brice Ebson
- Brice Ebson (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)
NN porn star. DimaG (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. RayTalk 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not seeing anything that compels to keep or even anything promising that the subject meets any notability guideline. -- Banjeboi 09:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability. EuroPride (talk) 11:32, 22 March 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fluori-Methane
- Fluori-Methane (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. DimaG (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:N, "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Subject of academic study published in MedScape here. The abstract of this AAP article suggests it deals with the topic in depth ("Vapocoolant sprays (Ethyl Chloride, Fluori-Methane) provide almost immediate analgesia for immunization and venipuncture"). It appears to be the leading, or a leading, skin coolant per The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (not significant coverage, but use of the Fluori-Methane as the chief example of the class of medicines known as "skin coolants"). Physical Therapy has another academic exploration of the product here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DustFormsWords, and props are due to him for his research on the matter. RayTalk 02:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. weakly. DustFormsWords's research suggests that vapocoolant or skin coolant are notable subjects that probably need an article, but not this particular product. Flag for expert attention and likely merger candidate if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep; largely agreeing with Smerdis here, if this is kept it needs a lot of work. Thanks to Dust for the research; would you be willing to spruce this article up a bit as well? Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep agree with Hersfold, needs work but seems notable. fetchcomms☛ 00:29, 23 March 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Icy (application)
- Icy (application) (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)
It is not remarkable and noticeable enough, not one single independent and reliable source to back it up. Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Note that this is a discontinued package installer/manager for the iPhone and iPod Touch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. RayTalk 02:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a huge app in the jail breaking world. There are a lot of sources if you look. Nearly a million hits on google. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 07:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep has sources but they need to be added to the article. fetchcomms☛ 00:24, 23 March 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.