The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now. No prejudice against immediate recreation as a redirect to a suitable target. May become more notable in future if he secures the nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to meet the GNG and failure to meet any other WP:BIO criteria. He just declared his candidacy today. It's possible that he'll get enough coverage to become generally notable. My opinion is that wouldn't happen until at least next March, after the primary. Obviously, if he's elected to office 18 months from now, he may have an article then. (I have a secondary concern that, based on the tone of the current article text, it's being written by a campaign staffer, but that can be fixed through editing. My primary concern, the lack of notability, cannot be similarly overcome.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A variety of reputable news sources have covered the announcement of his campaign. Also, the IL-10 is expected to be one of the most competitive and important congressional races of 2012, and is expected to be the most expensive congressional race ever. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/05/brad_schneider_running_in_illi.html
Delete. This is largely a WP:BLP1E issue. Almost all of the independent coverage is in relation to the election, not about Schneider in his own right. The race itself will quite high-profile, but coverage should largely be on the subpage, or better yet, on a separate article for just that election. If Schneider wins the primary, he'll have more coverage and might be notable as a top-level Democratic prospect. But right now, he's not. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But is that coverage significant coverage? The Roll Call link presents no information about Schneider, other than that he's running and quoting a comment he made about first-term Republican congressmen in Illinois. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not encyclopedic or notable enough for its own article. While I do think the unexpected adult fanbase the series has amassed is worth noting, especially given its acknowledgement by individuals involved in the show's production like Lauren Faust, Daniel Ingram, and several other staff members, I don't think it's nearly enough to justify its own article. A lot of the stuff in the article is kinda fancrufty as is. Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia is pretty much anti-4chan, and people will always remove the info from the Reception section just because of that little fact. You maybe able to do that to a section of a main article, but you can't do that to an another article. RainbowDash22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - There's no reason why this can't be consolidated into a section in a "My Little Pony" page. Doesn't need to be it's own page. Sergecross73msg me23:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main MLP:FIM page. There are RS's that describe its viral nature, but that's part of the show's reception. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article right now is pretty terrible, and focuses too much on 4chan, despite this being an internet-wide phenomenon. Should probably be a section in the main MLPFiM article, at least while there aren't that many reliable sources yet. Grue 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to allow a merge as article creator. I chose a bad time to bring the article into mainspace, and it's clear that I should have done more work on it before prematurely bringing it into mainspace. RainbowDash14:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It just seems to me like there's so many better options that can be made rather than just deleting anything that doesn't adhere without a second thought...then again, that's more or less my experience with Wikipedia in a nutshell... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)" Oh the irony..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.146.193 (talk)
Merge per sergecross73. May I please ask those who are bound to come here via canvassing Rainbowdash.net to please refrain from socking/meatpuppetry. Phearson (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject fails the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR, and he has only received one award. The subject also fails the requirements of WP:GNG. When searching for his name on the Internet, I was only able to find brief mentions of his name or listings of his work, and nothing that discussed the author or his works beyond a brief mentioning. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's research. Clearly the subject has received scholarly attention. However somebody needs to add the info to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A rather non-notable magazine that may have been merged into something called "Metro Spirit" (their website now redirects to themetrospirit.com) (note that the specific redirect from their old official site is broken, but the rest of the site is not). This article has somehow survived a transformation and stubbing from something worthy of a G11 speedy deletion back in 2009. Raymie (t • c) 22:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this magazine. There are claims if awards without specifying what awards. This blog indicates that it is from Parenting Publications of America, and I am unable to establish that this is a notable award which would establish the notability of the magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. This Swedish band only recently released their first single; a singlenewspaper article, together with a couple of song appearances in ads, has been offered as evidence of the band's notability. I do not think that Be the Bear meets WP:BAND or, more broadly, WP:N at this time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too soon for this band. I think userfying the article to the original authors subpage is a good idea, if the band has got a newspaper review after just one single then they are likely to become notable before long. doomgaze(talk)14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. When a prod is removed as here without any specific rationale or showing as to why it is not PROD-worthy, that tends to be a red flag that no such rationale exits, and the article is about a non-notable subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was Article has not been improved upon since October 9th, 2007, and is an orphan. Tagged for notability since April, 2008. db-corp may apply, but felt prodding was the safer route to take.. Article has seen little improvement in 3 years, and I can find no reliable sources to establish he notability of this company. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This venture is not mentioned on the Marshall Chess's own biographical page or the linked interview. If it was, I might suggest a redirect to there but, given that absence, delete is probably the best option. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find much on this label, even if there have been any album releases since the first by Murali Coryell in 1999. Although currency is not a pre-requisite for notabiity, the previously posted company website link is now dead and there seems to have been no activity for some years. Before deletion, which seems very likely, however, I would suggest that at least some the information it contains should certainly be added to Marshall Chess, and possibliy also as a footnote in Chess Records. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Non-notable neologism. This appears to be a word invented and used by a very small number of people and a google search does not turn up any references in the media.--TeraRose (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I can't find any references in reliable sources to this word being used in the manner described in the article. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm struggling with this one so I'm putting this out there for wider review. There are plenty of sources on this company, but the overwhelming majority of them mention it in passing when discussing its president/CEO; e.g., "Dr. Alexander Mirtchev, president of Krull Corporation, said..." I would say that these sources speak to Mirtchev's notability, but not that of his company, and that they do not meet the substantial depth of coverage criterion under WP:CORP. —KuyaBriBriTalk19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid arguments are made for both positions, if we could find a user flent in Korean to look into this it might shed some light on the veracity f their claim to notability... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. I have expanded the article with more information referencing notability. They had a top 10 hit, and one of their songs was in a popular South Korean film. Quark1005 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bearian. Some of that is clearly non-RS. And some of it is clearly passing mention (the first, third, fourth, and fifth items in the link you point us to),[11][12][13] or event advertising culled from elsewhere on the internet (the second item in the link you point us to), or non-RS (the fifth item in the link you point us to). Can you perhaps point us to what is RS in the link you provided, and (in that) to what is substantial coverage (rather than passing or trivial mention)? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Billboard article, Billboard itself -- while an RS -- does not say that the statement is true. They simply report it, clearly attributed, as a claim by the social networking site. So Billboard is not an RS for the accuracy of the claim.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:BAND. That a social networking site (NOT Billboard, who merely mentions their claim) claims that its users have downloaded 500,000 copies of a single does not meet WP:BAND #3 which required that it is "certified gold", per Music recording sales certification. And GNews WP:GOOGLEHITS does not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hrafn's excellent reasoning. even gnews merely confirms the band's existence rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relatively new to article rescue, and seeing the repeated pattern that sources exist, but are either password-protected or foreign language. What is considered reasonable turnaround time for this? Could someone post a link on where to ask for help getting foreign language cites? Trilliumz (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trilliumz -- you might post your query at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I believe there may be a page to ask foreign language editors for help, or find out who they are at least. Also, you will note that 10 days ago this AFD was posted at the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the requirement for having a gold record or higher in any nation, is odd, since different nations have different sales numbers in order to get it. List of music recording certifications says South Korea requires 5,000 copies sold to be gold and 10,000 to be platinum. There is no reasonable doubt this album has sold that many copies. DreamFocus07:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources mentioned above. Google searching should also take into account that this is a Korean band and should need less English language hits to prove substantial coverage.--PinkBull15:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is !voting delete because of the # of English hits. They are !voting delete because they do not believe that the English hits and non-English hits in RSs combined, when the actual sources are reviewed, demonstrate notability under wp's notability standards. Non-English RS hits "count" -- to the extent that they are substantive and not passing mentions -- the same as English coverage. If what you are suggesting is that a Korean band should require lesser RS coverage (in any language) than, say, an Australian band ... I'm not sure that is the rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was making a general statment only - that it does not make sense to treat equally the google search results of entities based in non-English speaking countries and the google search results of entities based in English speaking countries. The entities based in non-English speaking countries receive coverage that will not be found using English language searches so their search results criteria for "substantial coverage" should be less then compared to an entity based in an English speaking country.
For example, if my position is that an Australian band is notable if a Google search reveals 20 in-depth articles about the band, I can't reasonably take the same position for a Korean band because the Korean band will have more coverage in non-English language sources. In other words, 18 in-depth English-language articles about a Korean band is far more indicitave of notability then 20 in-depth English language articles about an Australian band.--PinkBull16:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I think the way it works is, or should be, the following. People are free to search using English as well as non-English sources. Often at afd debates on bands, including those on Korean bands (note: this was listed above in Korea-related discussions), non-English sources are both searched and offered as support (sometimes they are RS and count towards notability; sometimes they are non-RS sources and do not). Once the RS sources are "weighed", we have an answer -- irrespective of the language in which the RS source was written. I don't think that we the do (or should) top-up the "count" for non-English-language bands, assuming that we missed some sources that we would otherwise have found. If that is the rule, it should be reflected in the guideline. IMHO, of course. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to clarify -- I don't believe that there is any disagreement that we are allowed to use non-English sources, precisely the same way we use English sources. The debate has, I believe, focused solely on whether the sources that are RS sources (whatever their language) are sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was a disagreement; we needed a link to that policy for future editors. If you want my opinion on the sources, at the very least the Billboard magazine that has been linked to twice qualifies. Although it is part of a write-up on a social networking site, it does clearly state that the band reported 500,000 digital copies sold through the website since 2007. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry -- since you led with that statement, I thought you were implying there was a difference of view on that point. As to the sources, as I've pointed out there seem to be issues with many of them. As to the Billboard article, I note that Billboard itself -- while an RS -- does not say that the statement is true. They simply report it, clearly attributed, as a claim by the social networking site. So Billboard is an RS for the fact that the claim was made, but not for the accuracy of the claim. Furthermore, I note that under the rules of the social networking site in question, "sales" are made of dotori (Korean: 도토리), or "acorns", which can then be used to purchase music--it's not quite your typical "music sales" in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails to establish notability. As stated, the only claim for notability is having worked with other people which can not be confirmed as being true. Rorshacma (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The keep !votes argued outside of policy, and I interpreted the userfy !votes as agreeing the article should be removed from mainspace. I have not userfied the article at this time because no one indicated that they wanted to work on it; if anyone is willing, I will be happy to restore it to their userspace. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done13:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NACTOR. Was briefly a contestant on a reality television show, was in some commercials, guest starred on some network shows, and has a role in a show that is still in post production. Not yet notable (although no prejudice to re-creating artlce if new series is successful and actor becomes notable as a result). Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Userfy with a view to moving back into article space when the TV show is broadcast and reliable sources become available verifying his notability. Exxolon (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a huge fan of JC Gonzalez, and have been following him for a while! I think he should have his own wiki page, since for sure he will be recognized soon! — Jelley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. The information in the article is entirely unsourced. The only source cited is a blog, and that blog makes it clear that this is a performer of purely local interest whose only claim to notability is a part in a reality program. I wasn't able to find any better sources with my own search. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)23:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Exxolon. I am not yet convinced that the subject is notable, but on the other hand, his IMDb StarMeter ranking currently is the highest it has ever been since he was first listed on IMDb. In other words, he is going in the right direction toward notability, and perhaps he will achieve it in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, if the article is userfied, it can be cleaned up in terms of getting the biography sourced to reliable sources, and perhaps eventually brought back to the mainspace once the subject's notability is more clearly established. --Metropolitan90(talk)00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF criteria. Tagged for notability since March 2011. There appears to be little or no coverage in independent, reliable sources; the article is dominated by low-quality, self-published, and promotional sources. The only independent, reliably sourced coverage appears to be a brief rehash of talking points in a Psychology Today article, which seems to me to fail to meet our bar for non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. In keeping with our insistence on high-quality sources for biographical articles, I think this article should be deleted unless/until such sources are available. MastCellTalk18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe; maybe not. WP:BIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His field appears to be alternative health, whether one fully agrees with the subject area or not. A quantity of books and movie appearances, being editor of a peer-reviewed newsfeed, and substantial journal input suggests a fairly significant contribution to his specific field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narrowgauge (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC) My apologies for omitting the signature. Narrowgauge (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Narrowgauge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I could not find sufficient independent quality reliable sources about the person or his views or evidence of sufficient impact on the field. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His is clearly a minority viewpoint in the field of conventional medicine. But that is not his field. I could find a great deal of evidence about his impact on his field, his field being alternative/orthomolecular medicine. Of course, to find it, one must search in the field of orthomolecular medicine itself. Independent quality reliable sources are unlikely to cite or objectively discuss a field that they disagree with, perhaps in the same way that Democrats seldom endorse Republicans. If Wikipedia wants to be maintain objectivity and comprehensiveness, it might not wish to delete unpopular but significant views. If it does, only the alternative websites will have this information, possibly without the counterweight or balance that Wikipedia could provide. If Wikipedia deletes, those alternative websites can reasonably opine that Wikipedia is somewhat biased. Narrowgauge (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. It does not fail Wiki guideline WP:BIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His specific field clearly is alternative/orthomomolecular medicine. Even a cursory Google search verifies his impact in this area. Narrowgauge (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guideline for lack of hits at Google News Archive. Fails the WP:PROF guideline, no hits at Google Scholar. Apparently Narrowgauge, his SPA booster, is claiming that he is important in the field of orthomolecular medicine, but evidence of that is lacking, even at Google, where pretty much everything found is self-referential. He is an important figure in the field because he says he is? Sorry, doesn't work that way. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair: "No hits at Google Scholar" is simply not true. Try again, using a Google Scholar search for "Saul AW" and using the quotes. There appear to be several dozen. Narrowgauge (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Narrowgauge (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try that. This yields, on the first page, three articles in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. They have been cited by others 5 times, 3 times, and 2 times, respectively. There is also one book, of which he is the second author, which received 8 citations, and another book by him alone, cited twice. What was that again, about making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? Apparently not even his own, narrow field regards him as much of a thought leader. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well now: we've gone from "no hits at Google scholar" to a listing of his publications and citations. I am glad we could have this little talk. I also think that a fair look at the opinionated statement "not even his own, narrow field regards him as much of a thought leader" might be in order. Like it or not, it is undeniable that for three of his seven books, his coauthor is the founder of orthomolecular medicine, Abram Hoffer, M.D.. Yes, Linus Pauling gave orthomolecular medicine its name, but Hoffer started what Pauling would name 15 years later. . . after he read a book by Hoffer. Orthomolecular medicine adherents universally regard Hoffer as their dean. Unless Hoffer was somehow forced to have Saul as his coauthor for these three books, it rather looks like, in his specific field, Saul is notable. WP:BIO guidelines specifically allow for keeping this entry on that basis. Narrowgauge (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We all give "opinions" here, so in that sense all comments here are "opinionated". Yours are not any less opinionated either, by the way. Apart from that, I agree completely with MelanieN that the number of GS citations is vanishingly small. As for having published with Hoffer, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. If this guy is so notable, then where are the sources showing that? --Crusio (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Has only one trivial award/nomination, by prior AFD/DRV consensus, neither the Nightmoves award nor the Urban X award makes a significant contribution to notability. A momentary appearance in a crowd scene in a low-profile music video is not a significant credit, and the bulk of the article is rather conspicuous porn-industry kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Obviously it's not a "criteria" about notability, but it's interesting to note that there are pages about A.Jolie in Japanese, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish and Turkish Wikipedia...--Cavarrone (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article does not "satisfy the rules"; two of the three listed awards have been determined, by prior AFD/DRV consensus, to be minor awards which do not substantially contribute to notability; and momentary appearances in music videos, especially in crowd scenes, do not amount to being "featured" in notable mainstream media. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here's close to half of the "biography" we're supposed to be concerned about saving: Jolie claimed to be a vaginal virgin during her pornography career and did not have vaginal intercourse in her movies. In a March 2009 interview with Ozone magazine, she admitted that she had lost her vaginal virginity off camera.[1] She describes the experience as being horrible and hurt much worse than any time she had anal sex.[1] She claims that she will only have vaginal sex on camera once she starts a new porn website dedicated to herself.[2] Hmmm, a little advertising never hurt anyone, eh? Delete as ad spam and as an unencyclopediaworthy biographical subject. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...which leaves us of a "biography" of a stripper with a cameo appearance in a rap video and award nomination for "Best Anal Scene" in that classic of cinematography, Cum in my Booty. Not encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable show on a low-power radio station (which are generally regarded as being non-notable). Only one of the references is valid. Written in a very promotional style. dramatic (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to an article about the low power FM station. Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. This seems to be part of a walled garden of articles related to the host of the show, Gary McIlroy (Radio Presenter), the low power FM station which seems to have only a 5 km radius of transmission, Good Music 107.5FM, and the organization operating the station, Radio La Famia. Merge them into one article about the station and then see if there is enough notability, or if not put it through AFD as well. The defacto notability standard for a radio station in numerous previous AFDs has boiled down to governmental licensing and the local origination of a portion of its own programming. A temporary or hobby license in some country might fall below the "licensing" standard. No link is provided to any government database to show that the transmitter is licensed in any way. No information is provided about the transmitting power: a 5 watt low powered FM transmitter would not be very impressive in general. A hobby operation run out of a garage by five volunteers, with an unknown small audience, has no inherent notability. The only reference I saw of any significance was a TV story stating that they were in danger of getting prosecuted for misoperation of the transmitter which interfered with police and emergency radios, and that might be disregarded under WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that the previously-deleted (via Prod) article on Gary McIlroy has been recreated - will AFD that and the station too. There's nothing unique about it, in fact it competes with Radio Ferrymead, a higher powered volunteer station playing similar content which has been running much longer, plus with commercial easy listening stations. Christchurch has a very fractured radio market with about 30 stations for a population of 350,000. dramatic (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I've added more references and article links into the article; I feel that recent articles on their work in Artforum, Times HE Supplement, Libėration are sufficient for notability; they also have lesser coverage in Art in America, and more substantial in various zines. AllyD (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just did a quick look for Swedish sources, limiting myself to Sweden's largest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter: a couple of articles about Goldin + Senneby : [15], [16]. They also get a mention in this article on the 28th Bienal de São Paulo. Another article, about current Swedish art in general, only mentions them in passing, but in a significant way. Maria Lind, director of the Tensta Konsthall (Art Gallery) and one of a few people asked by the reporter to name some currently successful Swedish artists, names Goldin + Senneby as one of four names and says that "Goldin + Senneby get a lot of international attention right now". I am willing to assume that she knows what she is talking about. --Hegvald (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been noted, this is a bit of a mess at this point. The article has been repeatedly moved, its scope and purpose changed as well. On top of that there is a level of personal acrimony between experienced Wikipedians who ought to know better that is frankly disgraceful. If you think I'm referring to you in that statement then you are probably right and you should be ashamed of yourselves. In any event, discussion can and should continue on the article's talk page regarding the proper title and scope of this article, but on the whole the arguments to keep are just barely stronger than the arguments to delete. In light of all the moving that has already gone on it should not be moved again without a formal move request and a week or so of discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created as Shannon Irish Pub but was moved to the current title after two independent editors questioned its notability. The renaming was clearly just a move to dump the information about the Shannon Pub to a location that more probably notable, but which didn't actually get an article. The article then is a coatrack for hanging nonnotable information that is not notable enough to have stand alone articles. ·Maunus·ƛ·16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the article is useful for building up Montevideo topics. No matter how it started, the work done is developing Montevideo topics, not creating coatracks for nonnotable articles. Please take a look in my talk page and in Dr.Blofeld's to notice that we are both working hard for this end. HoverfishTalk17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Hoverfish has a point that there is a catogory for Restaurants by city. I suggest the site be renamed Restaurants in Montevideo and take the emphasis off of a single pub. I also suggest eliminating the sub-heading of public houses (Pubs). A famous pub qualifies as a restaurant. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLease note that the idea is not to dump one article as a rename. It was the start of a productive article, productivity is something which the nominator knows nothing about, otherwise he'd have waited for me to write it.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: If we already have a category of (notable) restaurants by city, let's apply the same measure here too and keep the article. If you delete it under the premise given by Jamie, let's be consistent with our actions and delete the other articles too. Both Hoverfish and Dr. Blofeld have been working hard in Montevideo-related topics. --Góngora (Talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Suffering from some serious heartburn right now so I will promise to develop this article fully later or tomorrow and will make it encyclopedic and not a travel guide. The nominator may have had a point about the individual pub struggling to exist in its own right but a general article writing about the best public houses and restaurants in a capital city is productive I think. This nomination seems to be a WP:POINT issue over notbaility taggin as the nominator has also AFDd Marjan Bojadziev. I will expand this fully tomorrow making it above a "travel guide" much like Public houses and inns in Grantham, only this is more notable as this is a capital city.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have lots of categories "Restaurants in XXX" but only one article, Restaurants in Namibia, which is a redirect to Namibian cuisine. The categories contain entries for individual restaurants which are presumably individually notable. An article "Restaurants in Montevideo" would be about the concept, or economy, or history, or philosophy, or whatever of the restaurant industry in Montevideo, not about a handful of individually non-notable eateries. An article of the latter nature could be "List of restaurants in Montevideo", and so far we do not habe any article "Lists of restaurants in XXX". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DO NOT MOVE this article around. It is impossible to hold a sensible discussion about the notability of a topic if the topic changes under our feet. I really don't want to have to study the article history to try and work out whether Mathsci, for example, is talking about the notability of the same topic as me. Changing the topic under discussion is frankly disruptive. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Changing the topic under discussion is frankly disruptive." Good grief that's rather extreme. The article continues to be what this AFD was started for and has now found a more suitable name. Also you have zilch right to order other editors what to do so please refrain from doing so.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an order, a request -- the clue is in the word PLEASE. As to disruption: I explained that it has become impossible to construe perfectly sensible comments like Mathsci's which just say "topic" if we don't know what the topic is or was when he wrote. If that's not disrupting the discussion I don't know what is. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin). It is not stated that it is disruptive. HoverfishTalk21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that all this is confusing and it is also true for me that the whole issue has disrupted my hours of work in Wikipedia, having to run to look up rules and regulations and other notable (or not) pubs and restaurants all over the world, when the only thing that was in stake was the notability of a single pub. In a way, however, having moved to twice, the pub issue has been eliminated. There is not going to be an article about Shannon Pub in Montevideo and there has already started an effort that addresses the concerns of the nomination. At least, I am trying to look at it in a positive way. HoverfishTalk22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People generally poorly visualise how an article could look with a revamp and some hard work. this article and Irish Uruguayans in my view are suitable encyclopedia entries and cover areas which make wikipedia more valuable as a resource. I've produced three good articles this evening Cuisine of Montevideo, Irish Uruguayans and Marjan Bojadziev. I have not heard a single word of thanks or positivity (except from Hoverfish and Gongora) except abuse and people calling me disruptive or "uncivil" reports. ♦ Dr. Blofeld22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you were more civil and created fewer but better articles you would have a different experience. Try it.·Maunus·ƛ·23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't make any difference. The Shannon pub article was a start class article yet you persisted on tagging it for notability. Rather its your own idea of what should be included in the encyclopedia and a pub is not one of them. I create plenty of good articles thankyou very much which is why I have over 60 GAs. It is always the non contributors who don't care about wikipedia who attack the edits of others so it is clear to me why you have done so.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I was one of the editors who tagged the pub article as possibly unnotable, I agree that Cuisine of Montevideo definitely has a more encyclopedic scope and can be greatly improved. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, now that the title and scope have changed mid discussion, it's a different matter; an article on the "Cuisine of Montevideo" is certainly reasonable. However, I still think the section on the Shannon Irish Pub has some WP:WEIGHT issues in the context of the new title. On the other hand, I think a paragraph is fine within the context of the Irish Uruguayan (minus the infobox, which was excessive for a small subtopic within the article). OhNoitsJamieTalk15:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as moved. I'm not going to repeat some of the rationales noted above. Clearly sensible, this is in line with other articles in the category. I did not know they had such a unique cuisine, but I learn something new every day. Our core readership would probably like to find such an article here. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE:"Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in [...] culinary guides [...] Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead." Racconish Tk 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one reference book specific to Montevideo. Others may contain supporting info. Here's your chance, good luck! Trilliumz (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a tortuously-created (via several tenuously-related titles) WP:CFORK of Uruguayan cuisine and whatever other cuisines happen to be represented by restaurants in Montevideo (Japanese cuisine, Fast food, etc), combined with WP:NOTGUIDE restaurant guide information. No non-overlapping notability (nor really a coherent topic -- as it covers several, unrelated, cuisines, rather than any single cuisine that does not already have an article). HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid rationale. Are you saying we should not have regional articles like Cuisine of Kerala and Cuisine of Sikkim because they are a "fork". Regional cuisines are notable and your argument that "nor really a coherent topic -- as it covers several, unrelated, cuisines" has completely failed to understand why this is important precisely because of this, that the cuisine of Montevideo demonstrates influences which are reflective of its past history and culture and how the modern landscape of the capital city has been formed through a fusion of different culinary influences. Sure, Uruguayans tend to love dishes with beef and other meat but the influences of immigrants are evident.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please -- this is simply a bunch of nomadic material in search of a topic. The comparison to "Cuisine of Kerala and Cuisine of Sikkim" utterly spurious. This is NOT a legitimate regional cuisine variant, but rather a grab-bag of material on cuisineS (plural!) that happen to be served in the Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo. "This is important precisely because" Dr. Blofeld desperately wants to find a topic that he can find even a half-baked excuse for keeping this material under. (i) You have failed to establish that a distinguishable 'Cuisine of Montevideo' exists (separate from the Uruguayan cuisine). (ii) You have failed to present information on that purported topic (as opposed to the Cuisines that happen to be served in the public houses and restaurants in Montevideo). I call WP:DEADHORSE on this wandering-material-in-search-of-a-notable-topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P)10:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. To my knowledge Montevideo has certain dishes which are unique to the city and are not widely eaten across the country to cater for international tastes, even if many of them are popular throughout, testament to the needs of culturally diverse city population. I am not an expert in this subject but I am certain if proper research was done it would provide a more than adequate coverage of cuisine itself. Besides why the hell shouldn't we have a single article about restaurants in a capital city when we have 150 articles on restaurants in New York City alone. Is it possible, just possible that the top restaurants in any capital city might be notable enough for coverage on wikipedia? Can't you see the systematic bias in that we have 150 articles on New York restaurants but you won't permit mention of a few of the top Uruguayan restaurants? LOL just look at Mo Gridder's!!! Regardless of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the restaurants mentioned in the article should have articles in their own right. Combined they are clearly notable. If you are going to argue WP:NOTGUIDE restaurant guide then I want to see you AFD every single restaurant article on wikipedia because we are not a restaurant guide.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're admitting that Cuisine of Montevideo is essentially a WP:COATRACK for Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo? If the restaurants are individually notable, then start articles on them -- in the exact same way as Category:Restaurants in New York City has for each of those restaurants, instead of this coatracked guidebook. Also your claim of "dishes which are unique to the city" appears to be unsupported/contradicted by the article, which simply states that "the cuisine served in the city is similar to that consumed in the country as a whole". The WP:DEADHORSE shows no sign of a miraculous resurrection. HrafnTalkStalk(P)11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh' Did you really not look into how this article came about? It started as an individual article on pub restaurant which kept having a notability tag slapped on it dspite it have at least 7 book sources and being a start class.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It started as a two sentencestub with only a single reference when it was notability tagged. After which you've kept on bouncing it around from one title to another, with apparently only minimal consideration of whether the existing material was on-topic for the new title, let alone whether the new topic met Wikipedia standards. HrafnTalkStalk(P)12:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "cuisine" generally denotes a distinct culinary tradition and the article clearly states that there is no such culinary tradition of Montevideo distinct from general cuisine of Uruguay. The article you are writing is actually about "Dining in Montevideo" or "Restaurants in Montevideo" - the title is misleading. ·Maunus·ƛ·13:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that (i) the article had a title quite similar to these proposals when the AfD started -- before you changed it & (ii) you would need to explain how such a topic would avoid WP:NOTGUIDE, being a mere guide to dining in said restaurants. HrafnTalkStalk(P)14:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article does discuss how the cuisine in Montevideo is different from that in the country in general,"However, given the influx of immigrants and tourists into the capital over the decades and centuries, a range of cultural culinary influences can be found in the city. In recent years the number of restaurants and diversity of cuisine has increased considerably," with a source for that particular point. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see that that only means that there are other (foreign) cuisines present in Montevideo (as is the case in any world capital) - not that Montevideo has its own particular tradition of cuisine.·Maunus·ƛ·18:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it stands, the article is a.) useful, and b.) comprehensive. I see the point about other national cuisines being covered, but don't necessarily agree; I think it's important, within a discussion of "cuisine", to describe what other foods are available beyond what's considered traditional. "Cuisine" of necessity must also cover "dining". --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Some cities do have food different than the rest of their nation. So perhaps Montevideo cuisine is significantly different than the rest of Uruguayan cuisine. Can we find anywhere that proves it has things there that aren't in the rest of its nation though? This article isn't just about the cuisine. Perhaps have it renamed to List of Restaurants in Montevideo and list all the notable restaurants there, that have references to back up the claim of notability. Or an article named Montevideo restaurants could include a list of notable restaurants as well as any unique food items of that city. DreamFocus06:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, all cuisine articles follow a specific naming conviction.
Comment The issue seems to me to be whether Cuisine of Montevideo (or possibly Montevideo cuisine) is a notable topic. If not, then delete. If so, then keep and address the content issues in the normal way. Several contributors to the discussion seem to want to delete because they don't like the content. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody presented any WP:RS evidence that a distinct 'Cuisine of Montevideo' exists, distinguishable from Uruguayan cuisine (or imported cuisines), let alone that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on it? HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: given the recent instability, and ongoing uncertainty, over what this article's topic/title is, it may be appropriate to WP:USERFY it until its main author (and serial renamer) can come up with a non-transient title, and rewrite/prune the material to fit the title, at which point its notability can be determined with something at least vaguely resembling a degree of certainty. Until that happens everybody involved in this utter mess of an AfD (whether in favour of keeping or deleting the article) is hampered by having to aim at a moving target. HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dream Focus. It is not Wikipedia practice to remove an article because of a naming LibStar, what other large Uruguayan cities have you in mind? This is the capital, with about half the total population of the entire country. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added 6 sources which help establish the notability of Montevideo's cuisine. The Mercado del Puerto section of the city seems particularly famous for its meats. In fact, the Spanish Wikipedia has a whole article devoted to that market--perhaps a commentary on how much bias there is in the English WP against other cultures. It's also worth noting that the city was the Guinness world record holder for biggest barbecue until very recently... by itself a large testament to the strength of the "carne-culture" of the city. I'm sure there are plenty more sources to be mined but most of them will not be in English. If I find the time, I'd probably be able to add a few Spanish sources as well. As a final note, I like the new article title much better. It matches other articles like Cuisine of Philadelphia or Cuisine of Allentown, Pennsylvania, excepting the preposition "in" instead of "of". —CodeHydro21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a reliable source covers restaurants in Montevideo as a topic, else Merge with Uruguayan cuisine in case that sources aren't deemed enough to establish Montevideo cuisine as an independent topic. Per wp:NNC all this information doesn't require notability to be included in another article, and per wp:PRESERVE the well sourced information in this article should not be deleted. Restaurants like Mercado del puerto that have been reviewed by multiple independent sources can be moved into stand-alone articles under Category:Restaurants in Montevideo. Diego Moya (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but possibly merge or rename. The subject seems to have received coverage from multiple reliable sources, several of the arguments to delete seem to object to the name. "Unrest" does not strike me as a particularly loaded term but there may be a more suitable term for these events and it may be appropriate to merge this content into another article. Those possibilities can and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to WP:EVENT , the event does not have Significant coverage , is advertising , sources only establishes a presumption and this subject can be covered in two sentence in other articles about unrest in Iran Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The event was not such notable. The current article is trying to present the event much much more important and notable than what it really is. There is no need of having a separate article for this. It can be just mentioned in brief in other related articles. --Wayiran (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beside the reasons the two users correctly mentioned, the article strongly suffers from its references. Kurdistan democratic party and National Council of Resistance references (the latter is related to the Mujahedin which is considered a terroristic group by most countries) are obviously non-neutral.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article would not have been created if it failed NOTABILITY. According to WP:NOTABLE, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable". If we relate to 2005-2006 Ahvaz bombings and local unrest in Ahvaz during 2011 Iranian protests#April 15.E2.80.9318, one can notice certain long-range effect of the April 15 Intifada (or 2005 Ahwazi unrest, as related by media).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) Loaded title. (2) Does not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT. (3) Key points which are properly backed by a WP:RS, can be given a sentence or two in a related article, anything more would be a violation of WP:UNDUE given the small scale of the alleged events. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, none of those old news items speak of "Ahwaz unrest" or "Ahawzi intifada" or similar loaded terminologies that the creator of the page has been using, so there goes the title of the page out of the window. Secondly, a random news event in the past maybe notable for WikiNews, but not for Wikipedia as a separate topic, maybe a line or two in Politics of Khuzistan page, but certainly not a separate topic which warrants a new article. Six years later, there are hardly any academic sources that discuss this event in retrospective, that shows that it is not a notable event to have its own page on Wikipedia. Not every riot that happens in the world, has its own article on Wikipedia. At last, but not the least, this is third time in a few weeks that you have just happened to pop up on a page that I have just edited, all unrelated topics. This is getting a bit creepy and starting to look more and more like stalking. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete seems to be a part of the general trend in protests against the current Iranian regime. If we want to make a separate article for every single one of the protests - in every city, for every time that happens - we will have a long list of not very significant articles. My suggestion is to merge this information with a more general article on the topic of such protests against Iranian government and redirect this article to that section of that main article. Farmanesh (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Should be moved under Human rights in Iran or completely deleted. Also poor sources (NCRI and KDP are biased political groups with set agendas). Nokhodi (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC or the general notability requirement. Doesn't include any significant third party sources. ·Maunus·ƛ·16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep President of the Chamber of Commerce, CEO of the third largest bank in Macedonia, economic advising board member of the government of the city of Skopje (national capital of Macedonia, current rector of a major university in Macedonia who takes part in conferences which involve the investment, energy and running of the country and covered in government sources. I rest my case. He is clearly a notable economist and meets WP:ACADEMIC. Macedonian economists generally don't have the coverage that anglo countries have on the web anyway but there is enough here to pass this I think,♦ Dr. Blofeld18:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, he would appear to fulfil criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." --Hegvald (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy/snow keep first, as CEO of the third largest bank in Macedonia, Macedonian Bank, and second, as college president. I wonder if Magnus wouldexplain why this does not meet WP:PROF #6, and also if andy would care to explain his !vote ? DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trick is to search on "Марјан Бојаџиев", then accept Google's offer to translate from Macedonian to English. The current version avoids controversy. More could be added from articles like this one. I accept Hegvald and DGG arguments that he is inherently notable based on positions held, but place greater weight on the fact that many reliable independent sources have commented on him. Either way, the subject is certainly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is clearly an important person in Macedonia. There are enough sources to verify that. The article is not very interesting at present, since it mostly lists the positions held, and doesn't say much about him. But that's not an argument to delete. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Color could be added. According to this source as a young man he was a rock musician. "The first important presentation before an audience Boyadjiev have at Rock-Fest 83, when performed independently, under the pseudonym Vox Mayo (who kept during the entire music career) and reached the final." Not the best of translations, but you get the idea. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some "interesting" info about the bank. But this is why I show so much concern by the sloppy indiscriminate tagging of articles for deletion and notability without doing proper research into them. Yes the initial version was a mess created by a Macedonian but the fact that it had even said originally "CEO of the third largest bank in Macedonia" and "Rector of the American University" should have been enough to indicate that he might be notable. This article was nominated on a false premise. He clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC and Andy the Grump quite frankly could be Maunus's minime judging by the same attitude. These people are too lazy to bother trying to prove something is notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry I won't be tagging more of your articles. There are too many f'tarded assholes who make crappy new pages and resort to personal attacks as soon as someone suggests they may be too liberal in their understandng of what kind of junk is supposed to be in an encyclopedia.·Maunus·ƛ·11:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you call expanding the longest river in France from barely a stub like this and the regular expansion of Municipality stubs like Lorca from stub status junk then you are not worth uttering a single word to. I know that a lot of the work I've done on wikipedia gets thousands of hits everyday and people find them useful. In a year millions of people read the work I've written into wikipedia in total and learn from it and I'm doing what this website was designed for. Testament to the fact I rarely add junk is that 99% of the articles I've ever created remain, if they were really junk and unencyclopedic they'd have all gone long ago. We are not a book encyclopedia and neither are we restricted to solid traditional encyclopedia subjects. If we can have an article about a tiny barn in Iowa and a Linux stub, we can most certainly have an article on the restaurants of a city or a royal wedding dress. I also think I and others make wikipedia a much greater resource by covering parts of the world which are poorly covered and venturing into new and exciting topics and doing something to address the systematic bias. The content I start is generally no different to what already exists for places in anglo countries. One of the core goals of wikipedia is to provide the "sum of human knowledge" which while that isn't meant literally it certainly generally means knowledge which is covered in multiple books and sources which I adhere to with writing articles. Which is more than I can say about the degradation you cause on wikipedia with your daily tagging rather than making a small effort to correct the obvious problems right away. You are the one with the civility problems and attacking other editors for work you think is rubbish, not me. You'd never get me going around telling people to stop contributing and that their work is crap. That's far more uncivil and against the spirit of wikipedia. You are just so up your own asshole that you can't admit to it and that you were wrong about these articles, even if you had a point about the pub being a weak candidate on its own accord. The "civil" way to have dealt with that pub article would have been to contact me on my talk page and state you didn't think it was notable, not add a notability tag to an article after the work had gone into t and getting into a edit war which effectively says "This article is a pile of shit. Your contributions are unwelcome here".♦ Dr. Blofeld12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This 2-sentence, one ref (to a possible non-RS), article was PRODed. The PROD was removed, w/the edit summary explanation for removal: "per the obvious". I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of band notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quoting Vincenc Kopecek from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ostrava in his paper "World Politics in Dub and Hip-Hop Music: Comparative study of Bosnian Dubioza Kolektiv and Azerbaijani Dayirman": "Both bands belong among the most popular music groups in their home countries and also achieved considerable successes abroad". I will add the citation to the article. jorgenev16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The obvious" was that the article already had a source confirming a pass of WP:MUSIC criterion 7, and notability has been underlined by the further sources now added to the article. I'm very confused by the inconsistency demonstrated by the nominator, who has been nominating many bands with clear notability for deletion, but !voted to keep the very marginal The Maccabeats. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 7 requires RS support establishing that the band has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. No such RS support was supplied. Simply an unreferenced sentence. And the article as a whole lacked any RS ref whatsoever; the only reference was to a non-notable "publication" that lists only one person on its editorial staff. Hopefully, sufficient RS support will be supplied to keep the article. But nothing is "obvious" in an article that is wholly bereft of RS sources.
The article Phil complains about me supporting, in contrast, was determined to be a !keep. By a unanimous !vote. I'm not at all sure why he complains as to a keep !vote, regarding an article that the community unanimously agreed should be kept. That's perhaps slightly odd (as well as wholly tangential to this AFD). It is an article about a band covered by The Huffington and The Wall Street Journal, and mentioned in remarks by Obama that are reflected on the White House website. The article here that Phil felt should obviously be kept was at the time only supported by a lone reference, to what certainly appears to be a non-RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Although many sports (basketball and American football to name a few) have a standard policy of regarding all professional players as notable, I believe for baseball it is common to only include players who have played in the highest level in their country.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable anymore; no major career accomplishments, no significant media cover. I do not even think he plays on any MiLB or MLB system anymore. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most other sports confer inherent notability on 1st round draft picks. But baseball doesn't, and as a late 1st round pick who never got past A ball, doesn't seem to be a good reason to retain. Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:NOT mentions the idea of weapons lists in terms of games, but it really is good advice for all toys and fiction. In general, these end up being WP:DIRECTORY style databases with very little context, and tend to run afoul of the same issue as WP:NOTPLOT. The spirit of policy calls for deleting this material, as does previous consensus at similar AFDs (see above). But if this is disputed, it might be worth further clarification (and discussion if necessary) at WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (note - same reason cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (2nd nomination))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article about an ambitious young entrepreneur unfortunately does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. I could not find any relevant sources that verify the claims in the article or otherwise show he is notable per Wikipedia. Contested prod. ...discospinstertalk15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A general consensus has been established in this discussion that the subject satisfy relevant notability criteria, and relevant improvements are made to the article. Deryck C.21:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag was removed by a user. Sources exist. The article is written like a fansite, and I don't know if the person is notable enough to warrant a standalone article in Wikipedia. Important information like Birth are unsourced. Novice7 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources, so article is warranted. Examples : [17]. I can't find any English language sources which cover him in great detail, but I presume there are a lot of non-English language sources, and the length of "sukhabodhananada" results in a lot of different transliterations. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they spell Swami as Swamy.[18] He gets brief mention there and in a Google news search for "Swami Sukhabodhanada". Searching for just his name shows them quoting him on an issue [19] and calling him "Swami H.H. Sukhabodhananda". They say he is the founder of the Prasanna Trusta. Still searching. DreamFocus22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTSiedu900U mentions in its description text "Swami Sukhabodhananda, the best-selling author who has sold over a million books, is an international management and spiritual guru". Can we confirm he sold that many books? Is there a bestseller's list in India or somewhere that keeps track of international sales? DreamFocus23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few newspapers like The Hindu and Hindustan Times publish their own best sellers list. There are no sources for sales as far as I know. This says he's sold over a million. Novice7 (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - References added, started copyedit. Needs more work fpr NPOV; his description as it appears in Aastha TV has a more encyclopedic tone. His books have appeared in many Indian languages; I see that one is in its 7th edition. If you have good sound quality on your speakers, try the .mp3 links on the Dada.net site. Can you do a rendition of the Gayatri Mantra that sounds like that? He sings well enough to draw an audience on that basis alone. This fellow is something of a hybrid between management/self help speaker, singer, and traditional Vedantic guru. I believe he has appeared at the Sri Venkateshwara temple in Pittsburgh, largest temple in the US, but can't find a cite quickly.
Many of the articles at this link appear legitimate, if someone would look through them. I've put out a request for help at WikiProject Hinduism, esp. with the non-English content. Trilliumz (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the mp3 link permitted per Wiki policies and guidelines? I can read Malayalam and some of those articles are just articles written by him. I'm not determined to get this article deleted, it seemed really bad before. I also feel (as Wikidas wrote below) writing a book or being mentioned in news does not imply he's notable enough. Novice7 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Times of India gives him coverage. [20]The Week Magazine is quoted also as having covered him. On his official website [21] it says: "Swamiji was invited as a dignitary on five different panels at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and was a special invitee to the United Nation World Millennium Summit of spiritual Leaders." Sounds notable to me. The United Nations doesn't just invite anyone at random, they have to be notable. DreamFocus12:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just found cite for Millenium World Peace Summit at UN. (Talk page sums up argument for inclusion better than my non-expert attempt at working through WP policies below.) Trilliumz (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability at this point is WP:ANYBIO, A. On the basis of reliable independent sources documenting "well-known and significant award or honor," 1) speaking at Davos World Economic Forum, 2) 2010 World Sustainable Development Forum, 3) Karnataka's Best Social Service Award. B. For "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."; on the basis of "Widely recognized," 1) author of books available in Kannada, Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi; one source suggests 1 million in sales; 1 audiobook narrated by well-known actor 2) author of columns published in major Indian newspapers 3) RS for satellite radio appearances; C. on the basis of "Enduring historical contribution to the field": 1) Cited as example of Vedantic philosophy used by Indian management speakers in US, 2) cited as leading example of the new generation of gurus in Bangalore 3) Cited in an academic study of syncretism in the early years of a large US Hindu temple due to his contemporary, comparative religion/psychological approach 4) Cited material from a wide variety of popular sources provides context for his synthesis of traditional Indian culture with Western popular psychology/business. Points raised in prior comments on depth of coverage of individual sources are well taken. So far, the info I'm turning up free on the Web in major Indian papers doesn't suggest notability on WP:BASIC alone; the 2 in-depth articles are from the "Life Positive" holistic magazine. Any input available from experts regarding alternate spellings, or whether major academic studies are readily available for this sort of person in India, WP:BIAS?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence at all of notability. Not a single independent source. Self-promotional article created by Scoach Europa AG, now blocked. (Note: PROD contested by recently created account with scarcely any edits other than to this article, possibly a new account of the author of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I concur with Singularity42. Having searched on Greek Google, although the political party of this individual does have a website and is visible on Facebook I cannot find any worthwhile references that can make the article on this individual, or his party, meet WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia standard. Nor is there any formal indication that the party exists. Although I suspect that it probably was recently founded and hasn't had a chance to get established media-wise. It appears to be a spin-off of the Pirate Party (Sweden). Nipsonanomhmata(Talk)21:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ; discussion opened in wrong forum. File page is tagged for speedy deletion; therefore, I will not re-list this at FfD unless an admin declines the speedy. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request has been made by me, Rishabh Tatiraju, as the image here is not licensed under Creative Coomons. The image appears to be copied from a website. It appears to be an exact copy of http://www.pashacell.com/images/samsung-e250-silver.jpg
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject is a non-notable DJ, whose primary claim to fame seems to be that he is a mixer on a top-40 radio station in Miami. There are many grandiose claims of media coverage, but the only one included is a bare, broken link to a five-year old USA today blog post. Google news pulled up a single link (in German), and most of the many google hits are social networking sites (the top five are his own page, the Wikipedia article, his myspace page, his facebook page, and his twitter page (which is linked to the radio station). The only reference in the article is a link to a page of an autobiography of DMX (rapper), which is used to source DJ GQ's place of birth. Additionally, three paragraphs of the article appear to be a copyvio of his radio station bio, although it's possible that they cribbed the bio, rather than the other way around. Horologium(talk)11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know of him very well and he is Notable local DJ here in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area as a dj, whoever wrote all of that did a horrible job, It definitely was "Very promotional" to say the least! I put a few references up. Also Y100 is the first Top 40 station in the US and in the top 10 stations in the country, and he is the first non syndicated DJ on it witch is a big thing here. (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I Referenced the page poorly User:Chrisjonesmiami, and sorry User:Horologium, DJ GQ's Wiki page hasn't been updated properly in a while and I was trying, and I should have took down the old links, I am new to the Wiki editing and I'm trying to learn quickly, so please excuse my ignorance. Re the social networking sites, like most big DJ's there social networking pages rank high on Google searches because of the traffic to them, his Myspace page alone he has over 1 million profile views and 30k friends, You can compare the google search to Jesery Shore's DJ Pauly D or whatever other dj and you'll see all there social sites are first in searches for their names as well. I see his best DJ award from the Florida Recording and Entertainment Council has been mentioned and referenced and other more recent articles referenced, please advise what I should do to get this page out of removal convo, sorry again. User:Datgirljenny
Hello, Articles for deletion. You have new messages at Horologium's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
07:56, 1 June 2011
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nomination. Car salesman in India gather to admire one another and confer awards on each other, in hopes of gaining some small measure of free publicity. Contemplating these proceedings results in a remarkable sense of dread. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already covered in the main article on the animated series, any further content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strongly keep - this album may not be really important, it didn't charted anywhere, however, the article has got a good structure, with references and citations, and this article has been checked for B-Class status. Thank you, Salgado96 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a little too dependent on Facebook and YouTube references, but the other references seem dependable even though the reviews tend to be skimpy. Also, the new process of assessing B-grade article quality is supposed to include a review of the sources, so if that was done correctly then it works in this article's favor. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Out of the 32 sources used in this article, I know 11 of them to be unreliable for sure (the majority of them are French, so I cannot truly judge the quality of those). This adds up to over 33% of the article. I am also skeptical about the WikiProject Albums review done in this article. Despite the aforementioned fact, the reviewer (Salgado96, the same editor who contributed an abundance to the article, sent the article to GA, and voted above for keep), saw no problem with the citations. I Help, When I Can.[12]18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here is a lot of GOOD information here which cannot be merged elsewhee. Silly nomination in my opinion, a bit of logic is required here consider the relative size of the article and where the information would go if deleted. Also note that Portugal has a limited number of reliable charts foor use on Wikipedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am one of the Founders of this Con and we have multiple videos on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npgBTiQRgHQ&feature=related) of the convention as well as various websites that have the date for our con scheduled. I am curious as to why this would be considered for deletion when we have our website as an external link which lists the guests who will be attending the convention. This should be enough proof to the existence of FAN:dom Fl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandom.conquest (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This topic may not be noteworthy enough to warrant a page (perhaps more suited for a mention on David Burke's page; also, it may just be promotion
Delete Notability issues. Few mentions found in Gnews searches after this product's announcement in 2005. The web domain for the product mentioned in the one source to the article is defunct. See the source article here: Best Inventions 2005 Oddly, news searches turn up articles about identically-named products marketed by Nutrisystem, Inc. in 1986 (see, e.g. [22]). What distinguishes this 2005 version or makes it notable isn't at all clear. At best, the product warrants a mention on the David Burke page, as the nominator stated. GeoffWho, me?21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A closed down water taxi service. One contributor. No sourcing to showcase long lasting notability after business closing, and notability was weak originally. Hooper (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Organization was subject of several articles in reliable sources during its existence, some of which are already included in the article citations. WP:NTEMP suggests, "Notability is not temporary.", and as such it does not need to have ongoing coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as far as I can tell, this is a WP:POINTy nomination. CV (the article creator) put a speedy tag on an article that Hooper (the nommer) created, so Hooper went through CV's history and prodded or afded half a dozen articles that CV had created. Kevin (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Half a dozen = three, all of people/things only of local prominence. I've already discussed how I came across the articles. It isn't Pointy at all. Furthermore, the sources are all outdated. And though Notability may not be temporary, it is not permanent either. Hooper (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of sourcing there for such a short article, and several of the sources appear to focus on the subject. So we keep on the merits. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this is an unnotable figure. The page mostly talks about his runs for political office and and his run ins with the law. Nothing much is made of early life or his personal life. It starts from his time in the military. One sentence in the background talks about his tattoos. This article is in no way encyclopediac, and lastly, he is a very unnotable figure. Many of the sentences in the article are claims from him. Lastly, a major source is an article ffrom imdb that he obviously made himself. It could easily be a lie, like the "fact" that he trained Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson which has no proof. DELETESOXROX (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage in multiple sources from multiple countries. He meets the general notability guideline. The article needs to be cleaned up and the imdb sourced information needs to be verified through other sources or removed. The answer is editing not deletion. GB fan (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable figure. Coverage does not reflect on him but rather his eccentric candidacy as part of an overall trend. The overall trend should have an article, but not this individual.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & William S. Saturn. The coverage focuses more on the eccentric tendencies & behavior than on the individual himself. Most of the sources treat the subject as a "color story" or novelty news item, and give little revlent biographical info, thus failing to establish notability. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is worth noting that a previous version of this article was deleted sometime in 2010. Note that the current version is a re-creation started in April of this year, and that the first two afd discussions listed above are dated three years or more prior to that. This means that either an afd discussion is missing above, or that it is was deleted as a result of an expired PROD. In either case, please take into consideration that the the prior "keeps" cited in this discussion refer to an earlier & different version of the article than the one than the one currently being discussed, and the earlier article was eventually deleted.--JayJasper (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was speedy deleted 5 November 2010 by JzG as an A7.[23] I don't believe an article that has survived two AFDs should be eligible for an A7 deletion. GB fan (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why haven't you people put in that since 1988 I've been a Pro-Wrestler? That I was wrestling when you needed to be licensed by the State Athletic Commission? How about the fact I own a Film Production Company - Impaler Films, Inc. that is registered and tax exempt with the State of Florida. How about the fact I started the VWP Party in 2005 that is recognized by the FEC. How about the fact I have a movie coming out this month called The Comeback Fighter - http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi1468859929/ I am also doing other SAG Featured Films - http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/05/jonathon-sharkey-2012-presidential-candidate-profile/ I've done stuff in my life, people only dream of. Jonathon The Impaler(talk) 00:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you saying the Conservative Daily News is not a reliable source? They made me send them documents to prove what I said when they interviewed me. Go to their website - http://conservativedailynews.com/ if you say they are not reliable, I'll tell you said it. BTW, I am NOT A SATANIST... I AM LUCIFERIAN... Also my birtyhday is 2 Apr 1964. Anyone wish to be kind to me and make those correction? Jonathon The Impaler(talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is significant for other reasons than just running for president, such as his statements regarding George Bush and the resulting controversy, unlike that John Davis or Ole Savior guys who were only known for running for this one office. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Article about an album that doesn't actually exist. The editor created a string of hoax articles about Fermin Gallegos, a 15-year old Mexican singer with an amazing career. Note that the content of the infobox and the Personnel section as well as a number of references are copied from Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album). Pichpich (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reason I declined the G3 speedy on this one is that I had to bother with a Google search to check the facts. (It wasn't like someone asserting that there's a large planet between the Earth and Mars.) However, none of the references checked out. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it felt natural to tag it as G3 since I'd tagged the main article (obvious G3), the record label (obvious G3), the template and the category. But it's true that in isolation, this one might not be blatant (depending on one's interpretation of the term). Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Despite the trouble with #G3, this article is also eligible for speedy delete #A9 because there is no article for the artist (assuming the person really is a singer). The artist's article was already deleted three times as a hoax, so we can say adios to this album article immediately. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)18:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I think we must simply apply the criteria set under WP:Notability requirements. A number of citations does not demonstrate its notability or seminal nature - not unless those citations themselves are significant. A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources 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. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
Strong Keep The first criteria plainly applies. This book was covered widely and extensively in the national and international press and is widely cited by both scholar and general publications. It returns hundreds of citations on Google books and Google scholar. Moreover, there are myriad articles on much less notable books. This seems to be a very POV nomination. Mamalujo (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this still doesn't mean that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. There may be many citations but I'm not aware of any work which exclusively deals with the text. But perhaps if there is one you could clarify? Contaldo80 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It was reviewed by (i.e. "has been the subject of") so many of the major English language papers, that is enough. The fact that it is cited to in in over 800 books] additionally and at least 100 scholarly articles makes it indisputable that it is noteworthy. This nomination it totally without merit. Not even close. Mamalujo (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book clearly fails the general notability guidelines as well as WP:NBOOK. Note that two of the mentions are Catholic publications, another, the National Review is a well known apologist for Conservative and Catholic viewpoints (and this was in passing as well). The Washington Post mention is in passing and does not confer notability. So all we've got is the Baultimore Sun, one review does not confer notability as the requirement is multiple non-trivial mentions in unrelated publications in order for notability to be derived in that manner.bW21:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WaPo mention certainly isn't in passing; rather, it's a reasonably lengthy review. Besides that and the Baltimore Sun, GNews brings up reviews in the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and other high-quality newspapers, not just interest-group organs. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no information here that (if verified) cannot be included in subjects such as "Kurds in Turkey" or the "military coup of 12 September 1980".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc.helm (talk • contribs) 2011/05/12 20:13:50
Comment. This article is about a ban on the Kurdish language in public meetings and education. Referenced facts about Turkish and Kurdish and their official status can be found in Kurdish language#Current status, which already contains more information than this article; and Turkish language#Official status. A redirect might be in order.
Comment. The article is indeed ineptly named. An English name you might find for this law in English-language sources is "Language Ban Act". This is Law no. 2932 of 19 October 1983, named "Türkçe'den Başka Dillerde Yapılacak Yayınlar Hakkında Kanun" ("Law On Publications Using Other Languages Than Kurdish Turkish"). The enactment of this law had significant effects on Turkish society, and the information ought to be represented somewhere. I'm neutral as to whether this uninformative stub is kept under a different name or merged into other articles (although there is not much to be merged). --Lambiam08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kurds in Turkey if citations are added. There are no sources in the article at the moment, and I could not find much sources in Turkish and English on the law itself. There has recently been much discussion on this issue, but seems like this law was actually not discussed in depth. --Seksen (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Not in Leigh Rayment, not in thepeerage.com, 2nd Viscount not in the cited list of MPs for Donegal. Deliberate hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is agreement that the article is flawed and in need of some serious work, it appears that the notability of the subject has been sufficiently established. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all plot, with no real world commentary, which is against WP:NOTPLOT. There are no reliable sources, and an internet search (which is difficult given the title) throws up material on the TV series, and little direct commentary on the comics, other than it exists, and those comments tend to come from blogs and fansites of the TV series rather than any reliable sources. A possible outcome is to move W.I.T.C.H. (TV series) to W.I.T.C.H., cleaning up and sourcing that article. Though it may be considered that W.I.T.C.H. (TV series) may also need deleting. SilkTork *Tea time09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an internationally known comic series with a related television series that has aired in the United States. The AfD process is not cleanup and I see in the talk page that there have been longtime efforts to fix the article, so there are editors who are aware this article needs work already. Nate•(chatter)13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"W.I.T.C.H., was created and launched in Italy in April 2001 and is now available in 30 editions in 65 countries with a monthly circulation of more than 1 million."[27]
I am agree that references are difficult to find in english due to the comic book name but it does not mean that it is impossible to find them and to add informations to the article.
If you can find reliable information which can add value to the article aside from simply restating the plot, then feel free to fix the page. While those non-English sources may establish notability that isn't the specific reason for the AFD. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons were WP:PLOT and "an internet search (which is difficult given the title) throws up material on the TV series, and little direct commentary on the comics, other than it exists, and those comments tend to come from blogs and fansites of the TV series rather than any reliable sources". The sources that I gave can etablish notability, help build other sections than plot and list sections. My purpose is to show that the article can be improved even if it is not an easy task.--Crazy runner (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - granted, the article is in a very poor state but this appears to be a notable series and I believe this article can be rescued, starting with the references Crazy runner has found. —BETTIA—talk11:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Prod was declined with the explanation: "article includes a claim to notability and a search of local sources could be made to establish whether he has been covered in reliable sources". Erceg never played in a fully professional league and there is no record of him whatsoever after the 2008–09 season. Furthermore, there are no online articles about him in the last two years. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While high schools are generally presumed notable (exempt from having to meet WP:GNG, this is not true of primary schools--they may only be kept if they have been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. I can't find any such sources--no news hits, and all google hits appear to be social forums, basic directory information, a press release, and mentions on things like planning documents. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school district or organization which operates it, as is the defacto standard for articles about primary or elementary schools. If that district or organization cannot be identified, then delete it as failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's a separate article about the murderer at Mark Guglielmo that already contains most of the information in this article that is worth retaining. The case did get significant press coverage, I just don't see a need to have a separate article on the victim. Kevin (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several issues here with contradictory statements being made with regards to the status of the article. 1. For instance you stated: "The Case did get sufficient press coverage" and below, someone else added "There is minimal press coverage". What is meant by "sufficient" and what is meant by "minimal"? 2. Consider the year of the murder - 1994. Most of the press articles were not on line at that time. The Miami press did carry articles and they are (or have been available). The same was true for some of the papers in New York and other others related to the crime. 3. The unsourced claims relating to the court transcripts are untrue since the transcripts are available but they are not on line. Most of the 'citations needed' requests can be linked directly to the court transcripts. 4. The removal of the judge is a documented issue by the Florida Supreme Court. The judge was linked to another infamous case and the reaffirmation of removal document is available on line. 4. The timeline of the case puts it in the path of the O.J. Simpson case and the Oklahoma bombing case which naturally drowns out much of the media coverage. 5. Other statements listed as 'accusations' relating to the victim's mother, for instance, are in the court files. At the moment there is no single source such as a book that is available on this case. Other questions relating to the pregnacy, the reason why her killer bought a shotgun (not a handgun) after the murder but never used it, and so on, are all recorded in the transcripts. But since there was no trial and the killer offered no evidence or explanation, and the sentencing was delayed for a week to allow a new 'upward departure' law to come into force that was used in sentencing, all make this a notable case because a person was locked up for 40 without any explanation being given. Therefore removal of the article only aides the ambiguity of 'out of sight, out of mind'. So anyone wanting to find a single source for all of this information will not be able to find it. There is no explanation as to why events of that day took place. When all is said and done, this is not, as one person indicates, just another murder, due to the manner in which the murder and disposal of the corpse both took place. Just tidy it up by inserting the required documentation for verification.
Delete The article about her husband says he is serving a sentence for second degree murder. His article and this one are unsourced heaps of BLP violations, asserting that police and the prosecutor together destroyed evidence, and making many other extreme and unsourced claims about them as well as the judge and the woman's mother. Wikipedia is not a directory of every violent death in history. The source for the husband's article appears to be an archived blog written by the dead woman's father, not an adequate source, and court documents, which are also not acceptable sources to establish notability. A Google News search shows no articles about "Kimberly Anne Guglielmo, and only one article from 1994 about "Kimberly Ann Guglielmo," shortly after she disappeared, It shows 5 articles such as [35] and [36] from Florida papers from 1994-1995 about Mark Guglielmo as the killer. They do not contain support for the accusations against the police and prosecutors. The present article is pretty much a duplicate of the article about the husband, who is not really a notable criminal by Wikipedia standards WP:BIO. There is minimal press coverage. I suggest that his article also be put through AFD. Edison (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BLP, I have removed some of the BLP violations which consisted of unsourced accusations against the police, the prosecutor, and the judge. Edison (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article prodives little to Wikipedia and its useres. Has little to one source, is far to long, and does not meet Wikpedia's guildlines. B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe a list of indvidual episode names for a long-running daily soap is notable. Certainly non of the episodes are notable in their own right, with the possible exception of the very first and very last ones. Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I thought that the point of these "List of ... episodes" was to exist because the episodes aren't notable in their own right, but together they become notable. I'm not necessarily arguing for keep, simply saying that to delete this list would set a precedent that all similar episode lists are non-notable. Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soaps like this that have over 5,000 daily episodes and are all named "Episode XXXX" without any exceptions do not need "List of" articles. Weekly series are fine, but daily shows certainly do not need them. I was thankful that there were no individual episode summaries with this, which I expected to see. Nate•(chatter)07:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is one of many unsourced lists created by what seem to be just fans of the serial drama. Other such lists for other soaps were removed a long time ago. It serves no purpose and doesn't educate any reader, all content that is notable is discussed elsewhere and is sourced.Rain the 1BAM13:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regularly gets edited and is a useful list that is already compiled. Would that there had been episode summaries, it would have made the article more useful than ever. ReyRichard (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So you endorse lists of episodes - but are you saying wikipedia should keep this mass of information that is all unsourced?Rain the 1BAM22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of sources is not a good reason to delete without even tagging the article as missing sources for even a short period of time first. I am not aware of any attempt to do so having been made here. ReyRichard (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is not complete appears to be just a list of dates, and an episode guide for a long running soap is not notable in my opinion (Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Given the information in the article, Luis doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. I looked around quite a bit more on google, and I still can't find evidence that his accomplishments meet WP:PROF or the GNG. (As a heads-up, there has been a lot of persistent sock or meatpuppetry on this and related articles recently, which will probably pop up again here.) Kevin (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
How Wikipedia administrators "investigate" and punish "dissident" editors
On May 24, Jared Keller, an associate editor for The Atlantic and The Atlantic Wire, publishes in The Atlantic an article entitled « Is Wikipedia a World Cultural Repository ? » concerning the Wikipedia application to be recognized by the United Nations as a world heritage site. Keller does not criticize Wikipedia, but he points out that the Wikimedia Foundation does not seem to need extra money and « raised more than $21 million from November 2010 to January 2011 in the service of new initiatives ». He concludes that UNESCO « should better focus its resources on heritage sites facing more immediate challenges ». However, is this the only real problem with Wikipedia ? An article by Kevin Rawlinson in The Independent presents Jimmy Wales as pledging to « resist pressure to censor entries ». But is Wikipedia actually opposed to censorhip ? Selected worldwide information spread through a virtual encyclopedia can also be an influence tool, especially if unwanted information and editors are blocked by a nebula of mainly anonymous administrators with no public editorial board. Will Wikipedia become an official « unique encyclopedia » propagating a « unique thought » ? On May 24-25, Jimmy Wales is participating to the e-G8 (internet G8) together with representatives of the most influential corporations in the field. As The Washington Post emphasizes, Nicolas Sarkozy has opened the e-G8 with a « call for selective government regulation of Internet ». What will be the role of Wikipedia in such an institutional scheme ? Examining the censorhip and inquiry procedures currently used by the Wikipedia administrators against « dissident » editors and net users can be very enlightening from this point of view. And very worrying for the future of free internet. According to Jimmy Wales, governments should just stay away (Reuters). But his « solution » actually amounts to private internet police.
(...)
Actually, the user was just reacting to systematic deletion without previous deletion and to obviously agressive templates that look very much like a personal attack against a member of our collective in « response » to our articles disavowing the campaign against the Bogdanoff brothers.
Just after our first articles against the anti-Bogdanoff campaign, the French Wikipedia biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres was suppressed at the initiative of a Wikipedia administrator (Alain Riazuelo) personally involved in this campaign. After it was pointed out that the article in English on the so-called « Bogdanoff affair » contained wrong statements and misleading references, the Wikipedia article in English on superbradyons (describing and original idea by Gonzalez-Mestres) was also suppressed.
There have been several complaints against such Wikipedia practices without getting any answer, as Wikipedia claims to have no editorial board.
(...)
(end of quote)
Furthermore, all 'dissident" users (Jaumeta, Haeretica Pravitas, Indépendance des Chercheurs...) have been blocked.
Luis Gonzalez-Mestres is well-known for at least two original ideas that have generated worldwide important research activity : the luminescent (or scintillating) bolometer and the suggestion of a possible suppression of the Greisen - Zatsepin - Kuzmin cutoff by a violation of Lorentz symmetry at the Planck scale.
The conflict of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire at Collège de France was also reported by the main French medias, and evoked in written questions to the Government from French deputies and senators. This was reminded in a recent version of the biography :
Although it is true [42] that González-Mestres had to face strong institutional pressure, not only because of his research subject but also due to the conflicting situation,[45][46] of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire at Collège de France, it is unjustified to state that he was actually prevented from making his work public in due time. The existence of the arXiv electronic archive and of other e-publishing sites, as well as some important international conferences abroad, allowed González-Mestres to disseminate his results and ideas.
Gonzalez-Mestres was among the "dissident" participants to the November 1996 public hearing of the nuclear energy amplifier project (presented by Carlo Rubbia) organized by the French Parliament [47]. Rubbia's project was criticized by several members of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, but also later by a Parliament report [48].
In the period 1997-99, there were several public written questions addressed to the French government by members of the French Parliament concerning the situation of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire of Collège de France and the difficulties met by Gonzalez-Mestres and other "dissidents" from this laboratory [49]
^ a b Remnant site of the Intersyndicale of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire of Collège de France (in French), http://pagesperso-orange.fr/intsynd-lpc/
^ André Gsponer (November 2003), In memoriam: L'amplificateur d'énergie nucléaire de Carlo Rubbia (1993 - 2003), from La Gazette Nucléaire, No. 209/210 (in French), http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/Rubbiatron.html
that the so-called Kevin is obviously willing to destroy, as they show "unwanted" evidences. The so-called Kevin seems to be willing to protect influent people and lobbies. And there is no real public information on who the Wikipedia administrators are. How many of them may actually have been involved in the controversies evoked by this biography, or be friends of these people ?
Anyway, the Wikipedia administrators have at their disposal easy solutions : banning people and doing anything they want without an editorial board to which "dissisent" editors and net surfers can complain. For obvious reasons, citizens must oppose to any Wikipedia application for a UNESCO World Heritage status.
I am not anonymous, and I am not a wikipedia administrator. My real-life identity is disclosed on my user page and I have absolutely no real-life affiliation with anyone involved in any of these events. This nomination is not any sort of conspiracy, I started it solely because I do not believe Luis meets our well-established notability requirements. Kevin (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, but your user page actually says nothing about your "real life" identity. You just write :
I'm Kevin Gorman. I was a participant in the spring 2011 session of Politics of Piracy at UC Berkeley, and I will be facilitating the fall 2011 session.
(end of quote)
The Berkeley university provides no link with your curriculum vitae or anything similar. There is only this name that, given the controversial subject of the Berkeley course, could even be an agreed "pen name".
In practice, there is just no way to have an idea of your possible conflicts of interests. This is a general feature of Wikipedia administrators.
And you just give no specific argument to answer the scientific content of the biography.
The Berkeley website provides no link to my CV because I am an undergraduate. And, again, I am not an administrator. Take a look at WP:PROF, it lays out the criteria that an academic must meet to have an article on Wikipedia. If you think Luis meets any of those criteria, then calmly explain how he meets them. Otherwise this article is likely to be deleted. Kevin (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an undergraduate, you are just unable to evaluate the relevance of the references given. There is no "miracle bibliometry" that can replace precise facts and analyses. Serious scientists are against bibliometry. Why are you attacking this biography, if you cannot judge it from a scientific point of view ?
And if you are an undergraduate, then you may depend on influential people for many purposes.
By the way, even an undergraduate should normally exhibit his curriculum vitae if he must give a lecture of any kind in a university like Berkeley. 83.199.18.174 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you agree with the criteria that Wikipedia uses to determine whether or not an article should be included, the fact is, they are the criteria that the community here has decided to use. Inclusion on Wikipedia has nothing to do with scientific merit. If you do not explain how Luis meets the standard laid out at WP:PROF then this article will most likely be deleted.
There is nothing whatsoever about the notability standard being considered here (which I quoted in full below) which requires any kind of expertise. Certain questions are asked, and we look to find whether the evidence in the article answers them positively. If any one of them is a yes, then the subject is notable in Wikipedia's terms -- that's a pretty easy standard to meet. Yet even with the bar set relatively low, LGM doesn't appear to clear it. That's not a knock on him, just a fact, based on our standards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is just not serious. If Kevin is an undergraduate, he is unable to evaluate the relevance of the references given.
Similarly, Crisco declares to be a student but he seems to be anonymous, so that one cannot check his biography. But he does not claim to have any special konwledge of the subject of this biography. What is he doing in this discussion ? He seems to be just supporting Kevin for personal reasons.
If there is no CV that can be checked, how can the public get an idea about the competence of the teacher and the seriousness of the course ? The same problem exists for the Wikipedia administrators, including possible conflicts of interests. The biography has explained everything, and is being censored. Now, it ias attacked on unclear grounds by people that do not claim any specific competence.
Actually, such as it is run, Wikipedia is not a community and has no "rules" or "criteria". Anonymous administrators just do what they want and there is no real control as there is no public editorial board to which one can complain. In any Parliament, even in the worst banana republics, there are public institutions. Candidates to elections have a known identity with a CV, and their conflicts of interests can in principle be controlled.
Delete A careful examination of WP:PROF, the criteria for determining the notability of academics indicates that LGM does not fulfill any of the criteria:
The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - There are barely any independent reliable sources concerning LGM's work to begin with.
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. - No
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) - No
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - There is no indication of this.
The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. - No.
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. - No.
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - There is no indication of this.
The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. - No
The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. - No.
Clearly, from the evidence available in the article, LGM does not fulfill our requirements for notability, although it's certainly possible that he might someday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do not delete and STOP DELETING COMMENTS, I have just been forced to restore several deleted comments.
As remainded before, there at least two well-known original contributions by Gonzalez-Mestres : the luminescent bolometer and the suggestion of a possible suppression of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff. The fits one has been at the origin of CRESST and of other well-known experiments. The seconf one has plaid a crucial role in a whole field of checks of relativity theory.
Note: At the risk of being censured for this action, I am not going to allow the chaos that took place on the AfD for the related article Superbradyon to happen here. The account-based puppetmaster User:Haeretica Pravitas and sockpuppets User:Indépendance des Chercheurs and User:Jaumeta are all currently blocked, but, as usual, the person behind these accounts is using IPs to disrupt this proceeding with irrelevant comments. I have moved these to the talk page, and will continue to do so until the Request for Page Protection is carried out. As always, legit editors can comment freely here, but the sockpuppets will not be allowed to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not acting precipitously. Admin EdJohnston determined that these IPa were sockpuippets of the named accounts when he blocked IdC for seven days for socking with them, and Admin DeltaQuad agreed they were connected when HP was blocked for two weeks for the same reason. Admin Cirt agreed that these IPs were disruptive when he semi-protected the Superbradyon AfD to stop the IPs from editing there, and Admin HelloAnnyong agreed by semi-protecting the LGM article for the same reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, obvioulsy there are no "rules" for the anonymous Wikipedia lobby.
THIS DICUSSION MAKES NO SENSE, EVERYTHING MUST BE STOPPED.
Keep Quoting something Bm gub said at the first Superbradyon AfD: "Gonzalez-Mestres isn't a crackpot, he's notable (in the academic sense, perhaps not in the WP sense) in the field of cosmic-ray tests of spacetime symmetries." Spanish Wikipedia has a fairly long bio and French Wikipedia has an article on superbradyons. It's clear the article needs improvement, but surely it is a nontrivial sign of some kind of notability that his work is mentioned in the 2002 NYT article cited. Also, the notability tests in WP:PROF are based on US university practice, not on relevant status-milestones for physicists at CERN or College de France, both of which are very highly-regarded institutions. betsythedevine (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the issue of the WP:PROF criteria not applying neatly to non-American academics has been brought up before, but it's been pretty strongly argued elsewhere that the same criteria should apply to both american and nonamerican academics. (WP:PROF also actually explicitly mentions CNRS.) Kevin (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to dig some of it up later, but I've apparently unwatchlisted the relevant pages at some point. I know I've seen it argued about in pretty good length on a few AfD's in the past. Kevin (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep Dear Betsy, if you keep writing sensible things, you may be "checkusered", "ducktested" and so on by the Wikipedia would-be Intelligence Agency and perhaps found to be a "sockpuppet" of Abraham Lincoln, Oliver Cromwell, David Wark Griffith or some other well-known internet surfer.
Of course, the biography of Gonzalez-Mestres is the natural place to discuss his work, but an unclear lobby is trying to destroy it.
To repeat a comment from somebody else posted to another discussion, let me remind that Nick Mavromatos wrote in the August 2002 CERN Courier :
"Other astrophysical probes of the stochastic quantum-gravity effects may be provided by ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECR) with energies above 1019 eV, as well as by TeV photons. The presence of such events seems puzzling from the point of view of Lorentz invariance - standard kinematics imply the existence of energy thresholds, the Greisen, Zatsepin, Kuzmin (GZK) cut-off, above which certain reactions would prevent such energetic particles from reaching the observation point, assuming an extra-galactic origin. Some exotic suggestions have been made to relate Lorentz invariance violation associated with the quantum-gravity-induced modification of the particle's dispersion relations with the existence of UHECR or TeV photons, in the form of an abolition of the GZK cut-off in such models."
and that one of the references of the article is precisely :
The sectorial Lorentz symmetry may be only a low-energy limit, in the same way as the relation $\omega $ (frequency) = $c_s$ (speed of sound) $k$ (wave vector) holds for low-energy phonons in a crystal. We study the consequences of such a scenario, using an ansatz inspired by the Bravais lattice as a model for some vacuum properties. It then turns out that: a) the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff on high-energy cosmic protons and nuclei does no longer apply; b) high-momentum unstable particles have longer lifetimes than expected with exact Lorentz invariance, and may even become stable at the highest observed cosmic ray energies or slightly above.
(end of quote)
Similarly, in The New York Times (December 2002), Dennis Overbye writes :
In the late 1990's Dr. Luis Gonzalez-Mestres of the National Center for Scientific Research in France, and, independently, the Harvard theorists Dr. Sheldon Glashow and Dr. Sidney Coleman proposed that a small violation of relativity would allow high-energy cosmic rays to evade the G.Z.K. energy limit on travel.
(end of quote)
Even if Dennis Overbye uses the expression "independently", the way he quotes Gonzalez-Mestres is a clear recognizion of his priority. Then, one can check the actual dates of papers. It is quite obvious that in August 1998 there was no reason for Coleman and Glashow not to cite Gonzalez-Mestres. Especially, given the fact that Coleman and Glashow had cited Gonzalez-Mestres here :
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703240 (revised 30 April 1997 version, two weeks after the above paper by Gonzalez-Mestres and not considering a possible suppression of the GZK cutoff)
and the Harvard University has itself an excellent database quickly picking arXiv.org abstracts, where you can find this paper :
Coleman, Glashow and Smolin could not reasonably ignore this evidence, especially in August 1998 (date of the first paper where Coleman and Glashow evoked a possible GZK cutoff suppression) or years later.
There also seems to be a clear correlation between the attacks against the superbradyon article and the Gonzalez-Mestres biography (the biography has also been recently suppressed in the French Wikipedia) and the public statements of the Collective Indépendance des Chercheurs against the anti-Bogdanoff campaign where some Wikipedia administrators appear to be directly involved (at least one of them, Alain Riazuelo). See the Wikipedia articles :
Keep I agree with the previous posts by 83.199.69.101, but the role of Gonzalez-Mestres in the field of cryogenic detectors, where he was one of the leading scientists when the field started, must also be emphasized. References are available in the previous version of his biograpphy before censorhip started, for instance here :
In January 1984 [1], together with Denis Perret-Gallix, González-Mestres proposed the use of superheated superconducting granules (SSG) of type I superconductors to detect magnetic monopoles. Both authors worked in 1984-90 to develop a SSG detector for this project, but also for a SSG solar neutrino detector following a proposal by Georges Waysand. In 1985, following a suggestion by Mark Goodman and Edward Witten [2], they also started considering a SSG dark matter detector [3].
Gonzalez-Mestres and Perret-Gallix simultaneously considered alternative detectors for neutrinos and dark matter, such as special scintillators [4],[5]. They formulated in 1988 [6] the original proposal of the luminescent bolometer with simultaneous detection of light and heat [7],[8], that is now the basic instrument of the CRESST (Dark Matter Search) experiment [9], of the ROSEBUD experiment [10] and (partially) of the EURECA (Dark Matter Search) project [11]. In 1989, Gonzalez-Mestres and Perret-Gallix further emphasized the potentialities of such a detector for particle identification and background rejection[12]. In 1991-92, Gonzalez-Mestres also discussed the possible use of the luminescent bolometer to improve effective segmentation and energy resolution in solar neutrino experiments incorporating an indium target [13],[14]. He considered the use of arrays of superconducting tunnel junctions to simultaneously detect light and phonons.
Comment Is this a carryover of the "Superbradyon" deletion argument? I'm seeing a large number of the same citations that were trotted out in support of keeping that article being used here. And they have the same shortcomings. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, LGM is the person behind the superbradyon concept, and once again the (now hatted) comments are mostly irrelevant to the question at hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once you exclude WP:SPS's, all I see in the article is one new york times article and very brief mention in a book. That's not unusual or notable coverage at all for an academic - many or even most academics who have been around a while will have similar levels of coverage. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then many academics are notable. For how many Pokemon would one New York Times article be considered an exceptionally high level of coverage in reliable sources? I don't believe that we should be holding academics to higher source standards. Also, since they appear in reliable sources, the research articles cited are not self-published in the classical sense, though they are written, at least in part, by the subject. Chester Markel (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But a list of publications alone isn't enough. #1 in WP:PROF demands independent evidence of importance, easily satisfied for notable academics by reference to reviews of their work. It can also be satisfied by a measurement such as was performed by Crusio and Xxanthippe, below. That the standards for Pokemon (and characters on TV shows, etc) appear to be lower or practically non-existent (in practice anyway) has no bearing on this matter--it's unfortunate, but besides the point. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be in the position of defending the Pokemon standard for notability (whatever it is), but look at it this way: our encyclopedia covers both serious things and trivial things. Pokemon is trivial, so the fact that its notability standard isn't as rigorous as it might be isn't a big deal. Science, however, is serious, important stuff, and it's precisely for the important stuff that we should get it right. Putting aside the question of whether or not LGM is notable enough by our standards to have an article, I assume that he is doing serious research on subjects that he considers to be important. Out of respect for that, he deserves to be judged against a serious standard, and not one used for trivial things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of WP:V states using bold text that the threshold for inclusion is "not truth". Wikipedia itself does not hestitate to identify that Wikipedia is not a WP:RS reliable source. I don't agree that WP:PROF is a "serious standard", I expect that everyone here has experience with serious standards. Unscintillating (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not supported by a sufficient number of reliable and independent sources. Heroic efforts have been made by editors to get this article into a satisfactory shape (see the history). Unfortunately, it does not seem that the sources are sufficient to support notability of the article. The only criteria that it seems possible that it could pass is WP:Prof#C1: the impact of the research on the discipline as evidenced by reliable independent sources. A search with Google Scholar gives 71 hits with around 460 cites and an h index of 13. The cites begin as 49, 34, 35, 30, 30...etc. At first sight this might qualify for a weak keep, but a more detailed look shows two insurmountable problems. The first is that, as far as I can see, only two of the 71 hits are published in good quality peer-reviewed journals. These are the calibre of journals that the scholars who usually appear on these pages normally publish in. The great majority of the subject's papers are published on the Physics ArXiv. This is a public repository of scientific papers. It's standards for inclusion are minimal, although the ArXiv does contain copies of excellent work that has been already been published in the standard peer-reviewed journals. As mentioned before, very little of the subject's work has been published in such journals. The second problem is that a large proportion of the citations that do exist are self-citations. These are not considered to be independent sources. For example of the 25 citations of the paper "Space, time and superluminal particles" (Arxiv preprint physics/9702026) only five seemed not to be self-citations (please correct me if this is not accurate) and this pattern seems to exist throughout the citation data. On the basis of the GS data it does not seem at present that there is a sufficient number of independent and reliable sources to confer notability. Web of Science data would be very helpful. General notability considerations are not enough to help either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
On a side note: first of all, thanks for your detailed explanation of the evidence and, more importantly, what the data show or don't show. Second, how nice it would be if the Wikipedia article for ArXiv and the ones for all those other publication venues that show up in references had a note on reliability. I mean, some editors, maybe many editors, know what a publication in a certain journal or in a certain archive means; some, maybe many, know what to cite and what not to cite from the tabloids; etc. For a lot of AfD participants, it seems to go quickly: source X has a Wikipedia article, therefore it is notable and a citation from that source weighs heavily. (And if source Y doesn't have an article it shouldn't count.) About this particular one, I've come to the same conclusion you have, but it took me some time to figure that out and I might not always have the time or the capability to judge that. Well, these remarks aren't really for this forum, but I'm glad you took the time to explain your evaluation of the source. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the editors who has struggled gallantly to rescue this BLP. Unfortunately though, however much effort one puts in, one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The physics ArXiv, as it says in its Wikipedia article, is not peer-reviewed. Accordingly, every paper on it is self-published, and does not meet the Wikipedia criterion for an independent source. Exceptions are the many papers on the ArXiv that have first been published in a standard peer-reviewed journal but, as mentioned, this subject has few of these. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If by "rescue" you mean "trim the fat and make it look like a Wikipedia article", then I'm guilty as charged. ;) You'll note that I cut a lot of those ArXiv references. One hallmark of this fluffy kind of resume/biography is a veritable flood of publications, for vanity's sake, but probably also to lead editors astray by suggesting "notability by weight." Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is what I found on the Web of Science: Searching for "Gonzalez-Mestres L*" I found 3 articles, cited 7 times in total. However, if I search for "GonzalezMestres L*", I get 122 hits, with a total of 1236 citations, top counts of 79-66-65-48, and an h-index of 21. However, this includes another person working in cardiology. Weeding out all that stuff, I am left with 15 hits, cited 96 times, with an h-index of 5. Of course, some researchers contribute in other ways than by publications alone, so I looked in "Labintel", an internal CNRS database of all CNRS personnel (as a CNRS researcher, I have access to this). Gonzalez-Mestres has been with the CNRS (meaning doing research full-time, no teaching obligations) since 1972. His current rank is CR1. GM applied for a DR2 position, but was not ranked. All this also does not indicate any notability that might be derived from non-publication activities. Somewhere in the discussion above, the College de France is mentioned. While being a chair there certainly would make somebody notable, I have found nothing of the like in this case and all I can assume is that GM collaborates with a lab there (or has worked in a lab there), which is not at all the same thing. In conclusion, I don't see any evidence that any of the criteria of WP:PROF are met. The single in-passing mention in The New York Times does not appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG either. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Crusio and Xxanthippe: Thank you both very much for digging in and researching this stuff, and for explaining it so well. I think we're all much obliged to the both of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the cogent reasoning of Crusio and Xxanthippe. Being mentioned in the NYT is great, but it is only a passing mention and does not constitute the significant, in-depth kind of discussion called for to pass general notability guidelines. Since evidence of the subject's importance is lacking (lack of reviews of his work, lack of discussion of his influence) and since the position they appear to hold is not inherently notable, we should delete this article. I also propose we put Crusio and Xxanthippe on payroll, and that Mr. Wales (who owes me a t-shirt anyway) send each of them a E20 bill each time they perform an analysis like this. Seriously, thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep Luis is a well-kown physicist and also a well-known dissident, as his biography explains if you take a complete version. He is an original scientist, and he often defends at the same time ethical values different from the usual establishment pratice. The fact that he encountered career problems is not a surprise, and has nothing to do with scientific performance. A quick search allows to find at least seven public written questions from members of the French Parliament on the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire affair in 1997-2000. Many influential people did not like that. Similarly, when he participated to the "Rubbiatron" hearing. According to people working in this domain, he has been one of the physicists at the origin of the field of cryogenic detectors, and his work on relativity (the GZK question and so on...) has been at the origin of a real research field on ultra-high energy cosmic rays (checks of relativity) that he was the first to propose at these energies. Nobody seems to contradict this, and there are too many personal attacks. Queleralo (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can someone contradict the evidence that the April and May 1997 papers by Gonzalez-Mestres on the possible suppression of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff were prior to any similar claim by Sidney Coleman and Sheldon Glashow ? My search confirms what the "long" versions of the Gonzalez-Mestres biography say. Queleralo (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Queleralo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I do not doubt for a moment User:Eric Shalov's good faith in creating the initial stub , but as he has not commented here, and as there has been no movement on his talk page for several months, he may not be interested in the present discussion or even aware of it, although he still contributes to Wikipedia and as recently as 30 March. That said, we measure notability not by the number of references, but by their relevance, quality, and reliability, and whether or not the coverage is extensive and independent of the subject. This article is a biography, hence it should be about the person, and not about the subject matter of their work. Therefore, while the references to the person's published work or published collaborative works and their contents can be cited in articles about the person's subject matter, they are not about the subject of the biography. If we remove all L. G-M's published and co-authored works from the list we are left with 15 footnotes. Those remaining references are to scientific matters in which L. G-M may have been involved, an NYT article about interpreting cosmic rays, and a petition website against harassment (which may be in someway connected with the anonymous disruption of this AfD). In effect, we have nothing about the life and times of Dr. González-Mestres. Yes, we have articles about garage band drummers and Pokemon (whater that is), but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument here, and as Beyond My Ken and Drmies have pointed out, serious subjects require serious sources. It is quite possible that L. G-M is notable, perhaps even eminent, but on the other hand, Wikipedia editors and administrators do not need a degree in cosmic and particle science or quantum mechanics to apply Wikipedia policies. Without satisfying the Wikipedia criteria for reliable independent sources about L. G-M, there can be no Wikipedia article about L. G-M. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject, a professor of physics, does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. As with all academics, Google Scholar presents a number of papers, but none seem to be particularly well cited (note, this does not seem to be the same person as DT Wickramsinghe, who is better cited). "General References" provided prove he exists, is a professor at the College of Jersey, has been on field expeditions, and given lectures, but nothing that makes this person stand out as being notable in a Wikipedia sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was first created in 2007 under the name "Cecælia", apparently just as an attempt to popularize a word that the page's author or someone else made up one day. In that regard, it apparently had some success; "cecaelia" is now a fairly commonly used word on DeviantArt and similar sites -- probably largely because of the Wikipedia article (which was often specifically cited as legitimizing the concept). However, the word never appeared in any sort of reliable sources, so the article was eventually renamed to "Octopus person", in accordance with WP:NEO. Which is definitely a more appropriate name, but doesn't really address the question of whether it's an appropriate subject for an article in the first place. While certainly half-cephalopod half-human creatures have existed in various fictional works, there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing them as a general phenomenon, which seems to make this article run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Don't necessarily recommend deleting it outright, but do recommend perhaps a Redirect to Hybrid (mythology). ----Smeazel (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Withdrawn. On re-reading of the deletion policy, I find that I missed before the statement that "any user can boldly redirect to another article". So I'm just going to do that. I think I can take the fact that another editor proposed on the article's talk page a year ago that it be made into a redirect and nobody in the intervening year posted to disagree or argue against the proposal as sufficient grounds to consider the matter undisputed. Sorry; should have read the deletion policy more carefully in the first place. ----Smeazel (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an internet based streaming video channel. I have been unable to locate substantial reliable source coverage to establish notability. All I have found are press-release style text on various blogs as well as listings on some online content aggregation websites like Roku. It does not appear to have notability at a level which would pass WP:WEB standards of notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable service broadcasting on the internet to numerous sites. This includes streaming on the Roku player, which has over a million users. This article is in the same area as Pandora Radio which broadcasts on the internet as well as the Roku. There are several articles in the Category:Internet television channels i.e. NurseTV that have less sourced information and possibly less notability than this article. This article has had and still adding reliable secondary sources noted on the article. Msw1002 (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that several of the sourced reliable references were removed prior to this deletion nomination (see revision history). I won't undo the removal as I'm guessing they will be removed again. They were sources from Roku, World Match Racing Tour, Clicker.com and others. Msw1002 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please avoid arguments along the line of other articles are worse. If those articles are not notable, please go ahead and try to improve them or propose them for deletion as well. In terms of the cleaning of the article, only non-notable sources were removed. Press releases/press release style articles on blogs/etc. are not notable sources. If you can simply provide some reliable sources to establish notability that would be most effective. Having a link to demonstrate that an aggregator such as Roku offers the content as an option does not establish notability. If there were articles about Sail TV in a reliable sources like a major newspaper, etc. then that could establish notability. But I have been unable to locate such reliable sources, after looking hard for them. That is why I have proposed the article for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, no other sources found. Contacting Sail TV if they had more coverage was unresponsive. Until someone else finds more sources, I don't think it is worth keeping the article that I started at this time. Article can be deleted asap. Msw1002 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Follow-up: there seems to be a COI problem too, as well as the advert I tagged earlier today; I tagged COI also, apologise if that is overkill. Suggest moving any useful content about machinery to Cattle crush#Hoof trimming crushes, any useful content about hoof care to Hoof, unless Cow hoof (currently a redirect to this article) deserves to stand alone Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: The "keeps" emphasize that some of our core readers (high school and college students?) may well find this list to be useful. The "deletes" claim it's not helpful. The nomination actually did not even cite any rule or policy, but that was remedied by others. Every item on the list is probably notable, because each has an article or redirect with a blue link. Some other issues raised in the discussion, such as ordering the list, can be solved through the ordinary editing process. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to jump to conclusions about who "readers" are. I wouldn't see the list as unhelpful to every reader - what about those who wish to browse geometric "shapes" and are not so well served by more sophisticated categories? And the specification is hardly arbitrary: we are talking about two-, three- and n-dimensional versions of the same concept. What is wrong with "list of polytopes" as a topic? The given title just spells that out for those less familiar with the terminology. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those "who wish to browse geometric shapes and are not so well served by more sophisticated categories" we should create an article that lists classes of polytopes by dimension or something similar. Also, why are two- and three-dimensional cases so special? (Yes, these are the cases that can actually physically be built, but only because an object can not be physically built or is more abstract does not mean it is less important than the objects which can be built). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a useful collection of topics. Lists and categories serve different purposes so there is nothing wring with having a certain amount of overlap between the two. The article could use some work, for example distinguishing between families and individual objects, but that's not a criterion for deletion.--RDBury (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This list hasn't changed since 2006, contains an alphabetical listing of a tiny subset of existing polyhedron and polytope articles, without any context of their relations or meaning. Category:Polytopes does a better job on organizing polytopes, by dimension, and automatically updated based on articles tagged. And for regular ones, Template:Polytopes is a navigator template used on most higher dimensional polytope articles. If this article were to be "improved" it would be done by systematically scanning all the categories of polyhedra/polytopes, and combining the lists, and sorting by alphabetical order, and dumping a replacement list. The list would be VERY long and very slightly more useful, and LIKELY out-of-date within a few months. Who wants to maintain such a list? Obviously NO ONE! Tom Ruen (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a useful navigational list. Categories and lists are not either/or - often it is useful to ahve both. This list could benefit from some maintenance, annotation and structuring, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator) - This form of page would make sense for a disambiguation page, which this article is not. Therefore this article would need to be referenced in order to establish its notability. I doubt that a source can be found that presents this particular listing of polytopes. Therefore, this article is just an indiscriminate collection of information and can be safely regarded as listcruft. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that at AfD the point is primarily whether the topic is suitable for the encyclopedia. We are seeing subjective criteria introduced into this discussion, instead. I believe your two points don't say much more than you don't like the page (and lists). WP:LISTCRUFT to which you link is an essay, not a policy, and its substantive point about the condition for existence of a list doesn't apply here. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, that information included in Wikipedia must be verifiable. And this list is not. Only because the individual entries of a list are notable does not mean we can create made-up lists and arbitrarily group entries together when there is no notable principle for the grouping. If there were some notable concept behind this grouping that is discussed by sources (such as a list of uniform polyhedra) it could be kept. But since no such concept seems to exist for this list, this list fails to satisfy WP:N. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by your assertion that "this list is unverifiable". Suppose the list were to contain a particular entry, say "regular dodecahedron". This seems to me to imply nothing more than that a regular dodecahedron is a polygon, polyhedron, or polytope. Even supposing that this claim was somehow doubtful or likely to be disputed, why would it be unverifiable? —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am sure most of the individual entries in this list can be verified through sources (which is required anyway, since this list is not a disambiguation page). Then still the criteria for inclusion in this list are not clear to me. Is this list supposed to contain every known polytope? In my opinion the intended scope of this list is 1) not clearly enough defined and 2) overly broad. So again my question: which polytopes is this list supposed to contain? And I still fail to see which advantage an unannotated list like this has over a category. This list contains no contextual information, thus the same function would better be served by a category. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for inclusion in the list seems to be "is a polytope". Are you suggesting that polytopes, as a class, are non-notable or non-verifiable? —Mark Dominus (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't say that polytopes, as a class, are non-notable. However, that the class of polytopes is notable does not automatically mean that each individual representative of this class is also notable. Lets take one random example wikilinked to from this list: Great retrosnub icosidodecahedron. I think I fail to see, where this polytope has established its notability. I don't say it cannot be mentioned in some kind of "List of ..." article, but 1) there is no established notability for a standalone article and 2) if this polytope were included in some kind of list, then there should be some kind of verifiable, contextual information. It was said before, that this list is useful for people, who want to learn more about existing polytopes. I still fail to see, in which way an arbitrary, non-contextual grouping like this is useful for that purpose. If this list would contain some short description for each entry, then it would make sense. But lets suppose, I am a reader who is not very familiar with polytopes yet. I cannot see how an unannotated list containing a bunch of weird sounding geometric terms is helpful for someone, who does not have a good understanding of polytopes and terminology yet. Can someone explain to me, in which way it helps a reader, who is not yet very familiar with polytopes, to see a term, such as "Small ditrigonal dodecacronic hexecontahedron" inside an unannotated list like this, without any context or annotations explaining, how this particular polytope fits into the overall concept of polytope? Yes, he or she could click on the wikilink, but then, what do we need this list for? A well structured category could (and should) have done the same job. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of geometrical objects needs some structure. List of regular polytopes does this well. Other lists might be possible, but listing them in alphabetical order is worthless. If we need any other lists, in would be better to start from nothing than from this list. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument to improve the list, not delete it. No one is saying it's perfect but there is potential here.--RDBury (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTom Ruen is an extremely prolific contributor to articles on polytopes and related topics. If he says that nobody is going to maintain the list, and it is not useful, he may be right. Tomruen creates a lot of articles that would have to be linked from this list, if it were to be complete. If he's not going to put his own articles on this list, who will? —Mark Dominus (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list needs a LOT of cleanup and organizing, but it's neither useless (I've been making use of it for months), nor totally arbitrary. Additional arguments to follow, in about 10 or 11 hours; my connection is unreliable & I'm fried.Hrttu523 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are two- and three-dimensional cases so special? (Yes, these are the cases that can actually physically be built, but only because an object can not be physically built or is more abstract does not mean it is less important than the objects which can be built).
From a purely mathematical POV, the 2-dimensional case is unique but trivial. However, the 3 & 4-dimensional cases are interesting in ways that higher dimensions (arguably) are not. I can unpack this argument further, if desired. From a more pragmatic angle, the cases that can be physically constructed are of greater interest to most artists, architects, and designers (just to give a few examples). I also disagree with the assertion (from Tom Ruen):
If this article were to be "improved" it would be done by systematically scanning all the categories of polyhedra/polytopes, and combining the lists, and sorting by alphabetical order, and dumping a replacement list. The list would be VERY long and very slightly more useful, and LIKELY out-of-date within a few months.
I am convinced this "proposal" would make the list less useful, as well as very long and quickly out-of-date. What it needs (in my opinion) is to be shorter, with fewer entries for individual polygons and polyhedra, more emphasis on classes and types (such as Archimedean solid and Cross-polytope ), and more polyhedron/polytope topics, such as Stellation and Wythoff construction. I would also like to hear from Charles Matthews, about how he intended the list to be structured when he started it, and from Dingo1729, who said, "If we need any other lists, it would be better to start from nothing than from this list.": what sort of structure would you propose?
Hrttu523 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. My proposal was merely taking the existing (alphabetical) structure to the nth degree. I'm open to any other structure, but still not convinced the collection is superior to an alphabetical listing (and has been here largely unchanged for 5+ years). Polygon, [regular polygon]], polyhedron does well to summarize show these classes. There's still no nice summary of the higher polytopes, but the contents are still in flux, and there's few sources for polytopes beyond the regular and uniform cases. I suppose my BEST proposal might be to make this a "list of lists", grouped by dimension. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not rise to the level of notability. Unable to verify reference nor find any other reference in a search of English and Polish indexes. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Suggestion – I think some of these articles could be saved (In the Constellation of the Black Widow being the most likely, in fact I'd say it's sourced enough to establish notability and thus pass WP:NALBUMS now). I'd be willing to put in some effort into better sourcing them and giving them more evidence of notability, but right now I don't have the time (over the next couple/few months I should though, I moved recently so most of my magazines are in boxes). So my suggestion is this: instead of outright deleting them, make them redirects to the band's article (Anaal Nathrakh). If other editors try to revert them without putting any effort into fixing them, I'll take responsibility for reverting them back (if no one else gets there first). Once I have a chance to dig through my boxes of magazines and find relevant articles, I can start fixing them, and leave a notice on their respective talk pages when I think they're ready to come back. This way we don't lose information that could end up being worthy of being on Wikipedia. Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Keep them all. This is not the best-known of bands but it's got a following; it's not some obscure garage band. And information about each album, including track listings and information about production and so forth, encompasses enough detail to where each album deserves its own page. Methychroma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Wouldn't mess with folks sporting the NWO "all-seeing-eye" symbol... wake up one day in in Gitmo with a hood over your head. --MoonLichen (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete all - None of the referencing in the articles actually refer to proposed awards, and there no reliable sources indicating that these awards are even being proposed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This seems to be a touchy topic, so let me make something clear: I am not asserting that "anti-Hungarian sentiment" is a false or non-notable phenomenon. What I am doing is deleting this article because it is a synthesis of published material that would require a substantial amount of work to fix and thus is, judging from its edit history and current external references, unlikely to be sufficiently cleaned up in the near future. As noted by one of the participants, it is not sufficient to create a collection of disparate references that each tackle one specific incident or one particular facet of the topic (e.g., how Hungarians are treated in Slovakia), although well-sourced articles on these subtopics are welcome. An article of this nature must be backed up by substantial third-party literature that addresses the discrimination as a whole. Anyone is welcome to attempt to create a new article with these guidelines in mind; I can provide the deleted text of the article and talk page if desired, as long as it is not used to recreate the article in its present form. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently looks like a coatrack being used to expose politicians' anti-Hungarian statements, which seems quite inappropriate. There are three sections, the first is just a dicdef, the second is covered in far better detail in Hungarians in Slovakia and the third is basically a non-notable local news bite.
In the absence of a single reliable source whose focal topic is "Anti-Hungarian sentiment", I propose this article be deleted as a synthesis of various non-notable titbits, serving little purpose except as a troublesome POV fork. This stuff all belongs in other articles. - filelakeshoe00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable enough to posses an article on Wikipeda, even if there may be needed for an overhaul there. Go with Anti-Polish_sentiment and Anti-German_sentiment.
The circumstances in which the proposal is taking place, might display a certain type of shiftiness on the part of the nominator. Given that this is the third occasion when someone wants the article to be deleted, but no-one was notified among those that had had an interest in participating in the previous voting discussions, regarding any proceeding that might be resulted in the deletion of the article. It was User:KovacsIstvanGezaAlmos the only one user who was notified [38] whose contributions to Wikipedia were nothing more than to create this article and then the account started to doze and has been inactive for 2 years.--Nmate (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is the first time this article has been nominated for deletion. (The previous two deletion discussions were for a different article, albeit on the same topic.) Nothing requires a nominator to notify anyone of a deletion discussion, though it's customary to notify at least the original author. Please don't cast aspersions on other participants in this debate; whether or not this article will be kept will be judged on the basis of whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and not the motivations of those who participate in this discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - It may look as a coatrack in this present form, but other examples about this subject exist..as Anti-Polish, Serbophobia, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-French sentiment in the United States... also this problem is real and it should be well documented. If improved I think this article could be all-right. Adrian (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve - I'm sorry, but I have to call the nominator a cynical hypocrite. He's arguing for removal with arguments that can be attributed to the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion twice (once even successfully). Since all the old content has been removed, the article had to be started from scratch again. This alone however shouldn't warrant its removal, only indicate that further expansion is neecessary.
Looking back at the votings in the previous 2 nominations I have a feeling that both were heavily slanted towards the opposing opinion due to the fact that it was mostly editors with a somewhat palpable anti-Hungarian affiliation who have voted (e.g. Yopie who tends to vote with Slovak editors on Hungarian-related topics/proposals) and thus the article was deleted. Yet the article was recreated again (and survived the second nomination as if by a miracle) AFAIK by a different editor. This alone might implicate that the topic IS considered to be notable by itself.
The other argument I've seen to be used over and over again in the previous votes was the "we should delete it, because it's POV material which only deals with events of the past anyway" one. This statement alone (or the likes of it) sounds like as if it were written by one of the anti-Hungarian chauvinists. Ironically it has also been used by one of the previous nominators as well, who claims herself to be Hungarian. Unfortunately nothing could be further from truth. It's true that anti-Hungarian sentiment is not perceived by people (even Hungarians) who don't live in areas where Hungarians constitute a minority or don't have such friends. But I've been born and raised in Bratislava (one of the very few people who can call themselves to be native inhabitants of the city BTW). A mere century ago this city used to be one of the most tolerant cities not only throughout Austria-Hungary but the rest of Europe as well. This was evidenced by the fact that the neologue synagogue of the city was built right next to the coronation cathedral of St. Martin. In the past century however it has been transformed into a city of intolerance. The synagogue has been destroyed by the Communists (along with a significant portion of the historical center as well), the statue of Maria Theresa has been toppled, various buildings were disfigured (e.g. the railway station) and the surrounding villages have been razed to the ground to give place for the "new" and "modern" tenement complexes which are unthinkably ugly and pose an eyesore up to this day. This has also brought in people from all over the country who had no tolerance for Hungarians or anything else for that matter (let alone city aesthetics/architecture). This means that Bratislava became a city filled with bitter and ill-willed people who don't mind kicking into Hungarians either. I've experienced this myself numerous times when I was verbally harassed by such "immigrants" and even elderly. Also, if any of you would bother reading my translation of the things User:Bizovne wrote using his IP sock on my talk page, you'd see that anti-Hungarian sentiment is ever-present and still at its height. Therefore it's definitely NOT an event of the past nor is it limited to politicians. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying (i.e. he's a cynical nationalist himself) or ignorant (e.g. he never heard of the problem and therefore ASSUMES -you know, the thing that makes an ASS of U and ME- that it's nonexistent).
Also, Filelakeshoe you wrote on your userpage that you've been to Slovakia and Hungary as well. Since trains go to Budapest and Balaton (the most popular tourist locations in Hungary) from Czech republic only via Bratislava, I assume that you've been there as well. Did you EVER wonder why is it that there are no Hungarian signs in the city at all (except for inscriptions on some of the fountains which haven't been removed during their "renovations")? Hint: no, it's NOT for the fact that there are no Hungarian tourists in the city. Since Bratislava (under the aliases "Pressburg/Preßburg/Pozsony/Posony") was the capital of Hungary for centuries, it is of major historical significance for Hungarians (especially for the fact that coronations took place there as well). The lack of Hungarian signs in the "Slovak capital" in fact is also one of the clues which hint to the fact that strong anti-Hungarian sentiments are present in Slovakia up to this day. I've also been to Transylvania where the situation seems to be pretty much the same. So once again, the article should stay. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't personally attack the nominator or the participants of this or other deletion discussions. Deletion discussions are not votes; they're decided not by how many people advocate keeping or deleting the article, but by arguments grounded in Wikipedia's policies. Whether or not any given participant is pro- or anti-Hungarian is irrelevant; what matters is what they can demonstrate about the article's notability, the reliability of its sources, and so on. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is currently mostly original synthesis, and needs to be extensively re-written. However, anti-hungarian sentiment is a notable topic which should be discussed by Wikipedia. On the nominators claim that there is no significant coverage of anti-hungarian sentiment, see this book - [39] --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a disjoint collection of unrelated instances of anti-Hungarian statements, none of whose notability is indicated. It's therefore a completely original synthesis. For this article to be kept, it needs references to reliable sources discussing anti-Hungarian sentiment in general. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common rationale, repeated here for convenience: Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations".
Unfortunately your arguments are entirely hypocritical and irrelevant. You even could've written that you want to have it deleted because you just don't like it. For some reason you seem to be hung up on the current content which is NOT related to the topic or its notability itself. You see there are sources which mention this phenomenon in connection with Jews: [40] The fact that "anti-Hungarian sentiments" and "hungarophobia" are mentioned out of context as well points to the fact that the topic is of high notability. You seem to be keen on wikilawyering and cite every possible policy you can find to prove why are your opponents' arguments completely false, but keep forgetting in the process that the same rules can be applied to your arguments as well. However since you seem to disregard almost any argument one gives and just hide behind the wikirules instead of doing some logical reasoning, I don't think you'll reach an agreement with anyone here let alone the ones who oppose you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the current content is not related to the topic of the article, then it should be removed from the article. If it is not replaced with relevant material, the article should be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-empty}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have nothing against the removal of irrelevant content. However you just went ahead and based your whole attitude about this topic on the fact that it contains some hastily compiled data. But once again please do NOT assume bad faith. -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established, notable topic. Reliable sources are easy to find. The current article content is not relevant in terms of deciding whether the topic is notable or not. Even a cursory check into sources and literature shows a large number of sources to draw from including a large amount of historical material. Hobartimus (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't about some hypothetical article which could possibly be constructed from these supposedly easy-to-find reliable sources; it's about the current article content. If sources exist which establish notability of the topic, then please add this information to the article so that it can be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but in my experience deletion discussion can never be about the current article content. If it were the case someone could just simply delete most of any article during the discussion and point to the new content as reason to delete. In fact during one deletion discussion a participant deleted 30% of an article in a single edit and expected that the article would be deleted just because of the current content changed. Of course it was kept because his deletion had no effect on the underlying question of the topic's notability. Regardless I may just edit this article later, but not because "so it can be kept". Notability of the topic is why it should be kept, not because I personally edit it to have good content. Of course the article content is not satisfactory now. Ironically, for example it was edited by a well known anti-Hungarian banned user [41] under multiple sockpuppets even. We can say it was one of the targets attacked by this banned user. Can you guarantee this banned user will not attack it in the future, should someone chooses to improve the article? Perhaps with more sockpuppets , or by proxies (you can read the warning sign on his user page, "Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. " since he often contacts others to edit for him). You see the issue of improving this article is a bit more complex here. Hobartimus (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your experiences are not reflective of Wikipedia practices. For example, we do not keep attack pages nominated for deletion merely because the subject of the attack is notable. Either the deletion discussion prompts someone to revise the article into something written from a neutral point of view, or else the article is deleted (without prejudice to its recreation in a neutral form at some later date). In any event, your argument for this particular article's notability is simply WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Please be advised that it is not sufficient to merely claim that sources exist establishing the subject's notability; you must actually produce these sources and show that they are reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and particularly the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES page already posted. You have just made the exact argument this page advises against: "it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject". —Psychonaut (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think you cite policies, guidelines correctly, because you don't seem to know anything about the topic of this article at all. Please read at least the Treaty of Trianon article before further comments.
WP:OTHERSTUFF also says: When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."
Meanwhile I'm copying a couple of sources from the talk page of the article:
Assessments from University of Maryland "Minorities at Risk" project
One needn't have any understanding of the topic in question to identify a specious argument for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you for finally providing some specific sources, though. Someone who does have an understanding of the topic can now review them to determine whether they are reliable sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been shown above that this is clearly a notable topic. POV and SYNTH issues can be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hungarians in Slovakia, although I fully expect that ultimately at article can be written on the subject. I agree with the rationale attributed to Future Perfect above. This reminds me greatly of what Uncle G used refer to as cargo-cult writing - you can't just dump a collection of referenced facts and hope an article magically will emerge. Instead, we need to reflect what reliable sources (and in this type of article, scholarly sources would be best) have written, otherwise we sink into the POV ethnicity driven problems we've seen before. Given the structure imposed by the parent article, I expect that this section could grow, and ultimate break out into its own article. Until then, a redirect is preferable. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per above. This may well be a notable subject, but on the basis of the sources currently available, which concern individual incidents, no policy-compliant article can be written about it. To avoid original research, a reliable source would need to address this phenomenon directly, comprehensively and in detail. Sandstein 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The best source is on a blog, the rest are primary or links to buy albums they produced. Appears to not be notable, with a lack of verifiable sources to demonstrate otherwise. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. If this were really "the most important Roman family" as the page said, it should be easy to find reliable sources about it. But the only references on the page are to a YouTube video, a Facebook page, and what appears to be a sloppily laid out personal webpage, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything better. Seems to possibly even verge upon being a WP:HOAX. ----Smeazel (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that Litinus was a gentile name among the Romans or was ever used as a cognomen. Whether the article is a hoax or just poorly conducted amateur genealogy, it's wholly lacking in reliable sources and fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. If you don't know the Roman and Byzantium history it is your false. Open a history book or ask a professor in any university of the world. In university of Padova in Italy there are the coat of arms of the family Litinus. You have just to ask the university of Padova. Also it is very important to let to any person in world to add information about the name of Litinus. There are many opinions about the root of the name Litinus. I have not time to give you these information right now, but it will be good for all of us to share our knowleage. I shall add the historical information about the root of the name in the article. Also for people who know the basic history of roman empire I say to them that the king had the coat of arm ( fasces ) with 12 ropes. The coat of arm of Litinus which is the the walls of the university of Padova has an arm with a fasces with 12 ropes. So Litinus must be the name of a king of Roman. That 's why wikipedia can help us. In wikipedia we shall share our knowlenge. According to the profile of the users who want to delete this article and to the history of their profile and their articles in wikipedia, the users who want to delete this article are bad communists. I am saying bad beacause a good communist respect the history and does not try to modify and change it hiding the truth, and stopping the research. In wikipedia we research the history, and we call all the people to give and share the knowlenge . We are not make critism to the sociaty and to political system. Finally if a user like me , or like the writter of an article (litinus) has to present his knowleage according to some rules of the wikipedia (copywrites etc) , then you have to communicate directly with the user and to help him to represent his articles, and you must not delete the whole article because you have different political believes from the content of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.189.85 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has nothing to do with "different political beliefs"; this has to do with WP:Verifiability. None of the information in your article seems to be verified by reliable sources. The allegation that the editors !voting Delete are trying to "[criticize] society and the political system", or that this has anything to do with "different political beliefs", is just bizarre. Please read the reasons for the !votes, as well as the policies WP:RS and WP:V. (You might want to also read up on WP:AGF while you're at it.) In Wikipedia, we don't share our knowledge, per se; anything on Wikipedia has to be backed up by reliable sources, and not be original research. If you can point to some reliable sources backing up the article's content, that may change people's minds about deleting the article. Ranting about "hiding the truth" and calling editors "bad communists" will not. (Nor will inappropriately posting the same message to the AFD discussion and the participating users' talk pages, as you did.) ----Smeazel (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Regarding "opening a history book", I just did a search for "Litinus" on Google Books. On the first thirty pages of results, all but three of the results that came up regarding ancient Rome appeared to be the result of the optical character recognition mistakenly reading "Litinus" for "Latinus". Of the remaining three, one was a similar misreading of "Licinus", and one of "Libertas". There was one passing mention of a Litinus in the northern territories of Hispania Carthaginensis, but he was stated to be a "deacon"[42]. There are results concerning the University of Padua[43][44], but all they do is confirm that someone named "Emmanuel Litinus Rhetymnensis" apparently existed in the seventeenth century; they don't back up any of the information in the article. As for "Litinus Sabinus", this brings up no Google Books results at all, and only ten regular Google hits, six of which are from Wikipedia pages or mirrors, two of which were apparently written by the article's author, and the remaining two of which seemed to have been unreliable websites that may well have copied their material from Wikipedia. There does appear to have been a Sabinus who quelled the results of the Gauls as stated in the article, but most sources give his full name as Quintus Titurius Sabinus, not Litinus Sabinus[45][46][47]. If there is a history book that verifies the content of the article, or even the existence of a Roman king named Litinus, you're going to have to be more specific about which book it is. None of the thousands of books on Google Books seem to do so. ----Smeazel (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I've found evidence of property being sold with suburb called Kolodong [48] , + it once had its own rail station. [49] this is a location in its own right. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 (as nom) - I agree that a redirect would be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Although I have a feeling that it may be repeatedly recreated, that can be reverted, and it does look like the film will probably be made, so people will be searching for it. If this is the outcome, the redirect should probably be Namastey London 2 however.--BelovedFreak17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to Picton, New South Wales. It seems to be an early example of some community-administrated movement and I think that is notable enough to not be deleted or simply redirected. I think a section of Picton should be set aside for it and on that page it may have a better chance of getting referenced. Chris (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
unreferenced article containing information that should just be in the station's parent article. I cannot see a reason to have a separate show directory like this. Peripitus(Talk)11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Was speedy deleteted 3 times previously as G11: Blatant advertising: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original creator of this article. It was basically a stub, was not promotional, and had solid citations. It was approved by the editor, Alpha Quadrantand subsequently cleaned-up by other diligent editors. My goal is to create a series of articles on alternative payment types . . . in my spare time as it were. This is an extremely relevent topic. Unfortunately, a lot of people (and anonymous or banned users) have taken liberties, added promotion, and deleted good citations . So, as a lone company, they may not be highly notable. But in the landscape of alternative payment types, Payoneer is notable and relevant. I believe the best course of action is to revert the article back to the version dated 22:01, 5 March 2011and police it better.
Meshatz (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is about this article that makes it blatant advertising. I just reread it and honestly don't feel it's misleading. Just the opposite, there are sections here that I would probably delete if I were to be promoting the company.
As for the sources, again, I'm not sure how it makes it worse. They are clearly newsworthy, and a search on Google shows over 300,000 mentions, which is by no means trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.204.32 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It feels mighty thin, and I'm half tempted to put a Delete here. But there is some coverage, if you include the terrorist thing - so I'll take some more time to look into this one. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in this article as "advertising" - it's describing the business model of the company and referencing work done in conjunction with other reputable companies. This article should be retained and linked to a broader article on electronic payment methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.9 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article and tried to make it sound more objective and less like a press release. I'm not sure deletion is the right way to go, maybe more editing could make it more informational and helpful to users of Wikipedia. Hhcaas— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhcaas (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for information about Payoneer following a press release, and could not find sufficient information about it, including in this article. Payoneer is a large company with millions of customers and users, and therefore article should definitely not be deleted, but rather updated and improved. I will do my best to help in this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michts (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the citations from the version dated 22:01, 5 March 2011 were from news sources. Most of the remaining PRs were from reliable third parties. The first 3 speedy deletes were warranted. The article in it's originally approved through 5 March 2011 form was not promotional.
Meshatz (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only see routine coverage here not something satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Most venture funds raises get a brief story like that in specialist venues. The mainstream media articles don't focus on this company; the coverage there is incidental. Those terrorists also used somebody else's prepaid cards. "In addition, police distributed a map showing the numbers of 17 credit cards allegedly obtained by the suspects from financial institutions in Germany, Britain and the U.S. state of Iowa." followed by "Dubai police tied MetaBank to another American company, Payoneer Inc., which provides prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank and other lenders. The role of the privately held company, which is based in New York and has a research and development center in Tel Aviv, was not immediately clear." This mention justifies an article? I don't think so. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually. The coverage in The New York Observer is quite substantial [52][53], and should be used to expand this article to cover the company's history and market share (Russia, etc.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only because of the mentions in the articles about the assassination (which are not only passing mentions, but very in-depth in several cases), but there is also sufficient coverage about the business itself (many start-ups that come through AfD would die to have this much coverage). Here are other links, I think none of them duplicates those already available [54][55][56][57][58][59][60] - frankie (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. At a recent AFD articles for each year's festival were deleted because they consisted of nothing beyond lists of the people who played each year. If playing the festival isn't notable enough for inclusion as a list then a sub-set of the musicians isn't either. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another of the spate of spinoff articles that were created about this festival. The festival is notable, but this list isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After much discussion at the article's talk page, it seems that there is a slight majority in favor of deletion. I request that commenters here and the closing admin please read the discussion that's already occurred on talk to avoid redundancy and for some technical background about the subject. Danger (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be useful as a disambiguation page, and as a list, it's really just a list of names with a partial name match. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't see the use for such a page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the term tristis was always used in conjunction with its preceding genus name, I'd agree with Whpq that this is a partial names match list, and would have about as much inclusion-worthiness as a list of town names ending in "-ton". Why I think it's different is that you often encounter specific epithets in isolation, with the species presumed by the author/speaker to be obvious based on the context. See examples given at Talk:Tristis. I'd argue for inclusion of pages like this one on the basis that it helps people who encounter terms like this in those kinds of situation, but aren't in on the secret of which species is being talked about, to narrow down their search. SP-KP (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But see also my comments above. This is a partial title match, but also a full match of a term used independently. SP-KP (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A specific epithet like this an adjective and is an intrinsic part of a name; it is not comparable with the a name like Robert. The epithet "tristis" is nonsensical to use by itself to refer to a species; it is like referring to New York City as just "New" or Long Island as just "Long". This "article" is still essentially an expanded disambiguation page and "tristis" (or any of the other specific epithets that keep cropping up as new disambig pages) are definitely partial title matches, which is the first thing mentioned in the list of "What not to include" in the Wikipedia Disambiguation guidelines, see WP:DABNOT. I have been unable to find any print sources where the specific epithet "tritis" is used by itself. As an article this would be like a list of towns that have the word "South" as part of their name. It is unencyclopedic. I agree strongly with User: Deor and the examples of previous AfDs he gives are extremely relevant here. Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-one would speak about "South", though, and expect other people to know which town they meant - which is why people don't do it. People do however speak about "tristis", or any number of other specific epithets without giving the genus, and do expect that people will know which taxon they're talking about from the context. It might be "wrong" to do this, but people still do it. I don't think I can give you a precise count of the number of conversations I've had with botanists, entomologists, bird people etc. where this has happened, but it must run into the hundreds. In many cases I knew which taxon was being referred to, but in others I had to check. SP-KP (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the reference to WP:DABNOT, is the respondent aware that all of the dab links have been removed and that the WP:PTM argument has been rendered moot? If respondent looks at the MOS:LAYOUT guideline, respondent will see that the "See also" section is for "related articles". Is anyone positing that binomial names that include the word tristis are not related to the topic tristis? Perhaps, but this is not something I want to guess. Regarding respondent's lack of success in finding stand-alone examples of tristis or triste, there are examples in the article. It didn't take a lot of time for me to find the examples I've reported in the article. Elliott Coues in particular appears to be a major figure in botanical names, the 1903 book I've referenced went to a fifth edition and is over 1900 pages long. The preface also gives insight into the stature of this individual. Page 393 has two examples of the stand-alone usage of tristis. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable small local business. Article is evidently written by someone connected to the school, seeking to promote it either tacitly or blatantly. Google turns up nothing that would indicate it meets notability standards for companies. No references establish notability - mostly generic links to Cessna and such. Yes, this is a new article (it's a contested speedy - the editor who removed the speedy has a contribution history going back only one week), but this one is pretty obvious, and I see nothing out there that would make this company clear the bar on notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a minor contributor to this article. (I found the FAA LID,as well as the references to the school by the FAA and in news stories)and I am a bit perplexed. As I believe was briefly touched on during the speedy deletion discussion, the School has as much claim (if not more so) to notability as Jack Browns Seaplane Base, which is another entry linked to Winter Haven's Gilbert Airport (namely the FAA LID) and indeed more references from the BBB, magazines etc. as well. I do not believe that the information, as written, is in any way promotional, but is in all honesty just a factual entry of where the school is, and what it does.Tygerstar (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Tygerstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The difference here appears to be the fact that the seaplane base is an actual public use landing/take-off facility, much like a standard airport, but a flight school is not. The info on the seaplane base is of use for flight planning, whereas a flight school is not (unless it operates its own airport, which this one doesn't). Frankly, I'm a little dubious of the notability of the seaplane base, but that one isn't my call. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think maybe I need some help here. It seems that I am being told that the FAA LID and the governement certificate authorizing the school to teach nonimmigrant aliens isn't enough to prove notability,and neither is the magazine article. I strongly believe that this is an encyclopedic entry, and would love some help then in figuring out what types of references WOULD make the organization notable. I've read the wiki entry on notability, and it seems to me that these items as already provided do contribute towards establishing Tailwheels Etc.'s notability.Tygerstar (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Government licensing only establishes that it authorised by the government to operate whatever it is licensed for. It can be used to verify existence, but isn't useful for establishing that a business meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A single magazine article (which by the way I cannot access as the magazine's website seems to be serving up java failures) is insufficient to establish notability. There needs to be multiple instances of significant coverage from independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking. And note that coverage from local media tend to be discounted when looking at establishing notability, especially for a business. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres and D. Perret-Gallix (1984), Amplification of fluxoids by metastable superconducting granules : proposal for an all-beta monopole detector, Proceedings of the Moriond Workshop on massive neutrinos in astrophysics and in particle physics, January 1984, scanned version at http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198402243
^Mark W. Goodman and Edward Witten (January 1985), Detectability of certain dark-matter candidates, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3059–3063
^Luis Gonzalez-Mestres (March 1990), Physics prospects with superheated superconducting granules detectors: Advantages and limitations, possible improvements and alternatives, Proceedings of the Moriond Workshop on Neutrinos and Exotic Phenomena, January 1990, scanned version at http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?200032735 , and references therein
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres and D. Perret-Gallix (August 1987), Dedicated Scintillating Crystal Detectors For Low-Energy Solar Neutrinos And Dark Matter, Proceedings of the Meeting on the Universe Hidden Mass and Dark Matter, Annecy July 1987
^J.P. Chaminade, A. Garcia, L. Gonzalez-Mestres, D. Perret-Gallix and B. Jacquier (March 1989), Dedicated Scintillating Crystals For Neutrino And Dark Matter Detection, Proceedings of the Moriond Workshop on Tests of Fundamental Laws in Nature, January 1989
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres and D. Perret-Gallix (August 1988), Detection Of Low-Energy Solar Neutrinos And Galactic Dark Matter With Crystal Scintillators, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A279, 382-387, 1989 , scanned version at http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198809032
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres (May 1999), The Luminescent Bolometer As a Dark Matter Detector, Proceedings of the 26th International Cosmic-Ray Conference, Utah August 1999, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9905042 , and references therein
^Rafael F. Lang and Wolfgang Seidel (June 2009), Search for Dark Matter with CRESST, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 105017, http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3290
^J. Amaré et al. (2006), Recent developments on scintillating bolometers for WIMP searches: ROSEBUD status., 9th International Conference on Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP 2005), Zaragoza, Spain, 10–14 September 2005, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 39, 133-135, 2006, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/39/1/029/jpconf6_39_029.pdf
^E. Armengau et al. (March 2009), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop "Radiopure Scintillators for EURECA" (RPScint'2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1539
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres and D. Perret-Gallix (June 1989), New Results On Detector Developments For Low-Energy Neutrinos And Dark Matter, Invited talk at Moriond Workshop The Quest for Fundamental Constants in Cosmology, scanned version at http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?200033910
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres (November 1991), Low temperature scintillation and particle detection, Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Low Temperature Detectors for Neutrinos and Dark Matter and Other Quanta (LTD 4), Oxford September 1991, scanned version at http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?200032222
^L. Gonzalez-Mestres (February 1992), The Ultimate solar neutrino detector: Simultaneous detection of light and phonons in a fast scintillator made of single crystals of an indium compound and cooled to very low temperature, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Theoretical and Phenomenological Aspects of Underground Physics, Toledo (Spain), september 1991, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.) 28A, 478-481, 1992
Done All 6 articles have AfD tags and their creators have been notified of this discussion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
