Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 20
< 19 October | 21 October > |
---|
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff
- Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability. coverage only merely confirms existence or covers namesakes who lived in different times. [1], [2]. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of a hand wave to WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN can you point out specifically what point it fails? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- lack of indepth coverage. coverage is very small and limited to mere verification of existence thus fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in particular. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not want to appear snarky, but do you actually read any of the sources? I am not getting that impression. If the New York Times headline is "Brinckerhoff, Bank President, Dies. Head of Merchants Bank. Rode the First Pony Express in This Country. Member of the Vigilance Committee In California Under Coleman in Pioneer Days". and you write "being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability. coverage only merely confirms existence" I am thinking that you are cutting and pasting your rationale into these AFDs without reading the article or reading the source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no inherent notability in holding the posts mentioned in the article. I am thinking that you are cutting and pasting your rationale into these AFDs regarding WP:GNG or that it's in NY times so must be notable (maybe we can call it the Norton Rule. articles can and have been deleted with multiple sources. regards LibStar (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are kept or deleted based on !voting no matter how well sourced or poorly sourced. That is the nature of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and not because they pass the more than one source rule or the Norton NY times rules. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are kept or deleted based on !voting no matter how well sourced or poorly sourced. That is the nature of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets every requirement for WP:GNG with an obituary in the New York Times as the reference in the article. "Being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability" but having in an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable. Out of the maybe 6,000 people that die each day in the USA the New York Times has an obituary for maybe 3 or 4. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
where is the notability criterion that states "an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable"? LibStar (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right here at WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- where is the notability criterion that states "an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable"? LibStar (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right here (cut and pasted again) at WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." If you do not think the New York Times is a reliable source then work to have it blacklisted from Wikipedia. The logical construct is:
- where is the notability criterion that states "an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable"? LibStar (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
B. The New York Times is a reliable-source and the obituaries provide significant-coverage
C. Therefore having an obituary in the New York Times makes you notable for inclusion in Wikipedia "for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." QED
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- so far the article merely confirms life details like birth, death, marriage and that he held a few posts. and source merely confirm these facts, not like there has been several indepth articles and books or chapters of books about him. coverage is lacking depth as per WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". so far only 2 sources confirm facts about him. but the usual it's in the NY Times so must be notable rule must apply! LibStar (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lesson in junior high school logic above, now a lesson in grammar school math: Two sources are multiple sources. Again for the third time: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no requirement for a book chapter in the definition, yet, he does have a chapter in a book. Once again, you have to actually read the source material. And clearly you have not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- do not insult me with statements like "junior high school logic" do you need to be condescending to those you disagree with. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that condescending? I took a course in logic in Junior High School and that is where I learned Boolean logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- great for Richard. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can have the New York Times blacklisted from Wikipedia because it is unreliable, then my logical construct would no longer be valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that condescending? I took a course in logic in Junior High School and that is where I learned Boolean logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again you are applying the Norton rule, an appearance in NY times does not guarantee automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources for someone who died a hundred years ago will inevitably be difficult to find. However the NYT obituary is a pretty solid sign of notability and there are at least two other books that discuss his life and work. Note that these are the sources that we get through a 30 seconds-long Google search so one has to assume that there are many more solid sources out there especially given his eventful life. (At the very least, there are primary sources confirming bits of content such as [3], [4] and sources whose coverage has less depth [5]) Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's always much more problematic for these articles on people who died some time ago, however I think that the NYT obit is enough to swing it for me. Paste Let’s have a chat. 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NY Times obit plus other sources is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sad to say, it appears the nominator did not investigate the subject fully. Hopefully they will block themselves for this disruptive nomination of this youtube star, i mean playboy model, oh i mean noted businessman who died 98 years ago with a million followers on twitter, oh i mean a full nytimes obit and other coverage. His business career is likely much more notable than his mayorship but we need not trifle over that since the subject is notable enough for coverage and the project is not improved by removing an article about Elbert Adrian Brinkeroff from existence.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow! I live in next-door Teaneck, and have been on Brinckerhoff Road in Englewood many times. Little did I know that he was not only mayor of that city but that he "delivered the first pony express package from San Francisco to Sacramento". Anyone with a claim of notability like that deserves a lot more notice, and the sources provided more than establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have never in the last 5 years not kept an article because of lack of notability when the was an NYTimes obit. Good reason: they are the accepted standard, and we just follow. I always find it amusing when we start saying we know better. The entire point of the GNG and RSs for notability is that we accept outside standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 25 October 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 (G3) Neutralitytalk 22:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harold Casely
- Harold Casely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This biography may or may not be a hoax, but, in any case, I can't find any third-party sources that mention this author. If "an author not known very well" means he is only on Wikipedia, then this article probably shouldn't exist, as it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Logan Talk Contributions 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HOAX, quite an endearing one, but no evidence that Harold ever existed beyond this article and its copies.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing verifiability in spectacular manner. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable, likely a hoax. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There doesn't seem to be any sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:30, 26 October 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 deleted (g11). The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now, the long-awaited... "THEORY OF EVERYTHING"
- And now, the long-awaited... "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The proposed deletion is contested by the article's creator. The ProD tag was removed here without explanation. This is patently a content fork of Theory of everything. It espouses a non-notable fringe theory, and supports a personal belief completely lacking in any citations. It does not appear to be purely original research as it appears to be an essay on a fringe theory invented by someone else. Even the title has the hallmarks of nonsense. Delete for all of those reasons. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Have to agree with Bearian despite the comments below - the book does not appear to be notable and the author only marginally so. I don't feel that the fact that he is mentioned in an article about cranks and in one book about fringe theories really qualifies him as notable. --Marjaliisa (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—non-notable book, as it is held in only 8 libraries world-wide according to worldcat. that's amazingly low for a 12 year old book. other editors investigating this may find the isbn useful. it is 978-0533126736.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I do not agree that this is a content fork of Theory of everything. This is an article about a book (ISBN 0-533-12673-8), which may or may not be notable. What I'd like to point out is that the book's author, Eugene Sittampalam, has received in-depth independent coverage in an April 2002 article on science cranks by Jennifer Kahn, entitled "Notes from a Parallel Universe", in Discover. That article is reprinted in: Oliver Sacks, ed. (2003). The Best American Science Writing 2003. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-093651-7. --Lambiam 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- good find; it didn't occur to me to search on the author, who in fact does appear to be notable. there's also this, which discusses him at some length:Margaret Wertheim. Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-0-8027-7873-4. Retrieved 20 October 2011..— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 42 (number)#In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.Unsure. I was inclined to agree with everything Bearian says, but then it turns out (as Lambiam and alf also found) that there is some real and detailed coverage of this author and his self-published book. See, for example: Jennifer Kahn, "Notes from Another Universe", Discover Magazine, April 2002 ("Eleven years ago Eugene Sittampalam was sitting in a hotel room on the Libyan coast when he stumbled, as if by fate, on the unified field theory of physics."); Margaret Wertheim, Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything, p.17 ("One of the most insistent works in my collection is a book titled simply Theory of Everything, by Eugene Sittampalam."). It's just possible that this is a notable piece of fringe science. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete — As per nom. Can't see how the book meets the notability criteria. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G11 - Self-promotion (note page creator's name) trying to sell more copies of a WP:FRINGE theory-promoting book. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:11, 21 October 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 Closing debate.. Article speedily deleted by User:NawlinWiki under criteria A7. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snap backs crew
- Snap backs crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable at all. HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 21:28, 20 October 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 delete. Already been speedy deleted by Fastily per G11 unambiguous promotion Davewild (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Knight of New Orleans
- The Knight of New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable (just published, not published yet at all in US), claims to be published in 2011, references awards from 2008 (different book!), almost all references are primary sources or PR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Matt Fullerty and Parkgate Press may merit similar consideration as primarily promotional, and written by the same accounts with similarly dubious sources. (Note: all the accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets [6]). 99.12.242.170 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. But Amazon does show it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - No coverage in reliable sources. The awards are not significant. And finally, the article is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was a mistake-I created this page too fast and it is too promotional and as a Wikipedia newbie, it went too far in the unsupported direction, though the reviews link to other notable authors, and the plot was written to fit with common plot descriptions on other Wikipedia pages. But it's far too long and excessive I admit. As Bubba73 shows the book is on Amazon worldwide, and also Barnes & Noble, but this does not make it spam: in fact, the book is widely distributed by Ingrams, the largest US distributor, and is in fact now published by Amazon worldwide in the US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Japan and China. I confess I am no Wiki-expert, though I've used Wikipedia for years and when I won a book award my page was created for me, in fact, which was pleasing. Yes I tried to edit it, and it was controlled by Wikipedia, but suddenly because I used two different accounts last night, all kinds of warnings banners at the top of pages (I tried to edit the pages and then removed the banners, in that order, mistakenly), and not understanding the system, I created two more accounts (you can check this but I think it's pretty clear--what you call sockpuppeting, but only because I thought one account was being punished by an automatic system, little did I know) to try and remove banners. Big mistake! Having used Wikipedia to add references to other pages, I thought it would qualify after reading the page The Brothers K by David James Duncan (which has similar detail, though not excessive). In general I didn't realize the extent of behind the scenes restructuring of Wikipedia and that deleting the banners repeatedly would incur multiple warnings which I didn't see until they had piled up and I couldn't even edit the page. I understand I have a right to appeal and I'd seek support for a major simplification of the page. Overall, having read so many posts on this subject and the 'trial' of pages associated with me, whether created by me or not, I now see Wikipedia is a place that you join with a desire to widely edit responsibly or not at all. I'd like the chance for the former--I am an editor by trade and it's a good challenge, and this is not a disingenuous plea. I'd therefore appeal the deletion and request editing this page to the basics, a short page, less promotional, with more brief references to other relevant pages, which I can also work to improve, following the seizure of my old account. P.S. I've received a lot of negative feedback for my error yesterday, some of it personal and somewhat surprising given the supposed anonymity. Due to my IP itself being blocked with a shorter space of time than my actual edits, even though I have an original account years old, I haven't been able to put my case until now. I am willing to help and merely start again with a new account, hence this one. Thanks. WorldEdit123 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't the place to discuss reinstatement of editing privileges, and opening yet another account after having four blocked isn't the way to go--you might want to consult the administrator who blocked you. Notwithstanding your explanation here, all three articles are blatantly promotional, and are severely source-challenged to prove importance or notability. An Amazon listing doesn't suffice, it merely substantiates that a book was published. The edit history shows a continuous removal of banners by each of the accounts, as well as a last-ditch effort to insert the book into another article--this was not a 'whoops, I didn't mean it', but a persistent attempt to circumvent encyclopedic process and guidelines in the interest of self-promotion. Perhaps an admin will see it otherwise, but the edit history and article contents are rather clear. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The issue of the article being spam / advertising is secondary to the issue of whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines in general, or specific guidelines for books. The advertising tone, excessive plot details, and reviews are all things that can dealt with through editting. The issue on the table with respect to article deletion is that the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, it's unclear to me in your statement above; are you saying you are the author of the book? In any case, if you have any sort of affiliation, you shoudl also be aware of conflict of interest guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken in both comments. User talk:99.12.242.17 comments on opening another account--as above, I opened another account in order to communicate which I couldn't do as my IP was blocked. But rather than edit with a new random IP, I thought it better to open an account in good faith. The articles do show a deletion of banners--in a short space of time last night--since I was editing the pages without understanding the banner policy. This is really the case--the book page was new but the Matt Fullerty page years old without this issue, so the banners were a new issue for me. Yes I tried to include the book in another article, but your 'whoops, I didn't mean it' is unfair since I was already editing that other page (Paul Morphy, where the novel appeared in 'Further Reading,' a reference that was there for years also before last night): I checked the page to see if the link had been deleted, and it was. So I put it back (it had been there for a long time prior). Yes, I was persistent because as I explained, I thought the automated system was reinstating banners (they pop back so quickly). What more can I say to the idea that the page has an advertising tone and the plot is detailed? I agree, but then I see a lot of long plot descriptions on Wikipedia for movies and books, and I was following their general lead (there is often little more to say, but I added reviews since aren't these relevant? They appear in the book, on the back cover, and they describe the book. In some ways they are better than a plot description which effectively acts as a spoiler. It's kind of tricky to write a description that isn't entirely plot (spoiler) and isn't entirely promotional (a judgement of the book's wider cultural interests or relevance). Anyway, I vow to improve and start editing other pages, even though I am new, if an admin would support my case based on reworking the page and the fact it has genuine cultural relevance in the chess community especially. Thanks!
- As for comment by Whpq, my affiliation to the book is from 2008 when the book award was given--seeing it published reminded me of it winning the award, so I edited the pages, and set up a book page. I believe it's a notable book as per guidelines for books for being award-winning and published worldwide in hardcover even if only published last month. The author has a UK agent (and the book is available from December in paperback, Kindle, nook and iPad). It also has a history as award-winning while still an unpublished novel from 2008-2010 under the name The Pride and the Sorrow (see Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award 2010 and William Wisdom--William Faulkner Creative Writing Competition 2008 (both of which have pages on Wikipedia). Based on these details, though admittedly it falls short of the Pulitzer (we can all agree on that), I'd ask for help to cut down and reference the page, what I was doing last night, but stupidly decided to use multiple account to try and get past what I thought were pesky 'bots. Can it be re-edited before a judgement is passed? I am reading on Wikipedia guidelines how blocking and deleting is not punitive, nor are unfamiliar users not given a chance to rectify an offense, given the short space of time in which the page was created and edited (within two hours). If someone is interested in chess or New Orleans, I'd love to see the page improved rather than cut--it does connect closely with chess, Paul Morphy and New Orleans, given it's a biographical historical novel. Thanks. 207.87.23.170 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "back of the book" quotes are bad, because you control them. It is well known that many publishers make them up! Even if they are entirely legit quotes, you wouldn't have put them on the book if they were negative, therefore they are not objective. If those quotes are also found in a magazine or newspaper somewhere, then they can be included in a "critical reception" area, but you would have to include any negative comments as well to make it NPOV If the awards are considered "major" then that would suffice for notability, but I will defer to the consensus on if those awards are major or not. being published, hardback or not, amazon or not, establishes nothing. I believe I have communicated that to you now several times. Many books/movies do have very detailed plot pages. Those are also usually very well known books/movies, and have a lot of influence on other works, references, critiques, etc to balance the additional detail. Its a percentage thing, not an amount thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Even assuming good faith, this is no longer about being a new editor, and whether or not the guidelines were properly understood. I find this exasperating for all the reasons previously explained, as well as for the continued propagation of accounts, all aimed at the same purpose: keeping articles about you and your book(s) on Wikipedia. Even if you hadn't been blocked, WP:COI is such an obvious issue here that it really would behoove you to let it go. The AFD processes afford the opportunity for objective editors to assess the articles on their merits; at the end of the process an administrator will decide whether to keep or delete. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 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 to Magic sand. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 11:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waterproof Sand
- Waterproof Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, essay, no significant references. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page. There is already a page on this topic in wikipedia. The article is titled Magic sand.Msruzicka (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Magic sand--Marjaliisa (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Magic sand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:04, 26 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elite TV
- Elite TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced non-notable dodgy TV channel. Very few actual articles link to it. Cloudbound (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to be any articles in GNews (or if there any, they're buried). Article is currently little more than an advert. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This has grown from a stub into an unreferenced article which does not even attempt to assert notability or provide verifiability for the list of names. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searches on just the channel's name return lots of irrelevant hits, as you might expect. "Elite TV" + "Sky" returns two relevant Gnews hits, one a press release, the other a WP:ROUTINE blurb on a porn news site. General search on same terms nets primary and other non-independent sales-related sources, social networking hits, routine listings, and trivial mentions. Cannot find anything useful to establish notability, and I can't see any reason to expect there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 27 October 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 speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miva Merchant
- Miva Merchant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company is real, but only references are PR, or 1st person. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I believe this article qualifies for WP:G11. Without the G11, this would be a Keep as the subject is notable. TechCrunch wrote an article covering the topic in 2008. Small Business Computing also wrote an article about the company. PCMag also published a piece about the company. Additionally, SFGate (The San Francisco Chronicle) also found one of their press releases important enough to republish in their newspaper. I'm aware it's a PR piece but it indicates that an independent and reliable source found them important. What they printed is irrelevant. A Google News Archive search produces 297 hits but over 90% of those are press releases. I went through page 10 to find the references above. There may be more (but there also may not be). OlYeller21Talktome 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- wow, thats dedication! I saw all the PR, and gave up :) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 20 October 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 delete g3, blatant hoax, and a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds Good (band)
- Sounds Good (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably hoax. Did google search, did not find any record of band or album name, if it truly had 34M album sales, would certainly find references. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 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. The article surely need a lot of work, but sources can be used for that. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Puerto Rican Drug War
- Puerto Rican Drug War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
almost no content, no references. Could be a legit topic if filled out. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. There are some good sources out there that could be used to build a solid article here. (i.e. [7]) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to 'keep the article and i will put more reasources Bolillorocks (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)bolillorocks[reply]
- Bolillorocks, to Keep an article, you put Keep not Don't Delete to make it easy to count scores. Check your spelling, punctuation and grammar as well please. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But just to be clear, it's not a "vote", and the decision is not based on the numbers of people supporting one position or another. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolillorocks, to Keep an article, you put Keep not Don't Delete to make it easy to count scores. Check your spelling, punctuation and grammar as well please. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i get it Bolillorocks (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)bolillorocks[reply]
- Keep - seems to be a notable topic with some good sources (though some work is needed on the writing). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:58, 21 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Hill (Jersey politician)
- Bob Hill (Jersey politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure subject is notable. The references linked do mention him, but only in passing, he is not the true subject of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've jumped in very quickly: I created this article only this afternoon and plan to do more work on it in the coming weeks. You say you are "not sure". Can you be more specific about your concerns? Hill has held national elected office in Jersey for 18 years. He is a local political figure who has received significant press coverage.Andrew Le Sueur (talk)
- As stated in the Jersey Evening Post of 20 October 2011, he is one of the two longest serving Deputies. Clearly a notable figure in Jersey politics; first stood for election as Deputy in a by-election in Trinity in 1992, and has been a key figure in many legislative changes since being elected in 1993 (BTW I am far from being one of his political supporters!) Man vyi (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly even though he has now lost his seat, he is historically significant in terms of the time in the States and propositions brought, and surely there is no policy for deleting politicians just because they have lost an election?
--TonyinJersey (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as there is clearly some notability here. We do have a policy about politicians who lose elections, but it refers to candidates who have never been elected. Since Mr. Hill has been elected for a significant period of time, and since coverage does not seem to be lacking, I think this one is a clear keep. We should firm up the references, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- change to keep based on the additional references, and the clarifications, I think he can be kept. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 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 to Human resource management. Consensus here is split rather evenly to either merge or redirect, so I'll redirect the article, and anything worth merging can be taken from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HRM models
- HRM models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD (by creator). Rationale was "Wikipedia is not a place for musings on HR models". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:OR. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a long list of items of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, but "a place for musings on HR models" is not on that list. So maybe it is, after all, a place for reporting on such musings if found in reliable sources. While the article can and should be improved, it appears that the topic is sufficiently notable. See, e.g.,
- Guvenc G. Alpander and Constant H. Botter (1981). "An integrated model of strategic human resource planning and utilization". Human Resource Planning. 1 (1): 189–203.
- D. E. Guest (1990). "Human resource management and the American dream". Journal of Management Studies. 27 (4): 377–397.
- Mike Noon (1992). "Chapter 2. HRM: A Map, Model or Theory?". In Paul Blyton and Peter Turnbull (ed.). Reassessing Human Resource Management. Sage. pp. 16–32. ISBN 0-8039-8698-X.
- Catherine Truss; et al. (January 1997). "Soft and Hard Models of Human Resource Management: a Reappraisal". Journal of Management Studies. 34 (1): 53–73.
- Karen Legge (1999). "Chapter 12. What is human resource management?". In Michael Poole (ed.). Human Resource Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Vol. 1. Routledge. pp. 209–245. ISBN 0-415-19336-2.
- Carol Gill (November 1999). "Use of Hard and Soft Models of HRM to illustrate the gap between Rhetoric and Reality in Workforce Management". Working Paper Series (WP 99/13). School of Management, RMIT University.
- Srinivas R. Kandula (2004). "Chapter 1. Models of Human Resource Management". Human Resource Management in Practice: With 300 Models, Techniques and Tools. Prentice-Hall of India. pp. 1–39. ISBN 81-203-2427-7.
- --Lambiam 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... WP:NOTAFORUM (point 1), WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would cover it; we aren't a publisher of original thought, nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a guide on different HR models. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article summarizes the information given in the sources it cites. How is this different from other articles, such as History of the Roman Empire, Autism spectrum, or Cauliflower? --Lambiam 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tone of this is rather different from the other three, as I'm sure you've noticed; the other three are descriptions akin to what I'd expect in an encyclopedia, whereas this reads like an "Intro to HR" manual ("The epitome of the soft model of human resource management is the creation of a strategic relationship between the employees and the organization" sounds like guidance, not description). That being said, I think Mangoe may be onto something below; I confess I don't know a huge amount about the subject, so I'll leave it to others to determine what's actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article summarizes the information given in the sources it cites. How is this different from other articles, such as History of the Roman Empire, Autism spectrum, or Cauliflower? --Lambiam 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... WP:NOTAFORUM (point 1), WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would cover it; we aren't a publisher of original thought, nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a guide on different HR models. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to human resource management for now. If this is important, well, the main article doesn't mention it at all, and this is not so long as to overload what is really a pretty short article. At any rate, the current article title is improper. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to human resource management. More than the title is infelicitous. We absolutely do not need another vague spinoff article about an extremely abstract and insubstantial side of business management. This is extremely unspecific:
- This model emphasize on the usage of the people working in the organization in the same manner as any other resources are used. It enunciates the concept that people should be hired cheaply and must be brewed and makes to work as fully as possible. The essence of the hard model approach is the synergy between the organizational strategies and human resource management.
- People are brewed? Like coffee? Or like beer?
- The theme of soft human resource management model is that people are intangible assets as this valuable resource can not be transacted in terms of selling and buying and their value is beyond the traditional financial codes.People working in the organization are treated in a unique manner as compare to the other resources in the organization.
- The current text also seems to have neutrality issues; it has warm fuzzies for the "soft" model and hard thornies for the "hard" one. Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and you'll find a link here directing you to a management-fad book or consultancy that will help you replace your "hard" approach with the "humanist" soft one. What else is an article about human resource management to be about, if not a description of the several approaches? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources cited by user:Lambiam, and then Merge into Human resource management. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then add a redirect to Human resource management. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is evidently notable. See, for example, Principles of human resource management, which is one of numerous sources which discuss HRM models and their division into hard and soft forms. Warden (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to human resource management: it looks already covered in that article which itself is not so long it needs content breaking out into a separate article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to human resource management or delete it. Just get rid of it. Articles that of interest to only people in that professions are of little interest to others.MiracleMat (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the references and, since the abbreviation is a reasonable search term, redirect. The text of the article is word for word exactly the same as the text in the corresponding sections of the main article, but some useful specific references were added. DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 25 October 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 all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Hungary 2006. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 East Europe MAX 2006
- K-1 East Europe MAX 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2006 in Auckland
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2006 in Las Vegas II
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2006 in Sapporo
here we go again. all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. mere qualifying events. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect all three to K-1 World MAX 2006 World Championship Final, which, quite frankly, has plenty of room to expand. The Steve 04:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all "K-1 World Grand Prix 2006..." articles into K-1 World Grand Prix 2006 only if the targetted article is notable; otherwise, delete. Merge K-1 East Europe MAX 2006 into K-1 World MAX 2006 World Championship Final. All above stand-alone articles describe subjects that may not interest casual, non-sports readers or be familiarized. --Gh87 (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. These are exhibitions and/or qualifying events only. Ghits show light WP:ROUTINE coverage only. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:24, 20 October 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 merge to History of As the World Turns. v/r - TP 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of As the World Turns
- History of As the World Turns (1956–1960) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- History of As the World Turns (1961–1965) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (1966–1970) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (1971–1975) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (1976–1980) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (2000–2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- History of As the World Turns (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above articles... They should either merge together or be deleted. Currently, they are a total mess: no citations, improper formatting (list or chart), bad external links, and trivia. The real-world perspective is either absent or seldom inserted; just fictional-based elements remain. Everything is possibly against WP:IINFO. --Gh87 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC) As the World Turns is a more concise, professional article than the above articles. I have recently found: some articles contradict the titles, such as the "1976-1980": I don't see anything written about the year 1976 or 1979; I see 1980-199?. --Gh87 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all All of this is plot synopsis. This is cruft. It does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Chain (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)(signing comment:Curb Chain (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete or possibly merge in condensed form, as they are currently rather bloated and crufty, as mentioned. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 19:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge them all together into a single article (but NOT on the As the World Turns article) Farine (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The series is long and complicated enough to have a split of this from the main article, but it would be clearer if the sections were all together. It's just a matter of arrangement actually, not deletion--even the nom said a merge was acceptable. Plot sections or even splits of long articles does not violate WP:NOT PLOT as long as the coverage of the work is not exclusively plot. This material might not belong in a conventional print encyclopedia , but Wikipedia-- if anyone has not realized it yet--is (and is intended to be) much more comprehensive than any conventional print encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 12:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletemerge per wp:PLOT. DGG argues that these articles contain more than plot and all of the material should be preserved. After looking at all the materials that are not pure PLOT are
- ) Family trees for the old decade articles
- ) a "scorecard", which is basically a plot overview per character for the 2008-2009 articles.
Either type of material is unsuited for a combined article (the family trees might be included as images, but the current formatting is extremely bad). As I do not see anything remotely like "discussing the reception and significance of notable works" in such a combined article I can only conclude it would violate wp:PLOT as well and deletion (or redirect to the main article) is required. Yoenit (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Guiding Light I have concluded that my original assesment of deletion per wp:PLOT was overly hasty. If there is a place in wikipedia for every single episode of Buffy or Star Trek there is a place for several year overviews of a series as important as this one. However, the current articles are not that overview, they are a collection of cruft. Some of the content could be merged to a combined article and if that becomes too long, split up again in sub-articles much like the existing one, each containing non-plot material such as show development, ratings and awards during that time period. I am aware this could also be done without merging first, but I believe done it this way will be the quicker path to a good set of articles who are useful for our readers Yoenit (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT.—Kww(talk) 12:25, 28 October 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 Delete - G7 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The River of the Lord: A Path Through Suffering
- The River of the Lord: A Path Through Suffering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just published, not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is a work of literature from an american born writer. it is published and currently on web sites and amazon.com all over the world. the author is on radio stations cover millions of people, on KDAZ tomorrow morning and on KBJS Nov 21. It is a powerful and although recently published, well received book and as amazon.com best seller in genre. For a Wikipedian to state that is is not notable would be, at this point, unrealistic as it is a fast selling well received book appropriate to the world as the times in the world call for books that give people comfort and hope are necessary and desired. Now, that this book is a rapid best seller with its author going on national radio and T.V. it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have informational documentation about the book and author. Not to do this would make Wikipedia an outdated source of encyclopedia information. I object to its deletion. Enderle67556 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The book is not notable until it is recieving non PR coverage. If it is truly a best seller, then those sources will be available shortly, and at THAT time, an article will be appropriate. Every book which is published is not notable. Every book that is for sale on amazon is not notable. Every book that a local radio station or tv station will let a guy get on and talk about for 5 minutes is not notable. It is not up to the editors to prove that a book is NOT notable. it is up to you, that want to keep it, to prove that it is. Find some newspaper or magazine articles, add the references. Or recreate the article when they are available. Radio interviews that havent happened yet do not count. The fact that you are aware of radio interviews that have not happened yet indicates that you are probably not an impartial editor on this subject, and are likely related to the author or companies involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. According to the links for Westbow Press, "WestBow Press was resurrected in 2009 to offer self-publishing services to aspiring authors," which makes this a self-published book. Dayewalker (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--not everyone wants a book published by publisher because you give up many publishing rights. those who can afford to self-publish choose this because you retain all publishing rights and royalties. Just because a book is self-published, in this day and time, does not mean it is lacking in any way. once a book is published, regardless who publishes it and it is on a national selling scale, then the author is no longer "aspiring" but rather published. Alloy4765 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- published vs self published is really not an issue. Its notability. You could 'normal'-publish a book and have it be not notable (although it is less likely, since the publisher wouldn't go through the expense if they didn't think it would become notable). Making something AVAILABLE for sale nationally does not mean it is actually SELLING nationally. It takes 5 min to get something self published on amazon, that cannot be the fair standard for inclusion as notable. Also, I have a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet for enderle, since you have no other contribs, and you created the author page within minutes of a different user making the page for the book. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay--i defer to Gaijin42 and will remove the page if i can. or agree to its deletion and will repost after the interviews and TV appearances and add the references.Enderle67556 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:49, 21 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Carlson
- Joshua Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A footballer with Victoria United of the Pacific Coast Soccer League in 2010. He is not on the 2011 roster. Unable to find if and where he is playing in 2011, but his name is common. Victoria United is an amateur team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played for a fully professional league. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no evidence that this footballer meets WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:12, 24 October 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 to Free World. There's consensus that this should not be a separate article, but not what to do with it. On that basis, I'm redirecting it for now; any useful material can be merged from the history or the redirect target changed on the basis of editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leader of the Free World
- Leader of the Free World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a pro-american page created on the basis of a newspaper. It has no importance and is actually a nuisance to be kept on wikipedia.: The reference has no link to anything in the article. I request immediate deletion. You cannot self categorise the leader of the free world to a country. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is no more than a defintion. As everyone is suggesting, WP is not a dictionary.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The references has no link to the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's true that the US president is called this, or especially was before the fall of the Soviet Union when the world was divided in the Communist and Free Worlds, even though there were varying degrees of freedom in the Free World and not total unfreedom in the Communist. Anyway this should be a section in President of the United States, not its own article, by "WP is not a dictionary." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed!DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge - it does not seem like it's enough for its own article, but certainly worth a mention in WP. Students will be looking for this phrase used by the parental units. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether, students will use it or not, as Kitfoxxe suggested, this can be in the President of the US page, its not worth mentioning as a separate page. As this is a biased POV.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just a definition of a term. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Page serves no purpose.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I propose deletion.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge while not notable in itself, I think it is both a valid subject and a valid search term. --Muhandes (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not mind to tell me how is it valid? Just because a group of people assumed it does not make it a legal or a valid or mathematical which can all be valid statements. Please give me a single prrof for this.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're using the wrong definition of "valid." He isn't talking about the mathematical or logical "valid," but the acceptable/relevant definition. See definitions 2 and 3 over at wiktionary:valid. Also, I don't understand why you are objecting to his proposal of "merge," since that's exactly what you are proposing in your reply to Bearian. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not talked about merge at all in my comments to bearian. I have simply said this article is not worth to be a single page in wikipedia. Your acceptable "valid" would seem your own POV, differing from mine. And without a single reference, these articles do not need to be in wikipedia.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not using the exact legal term, by valid I meant that it is valid encyclopedic material, i.e. something that can appear in an encyclopedia somewhere. That's not a POV matter - I base this on the prevalence of the term and on the abundance of reliable sources. Just click on that "news" link above to see a few dozen of them. President of the United States and Free World both seem like valid targets (and valid just means possible in this case). --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds are you saying those two terms seem like valid targets? the world is a not a puppet of USA nor is it being leaded by the USA.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The validity is based, of course, on the abundance of reliable sources saying so. I think you are missing the point here. There is no doubt that the term was used to describe the US the the President of the US, and little else. I think this fact merits a mention, even if only as an historical fact. That does not necessary mean I think the US/President are the leaders of the free world. Personally I may think the free world is the worship of god, and that god is the leader of the free world. But the term was historically used for describing something, and this is notable enough. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter if you think its notable enough nor does it matter whatever your personal opinions are. Just because you cite a single american published book does not mean anything. I can find you a lot of articles that are saying china is the leader of the world now so do we create an article defining 'the leader of the world' now? NO! Again, please know that "WP is not a dictionary." Your arguments are not provable neither are your references. No one should try to mis-conceptualize the world with this articleDBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The validity is based, of course, on the abundance of reliable sources saying so. I think you are missing the point here. There is no doubt that the term was used to describe the US the the President of the US, and little else. I think this fact merits a mention, even if only as an historical fact. That does not necessary mean I think the US/President are the leaders of the free world. Personally I may think the free world is the worship of god, and that god is the leader of the free world. But the term was historically used for describing something, and this is notable enough. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds are you saying those two terms seem like valid targets? the world is a not a puppet of USA nor is it being leaded by the USA.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not using the exact legal term, by valid I meant that it is valid encyclopedic material, i.e. something that can appear in an encyclopedia somewhere. That's not a POV matter - I base this on the prevalence of the term and on the abundance of reliable sources. Just click on that "news" link above to see a few dozen of them. President of the United States and Free World both seem like valid targets (and valid just means possible in this case). --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not mind to tell me how is it valid? Just because a group of people assumed it does not make it a legal or a valid or mathematical which can all be valid statements. Please give me a single prrof for this.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per others. Encyclopedic content which should be preserved, useful location for a redirect, but no indication that it is an encyclopedic subject in itself. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference has no link to anything in the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Free World. Although the page cites only one primary source, its concept is at least minimally notable and of social and historical (ergo encyclopedic) note. It is more than a dictionary definition; it is a (stubby) discussion of American Cold War rhetoric. The page itself is not pro-American; the concept it discusses is pro-American propaganda and an element of American exceptionalism. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference has no link to anything in the article.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
or Redirect (to President of the United States?)- Not really an article, but rather a definition, and violation of WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly why the article should be deleted.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A redirect to Free World would only delay the inevitable, because that article is also terrible, and a redirect to President of the United States would be inappropriate. I'm surprised that I can't find material on the history of this term, but without such material, the article should not exist. (As a side note, LOTFW sometimes refers to the president and sometimes to the USA.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I withdraw my earlier suggestion for a redirect. There does not appear to an appropriate place to which it can redirected. Deletion appears to be the only sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW a 30 second google books search yielded a source for that, which I added, and I'm sure many more can be found. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed. A single book cannot be referenced as such! There is no article that is agreed by all which says President of the United States is the leader of anything other than the country itself. This article is pro-american in every sense.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across that book in my five-minute Google Books search, but it's a) less about the term than one would hope, b) insofar as it is about the term, more about "Free World" than "leader of," and c) using the term to refer to the USA, not the President. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of the points above are valid, and it is clear that the article in its present state is inadequately sourced. But, as noted, it took me all of 5 minutes to find multiple books where the term is discussed at length. this one, for example. If one were to take a crack at re-writing this article, perhaps more focused on the country as the titular "leader", then this could be a viable article. Not enough to keep, as yet, but it is sourceable. Issues of bias raised by the nominator can be remedied through editing, and it is clear that the article has more basis than a single newspaper article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely, not enough to keep. And I have to add this article is highly misleading. Also, the page creator has not been involved in the discussion or the edits for a long time now.I still suggest delete.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The map is not the terrain. American Exceptionalism is a controversial Point Of View, and the use of the term "leader of the free world" to mean the US or its head of state probably shows bias. But discussion of the term can be neutral and unbiased. As an analogy, I don't like athlete's foot, but I have no dislike for the encyclopedia page about it. In fact, I find the discussion of prevention and treatment downright useful. Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 28 October 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (constabulary) 19:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy Salem
- Occupy Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There was a protest. Some people were warned not to camp somewhere, so they left, and then they returned. It is noticeable how much of this article is taken up by the machinery, the copying and pasting of templates, infoboxes, spurious links, etc--there clearly is nothing here of encyclopedic value. No arrests. No injuries. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Repeat. Infobox, see also, no arrests and injuries. A protest. The protesters were warned. Nothing useful to see here. HurricaneFan25 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. This one only seems to have local coverage, not quite enough for WP:GNG. —SW— spout 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with a redirect (though I do not see any content worth merging). Drmies (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is to keep the article--I'd love to expand it as soon as I have some free time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Topic's notability is established and passes WP:GNG, per the references in the article, including these additions I made:
- Collins, Timm (October 5, 2011.) "'Occupy Salem' hopes for changes in economic system." Statesman Journal.
- (October 11, 2011.) "'Occupy Salem' protest camp given extension." MSNBC.
- (October 11, 2011.) "Occupy Salem, Day 2." (Photos.) Statesman Journal.
- Lehman, Chris (October 12, 2011.) "Occupy Salem Movement Settles In For Long Haul." Oregon Public Broadcasting News.
- (October 14, 2011.) "Occupy Salem a peaceful demonstration, police say." KATU News.
- Keep per news coverage and references in the article, as well as Another Believer's expansion-to-come. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reader interest and availability of sources. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There is some media coverage, but will there ever be enough content to destub the article? If I could think of a valid merge target... till then, reluctant keep. Something happened there, and seems marginally notable. I do however support the other editors who think we may need to think about some reasonable merge option. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG. A future restructing of the 'Occupy' articles is likely but will require proper discussion and careful thought, in the meantime this is an article on an independently notable topic and capable of further expansion. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has adequate coverage. Dream Focus 21:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Drmies and Hurrican. Wikipedia is not news. - Haymaker (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of sufficient specific references. DGG ( talk ) 12:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on Northamerica1000's references. —EncMstr (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - a handful of wikipedians cannot deny notability and legitimacy to these protesters and their event. That it be distinct from the Occupy Wall Street movement is also important. A merger would dwarf the event. Besides, the US is federal GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:48, 26 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Spear
- Scott Spear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability indicated and it contains no third party sources to verify the information present. Ost (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable at all. A fictional company within a fictional series, with no real world cross over, no real world info in the article. Only used within the series for a select period of time - so it isn't even a prominent feature.RaintheOne BAM 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unreferenced and thus failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Ost. Schwede66 05:21, 26 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Man Shower
- Man Shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEO Alexandria (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Obvious and silly neologism. EEng (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTDIC, NEO, and probably MADEUP. Sorry for the VAGUEWAVE, but this seems like a clear case and my intent is to forestall re-listing for lack of consensus. Cnilep (talk) 07:57, 26 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Campbell (baseball)
- Scott Campbell (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sort of on the fence. He was the first New Zealander, but I'm not sure whether that's just an interesting tidbit or something that merits an article. He played for the New Zealand national team, but he never participated in any "international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" per WP:ATH. He's no longer with any teams. Alex (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Scott Campbell is most likely taking part in the 2013 World Baseball Classic as a member of the New Zealand national team.[8] Considering that baseball is no longer an Olympic sport, the WBC is the highest level of international competition. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per non-trivial coverage cited in the article that establishes GNG. Why did you nominate this? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep a very encyclopedic and accurate description, I see no guidelines violated, certainly long enough, just needs a few more citations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - All the inline sources cited in the article at the moment are specific to Scott Campbell rather than more generic sources that happen to mention him. At the moment he doesn't meet WP:BASEBALL/N but he doesn't have to if he meets WP:GNG, which he does. And given that the nominator nominator couldn't manage an unequivocal opinion on the matter, I'm not sure why it was nominated in the first place. Afaber012 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW keep - minor concerns like "being on the fence" should be discussed on article talk pages before dragging through AfD. This is a perfect example of disruption as outlined in the currently running RfC/U on the nominator's conduct and very clearly passes both WP:ATH and WP:GNG. — KV5 • Talk • 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn because tomorrow is the end of the world according to Harold Camping. Alex (talk) 00:03, 21 October 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. Potential merge/AfD in 2012. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shelby Ford
- Shelby Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball player who is no longer affiliated with any big league teams. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable.--Yankees10 20:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now... With the players that were in organizations in 2011, you need to wait to see if they get signed for 2012 before nominating for deletion. If they dont sign by the time the season starts then go ahead and nominate. Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now with a potential merge in the spring. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Spanneraol and Muboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 27 October 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. Notability established. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Gideon
- Ron Gideon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Has never held a major league job, so he fails WP:BASE/N. Most coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite.. that article is a mess... cant even figure out what its saying. But the guy is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Spanneraol. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Werner
- Louis Werner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Werner does not pass WP:CRIME, he is mentioned in the Lufthansa heist article. Vic49 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor character in the Lufthansa heist, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely not notable.Rogermx (talk) 16:55, 27 October 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 Soft redirect to Wiktionary. v/r - TP 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outreach
- Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this is a dictionary entry. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary: Though I think simply using {{Copy to Wiktionary}} would be simpler than an AfD. HurricaneFan25 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Copy to Wiktionary}} - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced, already in Wiktionary. Sandstein 06:34, 28 October 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 to List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes. Merging can be WP:BOLDly done from history The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Very Special Christmas With Beavis and Butt-head
- A Very Special Christmas With Beavis and Butt-head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable episode. Barely any content; instead it is comprised mostly of a list of artists who appear in the episode. Very little encyclopaedic content that fails to establish notability – Richard BB 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Beavis and Butt-head. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that it'd be more appropriate to merge it with List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes. – Richard BB 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes. Any content worth merging can be done from the history of the article, but there's nothing here that warrants a standalone article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:13, 28 October 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 to John Ringo#Paladin of Shadows Series. There's a clear consensus that the article in it's present form isn't substantial enough or presents notability enough as required by WP:NBOOKS to warrant it's own article, and redirecting to Ghost (John Ringo novel) is potentially troublesome as it is also nominated for deletion, so redirecting here is the logical outcome. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paladin of Shadows
- Paladin of Shadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not even remotely notable The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not claiming these books are good, at least from the review I read, but they are certainly notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(books) for criteria. A worldcat search shows copies in 600+ libraries, and google returns 100k+ hits for the phrase "paladin of shadows", the first several pages being exclusively about these books. A series by a well known science fiction author is certainly worthy of inclusion. Skip237 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be a bit more specific, by telling us where that review is and listing a few of those Google search hits that provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or otherwise demonstrate that this passes any of the points of WP:NBOOK. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is how I know these books[[9]], it became a minor internet meme. Also, from the history it looks like this article once had some substance before most of it was deleted.Skip237 (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that is a blog right? Not a reliable source at all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is how I know these books[[9]], it became a minor internet meme. Also, from the history it looks like this article once had some substance before most of it was deleted.Skip237 (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be a bit more specific, by telling us where that review is and listing a few of those Google search hits that provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or otherwise demonstrate that this passes any of the points of WP:NBOOK. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to John Ringo, which already covers the topic more completely. No prejudice against a sourced recreation with appropriate content, but what exists is a cover blurb with a bit of OR tacked on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect seems most appropriate, to either John Ringo or Ghost (John Ringo novel). htom (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Ghost (John Ringo novel) is also nominated for deletion. htom (talk) 22:59, 24 October 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Phantomsteve. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bookitout.com
- Bookitout.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the information was sourced from Bookitout.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0nique24 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 October 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. Davewild (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Au~eiku
- Au~eiku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CSD and Prod removed by author, procedural AfD. No sources to show any notability, cast is a number on non-notable actors. Author of article has had biographical article CSD'd earlier this morning. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - There are no sources available expect for a Facebook page. Period. Full stop. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources, blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Articles created by a SPA with a clear COI. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Line Media
- Blue Line Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously speedy deleted and then recreated. The article was then proded by another editor [10] and then deproded by an anon ip [11] without addressing the concern of, "No evidence of notability. The sources largely consist of pages barely mentioning Blue Line, not mentioning it, and promotional pages. The article is also promotional in tone, and perhaps qualifies for speedy deletion for that reason." My own research has been unable to turn up significant reliable source coverage, and has found mostly press releases, social media content, and passing mentions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about a commercial business (the company provides billboard, transit, mall, airport and other types of outdoor advertising) and makes no showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article. Article is about a company that is one of the United States Government's largest vendors in providing social change advertising. See previous versions of articles for outreach for veterans, flu prevention and the 2010 Census. DP 09:06, 21 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.194.6 (talk) — 76.173.194.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 21 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paux
- Paux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product. Most of the provided references do not seem to be about the product itself, although some may give minor passing mentions. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sabine Strasser (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)In most of the cases these mentions are not minor, they are the conclusion. The PAUX methode has become popular and a scientific impact. Next wednesday for example will be a talk about PAUX on the tcworld by the head of the department for the W3C office of Germany and Austria. Maybe we should add more references?[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about another Content Management System with an integrated semantic text database. Sounds like the software is some kind of melange between a database and a wiki. I looked through some of the "scientific references". One was a PDF made from a slideshow presentation that did not appear to mention the product. The ones with searchable text either had incidental mentions or none at all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 20 October 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. Notability established. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GeoArabia
- GeoArabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient evidence of notability. No sources except a listing which merely confirms its existence. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Journal is included in several selective major databases. According to the Journal Citation Reports it has the highest impact factor (2.026) of all journals in the category "Engineering, Petroleum" and in the much larger category ""Geosciences, Multidisciplinary" it still ranks in the upper third (48 out of 167). Meets WP:NJournals. I have added the foregoing IF and ranking info to the article (with ref). As an aside, it would be good if some more people could watchlist this because some (probably COI) editors are trying to insert some promotional language into the article. --Crusio (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Journal has over 300 hits in Google Scholar. It is continuously listed in this search engine when looking for the World's largest petroleum reservoirs, i.e. Kharaib, Shu'aiba, Khuff and Arab. The journal provides an important reference for petroleum-related research which is particularly important in times of shrinking hydrocarbon resources. --dr_geol
- Keep The JCR data is enough (and all journals in JCR are in Web of Science, which is in practice our principal criterion. . DGG ( talk ) 12:42, 25 October 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. Special mention to Vivekananda De for making a very well researched and thought out argument in favor of keep. v/r - TP 16:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shivarama Varambally
- Shivarama Varambally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Subject has almost no significant coverage in any reliable independent media. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject does have sufficient coverage to warrant an article in Wikipedia, including an article present in an Indian Magazine named India Today, [here]; a notable Indian news website, topnews, here], ; a the best selling newspaper in the world, The Times of India, here. He has also co-authored the following scientific research papers:
- Monocyte abnormality in catatonia: revisiting the immune theory of catatonia
- Research Gate Profile: Shivarama Varambally
- PubMed.gov search of S Varambally
Xyn1 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read WP:PROF. Having published scientific papers does nto establish notability: all academics publish, what is important is whether they have made an impact on the field. Regarding the news sources that you show, these are only in-passing mentions of this person, but not in-depth coverage. Note that two of these articles are, in fact, identical. --Crusio (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Truly speaking I am in two minds because this does fail WP:PROF but it passes WP:OUTCOMES.WP says "Generally, tenured professors tend to be kept, while assistant professors without major awards are deleted".This person is without awards but is a tenured professor according to this.But I strongly suggest removal of facebook profile as a source. With the amount of research behind him and also adding to the fact that he is the professor in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore which is a india-famous institute, I think this article should get the benefit of doubt atleast for now. Vivekananda De--tAlK 15:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Varambally is an associate professor according to the link given by Vivekananda De, and not "the" professor there, but one of several. There are several people with the same last name and first initial in the Web of Science, but in the narrower area of neuroscience/mental health, there are very few publications listed with citation counts 12-3-2-0-0-0 (h-index of 2). Too early. --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes its true that this person is only a associate professor in the institute.But as I have said earlier tenured professors are generally kept and he is not an assistant prof.I really didn't get the argument of "the" professor.An institution generally has many prof and one head of dept.We cannot comprehensively say that the head of dept. or "the professor" is the only person capable of doing scholarly work and thus eligible for articles in WP. Some times we do ignore all rules. Its just that this person is a part of famous institution and his research is in the commendable area that I am inclined to protect this article or else I would have given a delete.Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misinterpreting WP:PROF. Tenured professors are not "generally kept". Not even heads of departments are automatically notable. Associate professors (whether tenured or not) are, in fact, rarely kept. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies if it seems that I am "misinterpreting WP:PROF".But I still believe that this article should be kept with regards to WP:OUTCOMES and not WP:PROF because I have already said that this article fails WP:PROF.Sometimes we should bend rules. One thing that I would request you to do is to check this[12].I had nominated another article for similar reasons and I think your comments might be useful to it. Vivekananda De--tAlK 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Outcomes" is an essay, but "PROF" is a guideline and therefore supersedes. All "Outcomes" does is inform us that generally speaking, tenured professors are being kept under "PROF", but it is still PROF that applies. Hope this clarifies. --Crusio (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per References, Meets minimum for a stub article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF.Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete He's just as notable as about 80% of the rest of the doctors in the world. Totally fails WP:PROF. Trusilver 21:46, 20 October 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 keep; nomination withdrawn per [13] and [14] and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potkrš
- Potkrš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply existing doesn't make a place notable . No indication of notability Gnevin (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and reconsider. You are very much mistaken. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The village exists.. And a very attractive one.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Gnevin isn't saying that this village doesn't exist or isn't lovely, just that existing doesn't automatically make a location notable. I also recommend against editing the submitter's reason for deletion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that you have the right to edit Gnevin's reason for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Ah, sorry Gnevin- I thought that this guy was altering your rfd. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Withdrawn per sources found in El Mundo Deportivo and El Pais. (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eugenio Bustingorri
- Eugenio Bustingorri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not find significant coverage of this specific player in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Small text
- Keep—He appears to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, including playing for Atlético Madrid, the national team, and in the UEFA cup competition. I had difficulty examining sources because they are not in English, but they seem to support the article content.[15][16] Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG, subject should have significant coverage in reliable sources. Those links are all trivial coverage only. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, article that needs to be improved, but the subject clearly passes WP:NSOCCER criteria 1 and 2.--Cavarrone (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NSPORTS, "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." This article does not meet the WP:GNG. If you have sources which prove it does, please share them. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The BDFutbol link posted by RJH is a not trivial, reliable, indipendent secondary source for the career of the subject. Here you can find a lot more.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about it makes you think it is anything but trivial? It's database entries. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the guideline: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."--Cavarrone (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - clearly notable player.--EchetusXe 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources provided now, WWW.BDFUTBOL.COM keeps getting better by the day, now it has match-by-match details. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:GNG. The BDFutbol.com source appears to be a database entry for the person, which is hardly significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources:
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1986/10/08/pagina-13/1152411/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1987/08/27/pagina-73/1151984/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1989/07/23/pagina-22/1204798/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1990/04/07/pagina-18/1210891/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1990/07/31/pagina-16/1213539/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1993/04/04/pagina-14/1473141/pdf.html
Mejor futbolista 1987–1988
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1988/09/15/pagina-18/1175691/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1988/09/19/pagina-88/1182202/pdf.html
Mejor futbolista 1990–1991
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1991/06/23/pagina-24/1243292/pdf.html
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1991/06/14/pagina-64/1243596/pdf.html
Mega60 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely looks reliable, though most appear to be only trivial coverage. The first one is an interview, and this is the definition of trivial coverage. Even so, for the purposes of notability this counts as only a single source since it comes from the same newspaper. The WP:GNG requires multiple sources, and more than two depending on the circumstances. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://futboltotaldanicruz.blogspot.com/2010/11/te-acuerdas-de-bustingorri.html
No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver → There is so blind as those who will not see. I am sorry! Mega60 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne Horowitz
- Wayne Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. Concern was "Fails the professor test. The referencing has expanded since the PROD tag was added. However, the only source that asserts a claim to notability ("an authority on cuneiform texts", as stated here) fails in not being independent of the subject. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concern was "Fails the professor test. That criticism seems unlikely as the author of the text surely isn't W.HorowitzDrift chambers (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
probably meets criteria from 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution'or major academic society.Drift chambers (talk) 3:14 pm, Today (UTC+1) as shown from http://www.afhu.org/law/first-israel-cuneiform-tablet-uncovered-parallels-code-hammurabi is ...Prof. Wayne Horowitz of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology...Drift chambers (talk) 3:22 pm, Today (UTC+1)
- Comment Please read WP:PROF and its footnotes. Being professor at a major academic institution is not what is meant with "elected or appointed at the highest level". Similarly, a faculty page (including one for a visiting fellow) is not independent. It can be used to source uncontroversial information, it does not enter into any consideration of notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- although mentioned in the 5th sentence from the head of WP:PROF - ....conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. & (9th &10th sentence)This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant >Concern was "Fails the professor test. (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC) |Drift chambers (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you arguing that this person is notable under another guideline than WP:PROF? --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N>Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" > ...http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Cuneiform_tablet_uncovered_Hazor_26-Jul-2010.htm (please goto: page title & 4th paragraph in text column)Drift chambers (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you're poviding this URL as evidence of notability. If that is the case, though, I note that the source merely indicates that Mr Horowitz is the head translator of the cuneiform document. However, leading a translation team is not, in itself, cause for inclusion. ClaretAsh 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.Instruction creep from 2.(Notability in English Wikipedia:Criteria;rules) located these at 17:24 Drift chambers (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References for 1. are [17] & [18]Drift chambers (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are attemping to say. Perhaps you could rephrase your words. ClaretAsh 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One book with 116 cites in GS and a long tail, h-index of 7. Meets WP:Prof#C1 in low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep I agree with Xxanthippe that the book with the cites and the review of it is sufficient to show him an expert. Together with the other publications, it comes near meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. Additionally, although it is true that we do not formally regard holding a professorship at even the highest level research university necessarily notable, in practice almost nobody with such a rank in a university of the quality of Hebrew University has been deleted in recent years. The appointment at that level is not made at such universities except to authorities in their field, on the basis of their writing and multiple external references. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 25 October 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 Procedural close as article was merged. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (shout) 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Homelessness from natural disasters
- Homelessness from natural disasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not certain this topic merits a page of its own. I could see Response to natural disasters being a suitable subject, but what we have here is not much more than a statement of the obvious with a few stats thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - posthate. No real content, a "no, really?" first line and a second paragraph that smells strongly to me of WP:SOAP. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worked with Guerillero a lot, SOAP is not his style. I'm not sure what the story with this is; as it stands it isn't much of an article, however being from a place where natural disasters strike, I can say that there is a viable article with this name, just not this article in this form. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a project I worked on for a day and lost interest. I was, at the time, trying to plug many of the holes wikipedia has in the topic of homelessness. The topic is notable. It is a major cause of homelessness worldwide. After every disaster you hear about the number of people left homeless. I will also admit the the article is shit. I think I put only a few minutes into it. I would userfy it myself but I doubt that I will feel the urge to turn it into a real stub. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worked with Guerillero a lot, SOAP is not his style. I'm not sure what the story with this is; as it stands it isn't much of an article, however being from a place where natural disasters strike, I can say that there is a viable article with this name, just not this article in this form. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While the subject may have a stand alone notability, eventually, in the current state I suggest merge to Homelessness. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is really a one-fact article. That fact should be included in Homelessness and Natural disaster. It doesn't need its own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged the two articles together. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close needed (creator merged the article as suggested, nothing left to discuss). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:09, 21 October 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. Clearly consensus is that this is notable at the moment. WP:CCC. obviously. Black Kite (t) 01:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Ohio exotic animal release
- 2011 Ohio exotic animal release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS and no lasting notability. Too may WP articles that should be at wikinews. Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- WP:CRYSTAL cuts both ways, it's too early to declare "no lasting notability". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Technically, it was not an "escape" - the animals were intentionally let loose. But in any event, it was an isolated freakish incident with no long-lasting historic encyclopedic value. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Muskingum County Animal Farm
Delete for right now. Like AAD said, this is one isolated incident and so far doesn't have any real reason to be kept. WP:CRYSTAL does go both ways, but the hubbub from this is generally over. I'm pretty much grasping at straws for reasons to keep this article. So far the only way this would warrant a mention is if it inspired a law of some sort or a group movement.It would be best to merge this to MCAF, the site that all of this took place. As others have stated, either article would be a stub individually. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:EVENT. There appears to be potential lasting effects, as there are some references that discuss what laws would work better. In terms of geographical scope, there was international coverage; I see references from BBC News and The Guardian. The coverage is in-depth and explores different angles of the incident. As for duration, it is still too early to tell, but as I mentioned with possible legal responses, the incident will be referred to. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is *not* a routine news item. This is an unusual event that has international attention. The event highlights a contentious issue, and may lead to legislation (lasting effect). Kingturtle = (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Erik said, this (at least now) falls within notability guidelines for current events. This may not be the case in the future, but we should have that discussion then, after it's more clear. Pleiotrope (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The event is new, once the ohio police release further information, this can be expanded into a proper article.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to pass WP:EVENT and not to fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the sheer number of endangered species killed in the incident, there is obvious conservation value to this story.Nightw 19:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Merge into Muskingum County Animal Farm. This is basically two articles on the same thing, the one in question just happens to have a terrible name. I dare say this will be the eventual outcome even if this is officially closed as a keep. Nightw 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An unusual event, which apparently resulted in a mass killing of Bengal tigers. Not a "routine news item." Revisit in 6 months when we know more of the longevity of coverage beyond the news cycle. Edison (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not a routine event, and it seems to pass the General Notability Guidelines. It's already received in-depth coverage, and notability is not temporary. Certainly the impact of this event has not been fully realized, so I agree that we revisit in 6 months after the stub has been fleshed out. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an unusual event. something more then an ordinary news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly not routine news. Largest escape/release of animals like this ever. Aren't some of those animals endangered species that they decided they had to kill? Dream Focus 21:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is the type of article that is really useful for Wikipedia. It is not normal run of the mill news such a house fire or a traffic jam, but rather an event that people will look back years from now as an unusual and freakish accident. It's documentation of these types of articles that make Wikipedia so facinating.Deathawk (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Are you serious? This was a little blurb in the news. The animals got loose, they were captured, end of story. Unless one of the lions went on to eat someone interesting, this really doesn't go beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Trusilver 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYou have displayed your lack of credibility. If you had read the article, or any of the news stories cited, you would know that the animals were killed, including many bengal tigers, an endangered species. Only7 out of 56 exotic animals were captured. Edison (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the basis of coverage such as this [19], it looks like the coverage is fairly in depth. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I sure someone out there can muster up a good article in a month or so.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOW and this even came up in class on Wednesday! --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, as Muskingum County Animal Farm is independently notable, thanks to the owner's appearances on TV, and providing animals to photoshoots with supermodels. The escape is notable, but can be adequately covered at the other article. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There has been significant coverage; the incident sparked reactions from the American Humane Society; the incident sparked calls on Ohio to revamp weak laws. This is notable. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep A notable fact, the news has been reported by newspapers also in Italy.User:Lucifero4
- Keep 1) This is exactly the sort of event people will remember in 30 years. 2) If I do the math correctly, over 1% of all Bengal Tigers in the world have been wiped out in this one incident. Certainly noteworthy from a conservation standpoint. 3) There is talk of legal reform in Ohio based on this incident. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changing to keep based on the conservation effects and fact that laws will be enacted/changed on account of this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable in that it may lead to changes in the law about the keeping of exotic animals by private citizens. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Zanesville, Ohio, where this event is covered in perfectly sufficient detail, or to Muskingum County Animal Farm. The event is indisputably notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs its own article; we certainly don't need the same (or very similar) content in three separate articles when one will suffice. Robofish (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - It may be notable, but it's never going to be more than a stub. I think it would be better to make it a section in the Muskingum County Animal Farm (which is also not likely to be more than a stub without this), and make one start class article instead of two stubs. Don Lammers (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Zanesville, Ohio for now, per Robofish. --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. CallawayRox (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and snow. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 26 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ESL (investment company)
- ESL (investment company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm thinking this company is some kind of a fake. Yes, there are references, but let's examine those references. The company's website, http://www.esltrader.com/, does not come up. They received an award from the "International Stock Exchange Commission", but "International Stock Exchange Commission" comes up with zero Google news hits and only three hits altogether if you filter out "ESL" and Wikipedia and its own website, and two of those are word for word the same. [20]. A search for "eShares Magazine" only comes up with two hits [21]. I'm not sure how reliable Small Business Guide is, except it reads like a Wiki. The Business Week link only says that it exists. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation: The website http://www.esltrader.com comes up for me, if a bit slowly. It is, however, rather thin in terms of data. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It finally came up for me, after the fourth attempt. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further research reveals that the BusinessWeek link is for ESL Investments, an entirely different company altogether. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And searches for "Quinox Systems" came up with this page [22], which discusses scams involved. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I often wonder if some of these business articles may be hoaxes inserted to lend credibility to various schemes; there have been articles on alleged banks that turned out to be unverifiable other than by websites illustrated with stock ad photos, and who knows what sort of mischief might have been afoot there. Hoax or not, this is all the more reason to insist on significant effects on history, technology, or culture for any article on a commercial business; and the collection of petty trade awards and Top 10 lists offered as evidence of notability here fails to meet that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete whois shows that this domain name is registered by Domains By Proxy, which raises a number of red flags to me right away. The same goes for the website of the "International Stock Exchange Commission". Also, after googling Quinox Systems, I came up with this link http://www.qohel.com/2011/03/02/jbc-global-and-cfs-live-stock-share-trading-scams/ where a number of comments indicate that ESL is some kind of scam. I was just going to make this a comment, but the last link makes me change this to delete. (Oops, I see Mark has already referenced this link...)--Marjaliisa (talk) 01:30, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGSV 1st X1 Soccer 2011/Ladder Previous Rounds
- AGSV 1st X1 Soccer 2011/Ladder Previous Rounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:NFOOTY. The results of a local boys' competition, not a professional event. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - whatever happens to the "main" article, a whole separate article showing the standings after each game is absolutely not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The main article isn't notable, so this certainly isn't either. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 09:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe there should be a page on the overview of the whole sports cup thing they do based on all sports, its not clever to make a page just about soccer and not the other sports. Ray-Rays 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGSV 1st XI Soccer 2011
- AGSV 1st XI Soccer 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:NFOOTY. The season result of a boys' competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable junior comp with no coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable kids competition. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 09:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. This article is a waste of space. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 24 October 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. Consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles William Floyd Coffin
- Charles William Floyd Coffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. being a mayor of a small town does not guarantee notability. both gnews and gbooks have very little coverage of him. [23]. [24]. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a classic strawman argument, he has an obituary in the New York Times as a mayor and a businessman and a full biography in "Prominent Families of New Jersey" which are the references already in use in the article. And of course by searching under a single variation of his name you can guarantee that you will only find a fraction of his references. This search finds variations of his name and listings as "Mayor Floyd Coffin" and "C.W. Floyd Coffin". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- most of those WP:GOOGLEHITS are merely small passing mentions. Not enough indepth coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two are needed to satisfy Wikipedia rules. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- nice try Richard, I've seen many an article deleted with 2 even 5 sources. 49 ghits don't mean anything. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two are needed to satisfy Wikipedia rules. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anecdotes are fun, but as you know they have no bearing on this debate. I have seen articles kept with not a single reference in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice try again Richard, I can strongly dispute your claim and refer to several AfDs where articles were deleted with more than one source: [25], [26], [27]. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument seems to be akin to saying that since some past presidents of the United States have been impeached the current president should be impeached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, that is not my argument. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An obituary and a bio book listing (Prominent families of X" books are often basically vanity press) do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What point specifically does it fail in the WP:GNG? It reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The vanity "prominent families" compilation is neither reliable nor independent. It is like the Goodspeed bio compendia. People submitted their autobiographies, and were then likely to buy a copy of the book. Edison (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... but the evidence of this assertion is? Looking at that book's editor, I find a published author who appears to be an historian with an interest in geneological publications[28][29] and who, among other things, has multiple publications about New Jersey and its history.[30] Of course, if someone wishes to feel that this historian/editor is offering unvetted or false information, such feeling does not discount the coverage of Charles William Floyd Coffin found widely in reliable media sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you heard "do not judge a book by its cover"? The same can be said of judging by title. I see no evidence that this book is unreliable or was a "pay to play" publication. The editor was a Princeton University professor of history, who succeeded Woodrow Wilson to that position. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... but the evidence of this assertion is? Looking at that book's editor, I find a published author who appears to be an historian with an interest in geneological publications[28][29] and who, among other things, has multiple publications about New Jersey and its history.[30] Of course, if someone wishes to feel that this historian/editor is offering unvetted or false information, such feeling does not discount the coverage of Charles William Floyd Coffin found widely in reliable media sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The vanity "prominent families" compilation is neither reliable nor independent. It is like the Goodspeed bio compendia. People submitted their autobiographies, and were then likely to buy a copy of the book. Edison (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What point specifically does it fail in the WP:GNG? It reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep We look to GNG to see if WP:N is met, as the GNG determines if SIGCOV suports notability. If a topic were to fail SIGCOV, we'd then look to see if one of the SNGs might be used to determine a verifiable notability in the absence of SIGCOV. As parts of WP:N, SNG and GNG work in concert and are not mutually exclusive, and one does not "trump" the other. But as we do have a meeting of SIGCOV, we do not need to decide if an SNG is failed in default. In any proper article contaning details of a person's life, such information is required for depth and in context to that life. He was more than just "a" Mayor. He was also chairman of the board of Franklin Balmar of Baltimore, Maryland. And despite editors (including myself) initialy feeling "so what?", what we have through the GNG is THE major east coast newspaper deciding that aspects of his life were worthy of discussion and commentary... and not "just" in obits, as he had ongoing coverage over many years, and for many different things.[31] And so while any one item night not itself jump up as being earth-shattering, we look at a person's entire life, see how and why it has been coverered in reliable sources, and read the instructions of the GNG to see if a lifetime of achivements has been found in enough reliable sources and over a long reliable sources to be "worthy enough of notice" in news and book sources.[32] Seperating ourselves from a wish to have articles only on film stars and athlete who proclivities splash across headlines, we can consider that Prominent Families of New Jersey decided that he was notable enough to include in great deatail, and decide if his being considered notable to the 8 million of New Jesey for his contributions to that state and its's history, is good enough for a small article on Wikipedia. Rather than toss a small decent article because he is not "the most notable"... we need look to depth of coverage to determine that he is perhaps "just notable enough". I live in a small town in California, but still somewhat bigger than Englewood, New Jersey. And if there were an article about any of my town's past Mayors, I'd be disposed to say non-notable as a mater of course. But if that mayor had years of coverage in multiple reliable sources and multiple books, I'd have to re-think my automatic reaction, and consider that he might be "just" notable enough. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – this is not even slightly controversial. Occuli (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the individual, including a lengthy obituary in The New York Times, are all strong indicators of notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have always accepted an editorial NY Times obituary as definitive evidence of notability, at least for 20th and 21st century. I can't recall in the last 4 or 5 years that we have ever deleted an article with such an obit. And its reasonable that we should: their selectivity is a better judge of notability than we can do ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 25 October 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 delete. A10 - see the AfD directly below this in the log. The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12th Man Towel
- 12th Man Towel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not signify importance Touch Of Light (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Criterion A10. See History of the Texas A&M 12th Man Towel. →Στc. 04:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As that article is up for speedy as A7, speedying this as A10 would be...awkward...just noticed the other article is at AfD below. In tht case A10 here does make sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 20 October 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. If anybody wants to try to merge, let me know and I'll restore it for attribution, but I don't see anything worth merging here myself. The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of the Texas A&M 12th Man Towel
- History of the Texas A&M 12th Man Towel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references, unsure if hoax. Touch Of Light (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Criterion A7. Article seems to be about a student organisation that sells towels. No indication of significance or importance. →Στc. 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably not a hoax; Texas A&M does spin towels at football games but I don't really want to investigate it further at the moment. Falcon8765 (TALK) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was created to describe the efforts of the student body at Texas A&M to support the 12th Man tradition and the Aggie Athletics. Many times, questions are asked of how the towel tradition began and this article provides background. The article is very fitting and carries significance to the Aggie Student Body ColAggie (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 12th man is a well-known tradition at A&M and the towels are real. BUT this is already sufficiently covered at 12th man (football)#Texas A&M tradition and at Traditions of Texas A&M University#12th man; at the latter article, in fact, we find much of the same text that is contained at History of the Texas A&M 12th Man Towel and at 12th Man Towel. In all of these places it is bereft of citations to reliable sources. There's no need for all these duplicates. Maybe 12th Man Towel is a reasonable search term so I wouldn't oppose a redirect but otherwise I see no reason why History of the Texas A&M 12th Man Towel and its doppelganger 12th Man Towel should not be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It may be amusing to the college students in the article, but it has no value here. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge with Traditions of Texas A&M University#12th man. Don't really think it warrants a separate article. Falcon8765 (TALK) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources provided. If found, integrate into another article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per Falcon8765 above. This is unsourced as it sits but may contain a tidbit or three worth saving. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no encyclopedic value. Hairhorn (talk) 02:10, 25 October 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 delete. Spam Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sexlog
- Sexlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Written like an advertisement (in Spanish) for a company. Touch Of Light (talk) 03:13, 20 October 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. Davewild (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Christiansen
- Rich Christiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His previous book wasn't notable and despite his next book being published through a more reputable publisher, there is no way of knowing if that book will make him notable. (See WP:CRYSTAL) I think that the article's creator (whomever he may be IRL) jumped the gun because at this time the author is not notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neither assertion nor evidence of notability. (There's a long history of what are clearly COI and may be autobiographical edits by an s.p.a. attempting to publicize this person and his book; but that in and of itself is not an argument for deletion.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:28, 26 October 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Holiday
- Mark Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam/vanity bio of subject of dubious notability. The tone of the article is of huge concern. There is a complete lack of reliable independent sourcing – all seem to be self-published. Check out the contributions of the main contributor, a SPA who also introduced spam links for this article.Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable music producer. Plenty of "references" are provided but not a single one is a reliable, independent source. As for the SPA's other articles, perhaps others should be deleted as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not sure I have ever so many meaningless references. Ridernyc (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've already done re-editing that page, upgrading it with more independent sources. Please let me know what changes have to be made to keep that page, because I got all necessary information regarding Trendsetter's music and his current deals. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicmusicprofessor (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say it's still a long way short. Please check out WP:V and WP:RS and review the citations in that context, particularly the rather extensive use of personal blogs and Twitter feeds. Please also note that, per WP:BIO, trivial mentions cannot be used to establish notability. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:24, 27 October 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 delete per multiple reasons voiced on this page (WP:CSD G3/A7). Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Continental Queen
- Miss Continental Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-existent pageant, almost certainly a hoax. Web searches come up with a different pageant which is certainly not this one. User who created it also seems to have fantasies of being a famous beauty queen. GrayFullbuster (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I still maintain this should be speedy deleted under A7, since a beauty pageant is an organization that runs the contest itself. Nevertheless, no sources to demonstrate that this pageant exists, let alone meets general notability, very likely a hoax or so non-notable as to have generated no coverage. Sparthorse (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried having it Speedy deleted under WP:CSD G3, but the admins apparently doesn't think it's a hoax. GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw. I'd tried A7 previously. Sometimes its worth applying WP:IAR if you don't think the exact letter of the rules applies, but not everyone agrees, unfortunately. Thanks for taking the time to bring this to AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried having it Speedy deleted under WP:CSD G3, but the admins apparently doesn't think it's a hoax. GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Hoax - William 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Only Google hits appear to be about another organization. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Obvious hoax is obvious. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 25 October 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 Nomination withdrawn as heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey
- Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lists of people are appropriate to create when almost all entries are notable ie have a WP article. otherwise we would be creating articles of list of non notable Mayors for every small town on the planet. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have articles Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky, Mayor of Boonton, New Jersey, Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, ... . I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not supposed to be an argument, but there is nothing making the office of Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey, any less notable than these other mayorships. So should all these articles be deleted? If you look at the Mayors of Englewood we have articles on, you'll see that their main claim to fame is ... having been the Mayor of Englewood! I'd say, if holding an office makes one notable, then the office is notable. --Lambiam 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky has mostly notable entries, so is fine to keep. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It meets every requirement of WP:Lists, you may want to note that most of the references are from obituaries in the New York Times. So everyone with a redlink can be a full Wikipedia article if someone wants to make one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per References, and a usable List. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reliably sourced, meets WP:LIST criteria.--JayJasper (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Interesting and more important all the persons named in the list are notable.User:Lucifero4
- WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. And no, not all people in the list are notable. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An encyclopedic topic that is backed by more than a dozen reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 25 October 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. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Penny
- Brian Penny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable blogger. Only mention in RS is this Fox Business piece, which does not meet the requirements at WP:PEOPLE The Interior (Talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am unable to find sources anywhere which would allow Brian meet notability guidelines. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - According to the talk page of the article, this page is an autobiography. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no evidence for notability here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the references only briefly mention the subject of the article, if at all; for example, the CNN piece doesn't even mention him. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 20 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wildcat Victory
- Wildcat Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD - Non-notable song, unlikely search term. Mtking (edits) 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Within a matter of minutes, I found several articles that showed notability and included them in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fight songs of the major college football programs (NCAA Division I FBS) are an important part of the sport's culture and are notable. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Paulmcdonald and Cbl62. I find multiple reliable sources relating to this song, such as [33][34][35][36][37][38]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Paulmcdonald work.--Cavarrone (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep No violated guidelines, has many availible sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 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. v/r - TP 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skin (Rihanna song)
- Skin (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC. | helpdןǝɥ | 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete – YET ANOTHER pointless article. Seriously, when will this end? Sure, it is a well-written article, but it does not need the main criteria for song articles: charting and/or awards. It was performed live, and some critics talked about it (mostly as a part of the album review). That does not warrant for its own article. I really wish users would stop making articles just for the hell of it, and to have each song on an particular album have its own article like its an accomplishment or something. — Status {talkcontribs 01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before i decide what to vote, i have a few questions / suggestions. I think this song was used in an Armani Jeans add, right? I think Rihanna went to Brazil to shoot a video for this, right? If we have sources proving these two + the cancelled release (which is already there), this will reinforce the existence of this article on Wikipedia. If not i still have to say that this article is well written. First, answer my queries, then i will decide. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge unless the song is released as a single. Given the artist, if it is released it will chart in which case it can be created. I wouldn't be too upset if it was kept given that it is well written and it would encourage the author to keep writing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rihanna is about to release a new album, Skin being released is like saying Michael Jackson is still alive. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For fucks sakes, Fading (song) has been through this as well and was kept. I'm sorry, but people need to sort out their fucking priorities. There are so many article with about 2 sentences in them that nobody gives a shit about when they should nominate those for AfD instead, NOT well written and notable articles like this. I'm so pissed of people constantly having a go at everything I do and dragging things down for me. There is, once again, no reason to delete this article. There is actually more information than Raining Men (song), yet Raining Men gets to stay because it was a single. And if Fading is allowed to be kept, then there is no reason why this one can't be too, and I'm pretty sure it will be, which will screw up the GAN and will be quick failed for not being stable, just like Fading was. Great, thanks a lot. And I don't care that I'm swearing here, I speak my mind and how I feel. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No consensus is not the same thing as Kept buddy. "Raining Men" was a SINGLE and CHARTED. That's the criteria. And since when is speaking your mind talking like a pirate? I suggest you cool your jets. — Status {talkcontribs 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is still here, is it not? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With no agreement on whether it should be deleted or kept. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's still here. Keep was a majority rule anyway, and has everything for it to pass notability, as it has also charted. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And regardless of your own interpretations, keep =/= no consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's still here. Keep was a majority rule anyway, and has everything for it to pass notability, as it has also charted. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With no agreement on whether it should be deleted or kept. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is still here, is it not? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No consensus is not the same thing as Kept buddy. "Raining Men" was a SINGLE and CHARTED. That's the criteria. And since when is speaking your mind talking like a pirate? I suggest you cool your jets. — Status {talkcontribs 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NSONG is clear, GNG is irrelevant and is not an exception to NSONG. No charts? No page. Its as simple as that with very few exceptions - this however, is not an exception. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like "GNG is irrelevant" are completely incorrect. GNG trumps the SNGs (of which NSONGS is one) every day of the week. The purpose of the SNGs is to give an indication of what articles will probably be notable (i.e. meet the GNG), not to preclude us having articles on topics that have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments are incorrect according to who? You?. Why would we use GNG to determine something when we have a specific guideline for dealing with song articles that are based upon Notability (GNG). The purpose of NSONG is to further elaborate and expand upon Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline with specific requirements (the song charting), just like there are specific guidelines on books, movies, people, ect ect.. The song's charting is consensus established as one of a song article's requirements. Thus my original statement, GNG is not relevant when we have specific rules and guidelines for what to do. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like "GNG is irrelevant" are completely incorrect. GNG trumps the SNGs (of which NSONGS is one) every day of the week. The purpose of the SNGs is to give an indication of what articles will probably be notable (i.e. meet the GNG), not to preclude us having articles on topics that have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Lakeshade. This article fails WP:NSONGS at the moment. No charts, no awards. Novice7 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Status and Lakeshake. And saying that it has "more information" than Raining Men (song) is irrelevant and untrue. Raining Men was a single, it charted and there is at least some background info related to the song. Skin's background info is basically just what's written in the booklet. Also, the opening sentence in the Background section about Rihanna's previous tour and some movie she appears in is in no way relevant to the song. And Calvin, it appears that you always take these delete proposals too personally. Pancake (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about when the song was recorded is just as relevant here as it is on the Loud article as well as it's singles articles. And I've only ever had one other article I created be AfD, even though it passed notability in the first place. I just think that instead of focusing on this well written and informational article that certain people should look out for other article which have about 2 lines on them, yet no one seems to care about that. And of course I'm going to defend an article I created that I spent hours and hours researching and writing! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Calvin. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles. DeansFA (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS calls for charts and awards. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is enough verifiable material to be notable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS is a guideline. « Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ». I repeat what I said : Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles. It means that songs with charts and singles can be deleted if there's no secondary sources, and conversely a song tithout charts and single, with secondary sources, can be kept. DeansFA (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very valid point, and what I have been trying to say for literally ages, but no one listens. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS is a guideline. « Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ». I repeat what I said : Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles. It means that songs with charts and singles can be deleted if there's no secondary sources, and conversely a song tithout charts and single, with secondary sources, can be kept. DeansFA (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is enough verifiable material to be notable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS calls for charts and awards. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what happens when you muddle your arguments with all sorts of irrelevent information (telling how "pissed" you are, swearing, carrying on about how hard your worked on the article,etc.) If you'd concentrate your argument on policy, and less of all that, people would probably be more likely to listen to you. But as it is, even if they do listen to you, judging by the comments at this AFD, there are 2 legitimate interpretation of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make a point which I think everyone is unaware of. This article was created by an editor in November 2010 and re-directed to Loud in the same edit. It was only this month that I wrote the article. I don't think the article should be deleted, regardless of the consensus. I think it should either be kept, or re-directed back to Loud like it originally was before I wrote it. Because I spent a lot of time on this, and if any info comes up in the future, it would be very frustrating to have to write it again. I think this is reasonable. (Fading was originally a re-direct, and Complicated (Rihanna song) still is a re-direct. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The points made in the previous paragraph are mostly irrelevant. Also, consensus is everything. If they say delete, sorry. Also, I don't really see why those redirects were needed in the first place before they charted, but I will leave that alone considering their current status. | helpdןǝɥ | 20:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was for incase they became a single. What is to stop me from re-directing it back to Loud right now? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe hardly any of that counts as a valid argument for "keep" in an AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Explaining how it satisfies notability is a valid argument. Providing extra sources is a good approach. Saying stuff like "I worked hard and spent time on this" or "this is hard work/it'd be hard to recreate" are not relevant reasons to keep an article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, a lot. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Explaining how it satisfies notability is a valid argument. Providing extra sources is a good approach. Saying stuff like "I worked hard and spent time on this" or "this is hard work/it'd be hard to recreate" are not relevant reasons to keep an article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - loads of excellent citations including a review in the New York Times. Some of the references are necessarily brief, but it passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Her music is not my thing, but it appears from the article to have been a notable song. If needed, a smerge back to the CD would be applicable. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to the album article. The article is well-sourced, but unfortunately none of the sources in the article at the moment actually cover the song in significant detail – they are either articles on the album as a whole or reviews of her live shows – none are specifically about the song. The album is a pretty decent article, so I'm not sure if it needs the info that's currently in this article, but it's at least worth a redirect (redirects are cheap). Jenks24 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why people don't get that the song was not released as a single, thus, it will not have dedicated reviews just for the song like other's would. Therefore, the only commentaries are from the album reviews, just like What's My Name? does, just like S&M does, just like Man Down does. Just because this is a song and not a single, doesn't mean album reviews are not acceptable. They are still reviews. And the Live performance section is specifically about the controversial performing of Skin, so I don't really get your point about it not being about the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this reply specifically to my comment, Calvin? I'll assume it as and answer your question. It is perfectly acceptable to reference album reviews in song articles, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not just passing mentions in articles that are not primarily about the song. You bring up a bunch of other articles, but WP:WAX is never a good argument at AfDs and for songs like "S&M", it is easy to find sources that are solely about that song – not so for this article. I was left a note on my talk page about having another look at this, but I still think a merge would be the right outcome (though I think it would be a good idea to merge the "Live performances" section to Loud Tour). Looking at the sources in the article, I see only one that is primarily about this song and the GNG requires multiple sources. I feel bad for sticking with this line when it's clear that people have put a lot of effort into the article, but the fact is that it does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (NSONGS or GNG). We cannot apply IAR (as is suggested below) just because people have put time into the article – that would open us up to keeping every article where the creator has put a lot of effort in – we have notability guidelines for a reason. Jenks24 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge is just pointless. There is too much info to merge it, I assume you would suggest merging with Loud (Rihanna album)? I very rarely agree with merges, just because of how much info gets lost. And I disagree about the reviews comment. It doesn't matter if Skin got it's reviews by way of album reviews, it's still reviews about the song, and a lot of people commented on the song, thus it is significant coverage. People are still not realizing that Skin was not released as a single, so there are no single reviews. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this reply specifically to my comment, Calvin? I'll assume it as and answer your question. It is perfectly acceptable to reference album reviews in song articles, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not just passing mentions in articles that are not primarily about the song. You bring up a bunch of other articles, but WP:WAX is never a good argument at AfDs and for songs like "S&M", it is easy to find sources that are solely about that song – not so for this article. I was left a note on my talk page about having another look at this, but I still think a merge would be the right outcome (though I think it would be a good idea to merge the "Live performances" section to Loud Tour). Looking at the sources in the article, I see only one that is primarily about this song and the GNG requires multiple sources. I feel bad for sticking with this line when it's clear that people have put a lot of effort into the article, but the fact is that it does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (NSONGS or GNG). We cannot apply IAR (as is suggested below) just because people have put time into the article – that would open us up to keeping every article where the creator has put a lot of effort in – we have notability guidelines for a reason. Jenks24 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why people don't get that the song was not released as a single, thus, it will not have dedicated reviews just for the song like other's would. Therefore, the only commentaries are from the album reviews, just like What's My Name? does, just like S&M does, just like Man Down does. Just because this is a song and not a single, doesn't mean album reviews are not acceptable. They are still reviews. And the Live performance section is specifically about the controversial performing of Skin, so I don't really get your point about it not being about the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I totally agree with Calvin. Instead of nominating this for deletion why don't you look in those billion articles that only have one sentence? Maybe the song doesn't pass WP:NSONGS but it is very well written and 16 sources are enough for a separate article. My love is love (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're going to use WP:OTHERCRAP as an argument? Sorry, that doesn't count as a valid reason for a keep. This is not WP:NOTAVOTE; if you want the article to stay you must use guidelines and policies to express why an article that fails consensus and rules should be kept. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS says that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article has enough verifiable material and it is detailed. My love is love (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability aside", meaning that other than needing notability (charting). This guideline is directly referring to stub articles that have minimal charting and are better off being merged into a parent article. Lets not pick parts of a sentence out of a guideline and read the whole thing: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is not referring to an non-charting song, this is referring to a charted and notable song that does not have enough information. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I misunderstood the rule. But according to that, every song by Janis Joplin should be deleted because they didn't chart. And I just took Joplin as an example. There are also million other articles about songs that didn't chart. Why don't you nominate them for deleting? I'm still voting that this should be kept. My love is love (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the WP:OTHERCRAP? Were are not discussing those articles we are discussing this one. Go delete them yourself. That's fine you can vote however you wish, it doesn't mean it will be counted seeing as you've just been out argued and your vote now holds no logical reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Nothing further because this comment is rhetorical? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to argue with you. After all you have the rules on your side but this is my opinion and I'm telling it here. Btw I expanded the article and now it has 21 sources. My love is love (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the WP:OTHERCRAP? Were are not discussing those articles we are discussing this one. Go delete them yourself. That's fine you can vote however you wish, it doesn't mean it will be counted seeing as you've just been out argued and your vote now holds no logical reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Nothing further because this comment is rhetorical? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I misunderstood the rule. But according to that, every song by Janis Joplin should be deleted because they didn't chart. And I just took Joplin as an example. There are also million other articles about songs that didn't chart. Why don't you nominate them for deleting? I'm still voting that this should be kept. My love is love (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability aside", meaning that other than needing notability (charting). This guideline is directly referring to stub articles that have minimal charting and are better off being merged into a parent article. Lets not pick parts of a sentence out of a guideline and read the whole thing: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is not referring to an non-charting song, this is referring to a charted and notable song that does not have enough information. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONGS says that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article has enough verifiable material and it is detailed. My love is love (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep = A detailed and reliably sourced article that offers full coverage that would be bulky and excessive in a discography or album article. WP:NSONGS is a guideline and should be treated as such; "[p]lease note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the use in a popular commercial and the controversy surrounding the sexual performances makes the lack of chart position quite irrelevant. An argument stating that this detailed and thoroughly sourced article should be deleted because it didn't scrape the top 100 downloads in Outer Mongolia seems like a case of splitting hairs. SplashScreen (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is very detailed and It looks as if the users editing this article took alot of time editing it. It has alot of sources, deleting and/or merging it would be pointless. Nicholas (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NSONGS works best as an exclusion criteria: without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it. Using it as a leveling tool to set a common expectation of what songs get articles works well, and making exceptions to it should be a rare occurrence. There's nothing about this song that is so special that it requires making an exception.—Kww(talk) 10:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it". But if they pass the WP:GNG, what's wrong with that? And dismissing this as a "fan-page" is neither accurate or productive. "There's nothing about this song that is so special" - use in a popular advertising campaign and a notable controversy over its performances seems pretty special to me. SplashScreen (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [WP:GNG]] is a minimal inclusion criteria: passing it doesn't guarantee inclusion of an article, it is the minimum requirement for being considered as a standalone article. WP:NSONGS expresses the community expectation of when that separate article will actually be created, and I think it's a reasonable one. Having articles about every album track simply causes name-space collisions and indexing problems without actually adding substantive information.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one can help that 10 out of 11 tracks have an article. That's what happens when 7 songs are released as singles and two others chart. Beyonce's B'Day has an article for every track apart from one, and 4 has one for nearly every one too. And I'm not creating them for the sake of it, if I was then I would have made one for Complicated. Skin has a lot of info about it, has been used in a advertising campaign and has been performed live, which attracted a lot of controversy. If Freakum Dress and Suga Mama can stay, then so can Skin. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So User:Kww thinks that the article should be deleted because of name-space collisions and indexing problems? Seems a bit trivial in the grand scheme of things, doesn't it? SplashScreen (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He said a lot more than just that. Did you read all of what he said? Like the part about WP:NSONGS? It's easy to claim arguments as "trivial" when you only address a small portion of the discussion...Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the article on the album. NSONGS doesn't say that songs which didn't chart aren't notable, it says that songs which did chart are probably notable, which isn't the same thing at all. However the sources cited in this article all mention the song in passing while discussing the album so we ought to do the same. Hut 8.5 18:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I added this comment some sources about performances of the song which have attracted controversy have been added. Again Skin is only mentioned in passing and I would suggest that this content be added to The Loud Tour. I don't think that discussions of the advert belong in this article. Incidentally I would strongly discourage the use of the Daily Mail as a source for anything relating to a living person. Hut 8.5 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of your views on the publication, the Daily Mail passed comment on Rihanna's performance and the article cites that. SplashScreen (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't. That publication has repeatedly been sued for libel and should not be cited as a source for anything at all concerning a living person. Hut 8.5 21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a biography of a living person. The Daily Mail is an extremely prominent British newspaper and it has commented on the sexual nature of a musical performance. Whether it has been sued or not is neither here nor there, as no legal action has been taken in this case. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a biography of a living person according to Wikipedia policy. Any content about living people, anywhere, falls under the BLP policy WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply). The fact that the article is about a song doesn't change this. You're citing a notoriously unreliable tabloid newspaper as a source for a claim that a living person did something controversial in a concert. BLP is not about preventing lawsuits, it is about preventing harm to living people. Hut 8.5 08:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article does not say "Rihanna did something controversial (Daily Mail source)", it says "When critically reviewing one of the performances of Skin, the Daily Mail assessed that her behaviour was controversial (Daily Mail source)". If it was the former, I'd agree with you. But it's not. SplashScreen (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was asked to add another comment, but I don't have anything to add, except "per WP:HEY". Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "You may wish to change, alter or expand your argument in light of these developments" - I didn't ask you to comment, I just said that you may want to in light of recent changes. SplashScreen (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note = the page now contains specific coverage and commentary from the Daily Mail (twice), the Los Angeles Times, the Evening Herald, the Daily Record, The Huffington Post, Grazia, Stylist, the Hindustan Times, The Times of India, The Wall Street Journal, and The Daily Telegraph. I feel that this, in addition to the sources from places such as the BBC, the Toronto Sun, MTV, USA Today and the Chicago Sun-Times, proves that this song is more than your usual album-track-redirect-to-the-parent-article-fodder. I think that WP:COMMONSENSE and possibly WP:IGNOREALLRULES needs to be applied when concerns about WP:NSONGS crop up. SplashScreen (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great...but..the problem was never lack of sources. It was that it failed NSONGS, and that many of the sources mentioned the song more in passing... Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews in passing have nothing to do with it. It's still a review of the song. It doesn't matter if it is a single review or part of an album review, it's still a review. Why do people fail to understand this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if some of the references do mention the song in passing, none of these are trivial mentions and there are other sources that focus on the song alone (such as [39][40][41]) SplashScreen (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews in passing have nothing to do with it. It's still a review of the song. It doesn't matter if it is a single review or part of an album review, it's still a review. Why do people fail to understand this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - The song is the music in an Armani Jeans campaign ad and Rihanna performs this song regularly as a part of the Loud Tour (those performances have attracted lots of coverage because they have been deemed controversial, etc). The song is quite notable. Tons of verifiable material, for crying out loud. Material that is separate - the comment that most of the article's information comes from the album's booklet is erroneous and egregious. This nomination actually seems pretty ridiculous given all the coverage of this song, especially its live performances!--mikomango mwa! 22:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Live performances do not help establish notability. Musical acts play non-singles, non-notable songs all the time live, but that doesn't make them notable (in the wikipedia sense.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I always nominate music-related articles for deletion as they have not charted and are completely non-notable, but in this case the song has received widespead coverage (see reference list), therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS ("a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"). 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 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. After three weeks, one (policy-only) !delete vote, and one !merge vote - but the merge !vote is to a UBLP that, after two weeks, hasn't had a single reference added and, thus, is likely to get deleted. So, delete. If the other article unexpectedly gets kept ping me and I can undelete for a merge if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
El Moftah
- El Moftah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find sufficient RS coverage to reflect the notability of this album. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE with Jad Shwery as there isn't much here. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI -- that article is under AfD review at the moment, as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am aware. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 20 October 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. Sandstein 06:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nitin Kumar Gupta
- Nitin Kumar Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article does not meet standards as defined in WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Individual has not been a subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in independent, reliable and authoritative sources and does not have any major laurels for performance. The assertion that the subject of the article has won an award from a non-notable film festival is also not verifiable. The website for this film festival is unprofessional and does not list the subject as the recipient of the award, but the Director.[42] Only Wikipedia and some other personal webpages turn up as a source for the assertion by the subject that he received the award. Telco (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "Los Angeles Reel Film Festival" has been held for only three years, and is a "virtual" festival. Telco has shown how flimsy this claimed award really is. No significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From Wikipedia's Criteria for musicians and ensembles - "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." A number of reputed websites list the subject as music director, lyricist and singer on the films mentioned, including imdb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2890826/) and bollywoodhungama (http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrities/filmography/3579/index.html) (the number one indian film related website). Many of the songs by the composer-lyricist have been sung by the top singers in the India, including Shaan, Kailash Kher, Kavita Krishnamurti, Hariharan, Sunidhi Chauhan, Amit Kumar and Kunal Ganjawalla making the songs very respectable. The film 'Road to Sangam' for which the subject has composed the music is the recipient of multiple awards which makes this published soundtrack very notable. Google and youtube searches turn up a large number of websites and videos listing the composer's works. Thus there is sufficient evidence from independant and reliable sources that the subject has multiple non-trivial published works. This covers the criteria in making the subject a notable musician by the wikipedia guidelines. The article does not meet deletion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.23.158 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those don't appear to be significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources, but rather passing mention of his work. Also, both IMDb and Bollywood Hungama incorporate user-contributed content without professional editorial control, so are not reliable sources for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of the above, the subject fits this criteria for inclusion - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." . 'Road to Sangam' is a notable film with several awards, including nominations and wins at Screen Awards 2011 (http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2011/01/03/6978/index.html) and win at the MAMI film festival. It is also mentioned as the most awarded film of 2010 (http://bubblesbollywood.blogspot.com/2011/01/most-awarded-film-of-2010-road-to_06.html) with the subject's name mentioned in prominence. The new movie 'Shakal Pe Mat Ja' for which the subject has composed music, has been chosen as the centrepiece in the south asian international film festival, new york (http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/10/this-years-saiff-includes-indias-oscar-entry-abu-son-of-adam.php) . Also, bollywood hungama has strict editorial checks before publishing cast and crew details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.26.191 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not as absolutely non-notable as some AfD subjects, but references are mainly passing notes in articles focused elsewhere and credits. There's a decent album review in Time Out Mumbai, but it's hardly enough, and source is not WP:RS--this edition of the Time Out is not even put it out by Time Out--the trademark is rented to a local publisher. Could become notable in the future, and happy to have another look then or if anyone can come up with substantial coverage from RS sources. I've also had a look at some of the bigger films where subject has credits, and my initial impression is that they are all non-notable and should be deleted from WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:40, 28 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ZFTPServer Suite
- ZFTPServer Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article restored at WP:REFUND. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note added 2011-10-13: Page content has been adjusted to be less of a commercial and more of general information regarding the software and it's history (as found regarding other softwares on wikipedia).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.76.31 (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertisement for another FTP server. No showing that it changed the industry in any appreciable way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 20 October 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. 3 relists and there has still been no arguments against deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoky Sakai
- Shoky Sakai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable boxer, fails all criteria at WP:NSPORT. Vogue90 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vogue90 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not pass WP:NSPORT. Mattg82 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James Groninger
- James Groninger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD as a president of a minor league, a legitimate reason to de-PROD. However, it was a Class-D league, and all sources on "James Groninger" seem to be about an attorney. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per precedent set forth here Alex (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A single prior AfD hardly constitutes a precedent. This is yet another cut-and-paste job by Alex from BR Bullpen to here (or from here to there) that lacks proper sources to meet GNG. If Alex doesn't have sources, why doesn't he just create BR Bullpen pages and leave it at that? It's not like BR Bullpen is at risk of disappearing. Almost every one of today's AfDs has no sources or one database source. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And for non-BLPs, a lack of references present in the article isn't a good reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't evaluated it, but here are some articles about Groninger: 1908 article on his operation of the Penn-West Virginia League], snippet on his election as league president, news note about his having played for and being mentioned as coach of the University of West Virginia team. Cbl62 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as the president of a professional sports league, regardless of its level, he is notable; the fact that "all sources" seem to point to somebody else I presume refers to online sources - I'd doubt there'd be very much online about a D-level baseball exec from so long ago, aside from what Cbl62 found above - offline sources are the place to look. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've now substantially expanded the article. He also played basketball and baseball for the West Virginia Mountaineers and was captain of both teams. He later became the Assistant Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia. Plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per expansion--TM 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 21 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch Dorman
- Dutch Dorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another Alex de-PROD without a good reason. Individual is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the few times I think a player's minor league statistical record is notable. Nearly 3,000 hits, 27-year playing career. Add to that a 19-year managerial career to boot. Alex (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to be significant coverage of his career over a 15-year period. Examples include 1940 article, 1943 article (New York Times), 1944 article, 1944 article (Christian Science Monitor), 1945 article, 2nd 1945 article, 1946 article, 1947 article, 2nd 1947 article, 3rd 1947 article, 1953 article, 1955 article, 2nd 1955 article. See also this book on baseball history in Minnesota. And this book at p. 79 calls him "the greatest manager" in Hagerstown history. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - quite side from the very nice arguments presented above, a record as a manager of winning three league championships (plus three other championship-final appearances) should be more than enough to establish notability for a manager at any level of professional baseball. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above comments. Spanneraol (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing, WP:SNOW, and to clear out the backlog of current deletion nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 20 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woody Smith
- Woody Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alex declined this PROD to be disruptive, as best I can tell. The individual is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FOUR straight league championships. Four. Not to mention being featured here, here among a myriad of others. He spent many years in the AAA and at least once was purchased by a major league club. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a phantom ballplayer at one point. Alex (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as noted, four league championships, and that equals distinct notability. In addition, a {{trout}} for the nominator for his assumption of bad faith and spamming AfD with "not notable" ballplayers who clearly are. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take issue with that. This individual is not "clearly" notable. While I nominated too many at once, I don't regret nominating this article individually. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Spanneraol (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Four championships, That meets the required standard for WP:GNG, very notable, I will tag this for rescue. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when do four minor league championships meet GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing and WP:SNOW, despite some arguments I don't find valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 20 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cletus Dixon
- Cletus Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alex declined this PROD to be disruptive, as best I can tell. The individual is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Four league championships is notable. That mixed with his other jobs and accomplishments, including being a big league scout, make his article keepable. Alex (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have received significant coverage for his baseball career. A search of google books produces 61 results, several with significant coverage of Dixon. E.g., this one. Also a good deal of newspaper coverage of him including bio sketch here, article on selection as Univ. Chicago baseball captain, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Four league championships in professional baseball. Four. Doesn't matter what level, that's notability right there for you. Enjoy your trout. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep .. fairly accomplished and the sourcing appears to be there. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing, WP:SNOW, and to clear out the backlog of current deletion nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Four Championships is extreemly notable, also well sourced, tag for rescue. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 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. (nomination withdrawn, though i consider most of Cbl sources WP:ROUTINE) former-admin close Secret account 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Pavlick
- Pete Pavlick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Again Alex says "Bad faith PROD". It would be nice if he backed that up by showing us how this individual is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Head coach of major college sports team. He's also listed over 440 times in Google Books (not news), which is nothing to sneeze at. Alex (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have a substantial amount of non-trivial coverage so as to pass WP:GNG. In addition to the book references noted above, Hall of Fame sportswriter Red Smith wrote an in depth two-column feature story on Pavlick in 1968 which can be viewed here. See also the following non-trivial articles on Pavlick: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Alex -- Please consider integrating some of these sources (especially the Red Smith feature) into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per research by Cb162. Spanneraol (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing, WP:SNOW, and to clear out the backlog of current deletion nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 20 October 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gas) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Frazier
- Keith Frazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alex says this is a "Bad faith PROD" when it is clearly no such thing. This article makes no assertions of the subject's notability. Alex is being pointy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you're specifically targeting my articles and nominating them en masse isn't being "POINTy"? Clearly, you are trying to send some sort of message, whatever that may be, by your actions. Alex (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to delete articles on subjects that I do not believe are notable. I'm looking to yours specifically because of your track record. I'll admit I should've gone slower. The newest ones you've dePRODed won't be brought here for a little while. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I too am trying to delete articles that I don't feel are notable. No points are being made. Alex (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are indeed making good faith nominations, then you need a serious lesson on GNG before nominating another article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I too am trying to delete articles that I don't feel are notable. No points are being made. Alex (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to delete articles on subjects that I do not believe are notable. I'm looking to yours specifically because of your track record. I'll admit I should've gone slower. The newest ones you've dePRODed won't be brought here for a little while. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Spent four years in the PCL, which at the time was a quasi-major league. Alex (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It either is a major league or is not. The PCL has never been recognized as a major league. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Haven't evaluated it, but I do find some non-trivial coverage (some of it under his nickname "Red" Frazier) including this, this, this, this book on the history of the PCL during World War II. Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite poor afd reasoning... this guy doesn't seem notable. Spanneraol (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another article randomly nominated for deletion by User:Muboshgu of a very salvagable article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The news coverage he got in the 1930's and 1940's is all that matters. [50] Everything I click on requires payment to read, but the summaries in the news search results seem notable. Dream Focus 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The PCL was never a major league. But it was the top professional league over 2/3 of the US at the time Frazier played there, and it was not just a development league. And Frazier played for the Toronto Maple Leafs in the IL when the IL was the top baseball league in Canada. As such, these leagues were probably more notable than many current top professional leagues. In addition to the sources from Dream Focus, I found a couple more not spectacular ones like this. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably more notable than many current top professional leagues" is a false argument. Either a league is recognized as a "major league" or it is not. The PCL has never been recognized as such. It has always been a minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it has never been recognized as a major league. That does not mean that this minor league at this time was more notable than most major leagues outside the US are today. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably more notable than many current top professional leagues" is a false argument. Either a league is recognized as a "major league" or it is not. The PCL has never been recognized as such. It has always been a minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 23 October 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. (former-admin close) Secret account 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Leonard (baseball)
- Frank Leonard (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I just tried to PROD this without having seen that Alex just objected to a PROD a few days ago. My bad. He's still not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per my DEPROD reasoning: I think a guy who managed for that long is notable enough...Sources will be tough to find as his name is so common and he is so old. Alex (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have been a significant figure. See for example this book], a history of the New England League that has an extensive discussion of Leonard as a significant figure in that league's history. See also this article from 1904 on his role in promoting baseball in Cuba. Also, this article discusses his role in connection with forming the Lynn team in New England League. And this one about his efforts to bring a professional baseball team to Augusta, Georgia. A search of the "Sporting Life" archives shows dozens of other articles about him. He appears to have been a significant mover and shaker in baseball in the 1890s and 1900s. Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CB162. Spanneraol (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing, WP:SNOW, and to clear out the backlog of current deletion nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Again, this did not need to be nominated for deletion, violated no guidelines, and the person is notable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 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. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Staples
- Ken Staples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league figure. Created by Alexsautographs and then AfD'd by him in the second edit. Some sources mention him, but only in passing. Winning minor league championships as a manger isn't notable, anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If being a multi-time All-Star at the minor league level is notable, then I believe winning multiple championships is notable as well. Alex (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get this from? Being a multiple minor league All-Star does not make you notable. The argument has been put forth that someone being a multiple minor league All-Star will make you notable due to your likely ascension as a player. However, minor league managers aren't as likely to be promoted. First, you're comparing apples and oranges. Second, you're asserting the apples are golden delicious when they seem more like horse apples. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... I know its a bit against the grain, but I prefer not to delete minor league managers that have numerous championships or awards. Just my opinion.Spanneraol (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Would you mind saying why? And if the fact that it was Class-C impacts it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal bias I'm afraid... one class-c championship wouldn't cut it but 3 seems worthwhile.Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Would you mind saying why? And if the fact that it was Class-C impacts it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I have to admit Alex's editing habits are slightly...curious...the vast majority of this set of AfDs are clearly notable - as is this one. The fact the baseball he managed at was C-level is irrelevant, winning three league championships in professional baseball clearly establishes notability for a manager. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand statements like this. I thought GNG and/or BASE/N were supposed to be used to define "notability" for purposes of baseball-related articles, but it seems like more and more people are applying their own subjective definition -- "played in Spain," "won 3 championships," "minor league all-star," etc. These AfDs are starting to seem like a big free-for-all. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all subjective... besides playing in Spain passes BABE/N... though that refers to a different afd... The reason they are a big free for all is because we have an ungodly amount of them at once which I think is really ridiculous. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with NY-13021 in that I don't understand how "winning minor league championships" suddenly trumps a dearth of sourcing. I've withdrawn nominations for articles where I did not find sources but others did. Unless sources are produced in this case, I'm sticking with my nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all subjective... besides playing in Spain passes BABE/N... though that refers to a different afd... The reason they are a big free for all is because we have an ungodly amount of them at once which I think is really ridiculous. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think User:Muboshgu just has deletion fever, a multiple time championship is extreemly notable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Saying it's notable does not make it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added this link to external links: Ken Staples page at Baseball-reference.com. Then I rewrote the entire article, because most of the information in the article was a copyvio from this link. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It says in the article he also played professional. Surely there will be official records somewhere showing that. He gets coverage in the news for being a manager of a minor league team. [51] Dream Focus 01:18, 26 October 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. I'm surprised this wasn't G11'd. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heaps Good.
- Heaps Good. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No established notability, poorly sourced, discussed two unrelated topics and reads as promotional. Of the sources provided, one doesn't discuss the topic at all (it only mentions the slang term itself), two are from the same newspaper and give very cursory treatment to the subject, and the last one is a one-liner mentioning that the slogan might have been used in some sort of localised campaign. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is probably borderline notable, but when we don't have SA Great yet, I'm not expecting this to be kept. Mark Hurd (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's just a ad, however the ad could be changed into article however its not notable enough Ray-Rays 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.