Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Another article saved by the AfD process. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black Action Movement
- Black Action Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is a complete lack of referencing here. Notability, if any, falls under African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement or other similar articles. Every year students find reasons to protest their universities, they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article. This material needs no more than a sentence or two on the main university article. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added various references, based on Google Search. See in particular the Ann Arbor Chronicle 40-year retrospective article which is very informative on the events. And Google Books turns up several more discussions that I haven't added. AllyD (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you AllyD, those sources bring the article back into Wikipedia standards. I'll go ahead and close this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per AllyD's arguments, and the fact that there is more out there than we have both added in terms of news coverage. Currently, there are six independent references on the page, and many more out there on the internet. Less than 24 hours ago, you CSD'd the page with the remark that it was a duplicate of the movement from 1965-1968, and should be deleted as such. It was declined on the grounds that it was more specific than that. Also, I go to a large university, and I have participated in a protest, but it paled in comparison to what these accomplished. If it was one event, that would be one thing, but the fact that it was brought back twice more under the same name (which in and of itself is a rare thing to do) shows that it was deemed notable enough to warrant action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This AfD has successfully extorted users to add sources. — AjaxSmack 02:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't go that far, as that was kind of the plan all along (see my response to Sue on my talk page). Still, I would like to commend Ally for her action, as she helped to spur me on to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Kevin, you guys are awesome! The article looks really good now. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I don't think the nominator made any effot to look at sources such as here, here and and here. And fyi it isn't just any school. University of Michigan is friggin huge. Are you joking?? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shanti Wintergate
- Shanti Wintergate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reasonable assertion of notability. No significant successes as a singer or as a writer. No noted hits in any country. No external refs to support any of the content. Very outdated. Velella Velella Talk 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple google search confirms everything stated in the summary paragraph, notable to an underground/alt audience. Writer credits include author of children's book, web searches confirm music releases and placement. TV appearances confirmed. Place of birth, relationship. I don't know how to update or link to external references or I would do it. NPR just did a review on new music project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.28.151 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete I've also carried out a 'simple google search' and can't see much about her. With a name like that, it should be fairly easy to find significant news coverage, if it existed! I'm inclined to recommend deletion and, as an unsourced CV it would've been a candidate for speedy deletion. However, I've found some mention in a local news article about her husband and added it to the article. If IP 72 has access to reviews or news articles, they can follow my example to add the sources. Sionk (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at the long list of links provided by IP 72 I can't see any that are sufficient to support an article about Wintergate. She has evidently published some EP's and tracks, but none seem to have had any noticeable success. The coverage in Boise Weekly (a very local but reliable source) seeme to be about her participation in Play Date, a "children's music duo" collaboration with her husband. The Punk News website does not seem to be a reliable news source, as it takes user submissions from anywhere. The article at the moment is a poorly sourced CV, unfortunately. That being said, she's clearly a talented entertainer so I wish her solo success for the future! Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to cite sources at all on wikipedia..... but here are links that confirm alot of information on this page. sorry, I don't know how wikipedia works... maybe someone can help cite these. By the way... it's a fairly poor article to represent the husband. That article speaks about her and her husband and their children's project. here is more there's much more on the husbands name and band The Bouncing Souls...
- http://www.npr.org/2012/12/12/167048218/the-boogers-and-play-date-make-punk-rock-for-kids NPR:Music - All Things Considered
- http://www.zooglobble.com/blog/2012/9/6/interview-greg-attonito-shanti-wintergate-play-date.html -6 September 2012
- http://punkmusic.about.com/od/Punkrockparenting/fr/Shanti-Wintergate-And-Greg-Attonito-I-Went-For-A-Walk.htm - Sept 2012
- http://www.punknews.org/article/48499/interviews-play-date - 14 August 2012
- http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2012/09/bouncing_souls_23.html Sept 2012
- http://www.ampmagazine.com/45593/play-date-feat-greg-attonito-and-shanti-wintergate-premiere-video-for-new-song-dance-like-a-monster/
- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2167183/ IMDB- Shanti Wintergate (CSI:NY)
- http://www.app.com/viewart/20121116/NJENT0101/121116003/The-66-Sessions-Play-Date-Greg-Attonito-Bouncing-Souls-his-wife-Shanti-Wintergate 16 Nov 2012
- http://www.elvisduran.com/pages/independentminded.html?article=10537146 Z100 Radio Interview - Ronnie Scalzo]
- http://www.app.com/viewart/20121116/NJENT0101/121116003/The-66-Sessions-Play-Date-Greg-Attonito-Bouncing-Souls-his-wife-Shanti-Wintergate Asbury Park Press - The 66 Sessions
- http://indianapolis.metromix.com/events/article/singer-actress-shanti-helps/644417/content 30 July 2008
- http://conversationswithbianca.com/my_interviews/shanti-wintergate/
- http://themusicmoms.com/music-2/music/reviews-play-date-imagination-and-kepi-ghoulie-kepi-for-kids
- http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/losing-sense-of-time/content?oid=1372588
- http://alarm-magazine.com/2007/bouncing-souls-frontman-and-wife-author-childrens-book/
- http://www.readjunk.com/news/music/greg-attonito-the-bouncing-souls-and-shanti-wintergate-play-date-announce-debut-album-titled-imagination/
- https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/issue-oriented-hosted-by-ronen/id74848438
- https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stranger-days/id288621009
- https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/this-moment/id189486449
- http://www.punknews.org/article/37129/kevin-seconds-kepi-ghoulie-greg-attonito-and-shanti-wintergate
- http://www.punknews.org/article/41620/tours-greg-attonito-shanti-wintergate-acousticart
- http://www.punknews.org/article/48499/interviews-play-date
- http://www.punknews.org/article/25774/bouncing-soul-greg-attonitos-book-i-went-for-a-walk-video-online
- http://www.punknews.org/article/49107/play-date-dance-like-a-monster
- http://www.punknews.org/article/46284/mike-park-announces-fun-fun-records
- http://www.punknews.org/article/23340/greg-from-bouncing-souls-publishing-new-childrens-book
- http://www.punknews.org/article/38254/tours-greg-attonito-bouncing-souls-kevin-seconds-7-seconds-on-vespa-tour
- http://www.punknews.org/article/7658/here-we-go-compilation-available
- http://www.discogs.com/Kepi-Ghoulie-TRex-Trax/release/3926855
- http://blogcritics.org/books/article/interview-with-shanti-wintergate-and-gregory/
- http://www.independent.com/events/2012/nov/10/27183/
- http://lineout.thestranger.com/lineout/archives/2011/03/07/video-from-saturdays-greg-attonitoshanti-wintergate-art-opening
- http://ghettoblastermagazine.com/2012/greg-attonito-bouncing-souls-shanti-wintergate-team-for-play-date/
- http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/152944-play-date-feat-greg-attonito-shanti-wintergate.html
- http://newnoisesb.org/show.cfm?id=85436
- http://www.chriswardman.com/artists/shanti-wintergate
- http://www.ctindie.com/2010/06/greg-attonito-kevin-seconds-shanti.html
- http://www.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/archives/2012/11/30/scenes-from-a-scene-056play-date
- http://www.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/archives/2012/10/28/play-date-gets-kids-groovin-at-the-crux
- http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/play-date-to-play-date-in-boise/Content?oid=2750887
- Hope this helps. I in no way intend to be unthoughtful with putting all of these links here. I don't know the guidelines of commenting in this space. I just mean to help here. There are also photos and videos from her on 2006 and 2008 Warped Tour among other live performances but I have even less of a clue about citing these. They've been on on a the Music TV network Fuse in the US "Stevens Untitled" rock show of which there's a You Tube video of as well.
- Again. Maybe someone can do something with these links, because I don't know how.
- I noticed that she went under the name Shanti (only) for her solo music projects. Maybe that ads to confusion in the searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.28.151 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix. When one considers WP:NRVE and looks at the sources provided, while a few are not the best, it would seem that the nominator's concerns about a lack of sources to verify article content is an addressable issue, and that the GNG is met through enough independent sources speaking toward the subject and her work in enough non-trivial detail to maintain an encyclopedic article. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG, as they are intended to support it, not supplant it. And the concern "Very outdated" is a reason to allow it be fixed over time and through regular editing... and not to delete because it has not yet been done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think there's just about enough for an article. If we had an article on Play Date I may have gone for a merge there since most of the coverage seems to relate to that, and this would be an option if that article was to be created. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as spam by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Forgot to put name (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kenemmanjane Cricket Club
- Kenemmanjane Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable club. No GNews/Books hits. GHits are overwhelmingly social media & like sites. Somewhat promotional. Declined CSD A7. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable club; written in a promotional tone. However, there is one source available for this - All Africa.com but this is not enough to establish clear notability. Forgot to put name (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was weak keep. The main article is already > 100k, so policy suggests that merger is right out. With an exceptionally compelling case and strong support perhaps that could be overlooked, but neither exists here. That this list is "indiscriminate" or "loosely associated" is asserted several times, but never explained or argued, so it can't be given much weight. Which leaves "Meets WP:N" as the main policy driven argument (some of both ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but there's no policy weight there). Headcount sort of favours keep (merge is really a keep vote, but merge to an article that's already 100k is not a viable vote - it's unclear to me whether it's a poorly informed merge vote (that should then be discounted) or a poorly phrased redirect vote)) That said, policy favours keep, headcount marginally favours keep. WilyD 11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ugh, another one of these "international reactions" articles? These violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. NOTDIR#1 says "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations", and that's what this is. While this is all on one subject, it's still quotations from various heads of state, saying more or less the same exact thing. It also violates N because the international reactions as a subject are not notable; the shooting they're referring to is what's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikinews Appropriate there, we can link from the article on the shooting to there, we dont lose contributions in the transwiki, and keeps WP's purpose to NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of several ways to improve the article and reduce the focus of news. However, with deletion threatened that is like telling someone to do work with a gun pointed at their head. There have been quite a few commentaries in the foreign press, much more than just some condolences by heads of government. Auchansa (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a better solution would just be Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which would include foreign analysis and commentaries, as well as a broader description of the American press's reactions. As I wrote below, I just hate the inclusion of these generic, useless government condolences. Actual discourse is notable, but such repetitive statements devoid of impact is not. Reywas92Talk 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of several ways to improve the article and reduce the focus of news. However, with deletion threatened that is like telling someone to do work with a gun pointed at their head. There have been quite a few commentaries in the foreign press, much more than just some condolences by heads of government. Auchansa (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or merge: Unnecessary content fork that seems to be nothing but statements or tweets of world leaders pbp 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, and rename, as this can be expanded to include the reactions such as the decision by the parent company to sell the company that made the rifles. However, the current title is not conducive to adding that information, so a rename is required. Otherwise, if neither of those things are to be done, then delete. gwickwiretalkedits 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is quite encyclopedic to see what leaders of various nations around the world said about a historic event. In previous AFDs for international reaction articles, consensus was no rule was violated. The articles in category:International reactions are all valid content forks, this something important to the main event, that wouldn't all fit in the main article. Dream Focus 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This shows the significance of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Those that oppose this have also opposed this being on the main article. All of these reactions should not be ignored completely. The world is watching.--Joey (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it was a massacre shows the significance of the massacre. What do repetitive comments tell us? – Muboshgu (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (edit conflict) "Ugh, another one of these "international reactions" articles?" Yes, another one, why not? This is hardly "loosely associated topics", as the nominator fully acknowledges. It's notable, it's sourced, it's a valid spinout. I'm sorry the nominator does not like it, but that's not a reason to delete stuff. --Cyclopiatalk 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it fails the GNG - there is no demonstrated notability of "international reactions to the Sandy Hook shooting" - but as a spinout of the main shooting article, it doesn't make sense to delete on that grounds. (In contract, "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street" is notable.) But it is one of those things that doesn't make sense in an encyclopedia that is not meant to be a newspaper. We have a sister project better suited for that. (and this also begs the question of moving those other pages in that category to Wikinews as well) --MASEM (t) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, technically it passes GNG. There are articles such as "Sandy Hook Shooting: World Reactions To Connecticut Tragedy" (Huffington Post), "World Leaders React To The Sandy Hook Massacre" (Business Insider), and "The world reacts to Sandy Hook school shooting with outpouring of ..." (Global Post), as well as at least a few others. This is not just a subject that some Wikipedian decided to create. Auchansa (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles reiterate the quotes, and provide no additional comment or analysis, and thus are primary sources. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. That's a bad misunderstanding of primary vs secondary sources. The primary source is the quote itself, as it being on an official statement, or Twitter account, or whatever. If a news source repeats the quote, it is being reported by a secondary source, that uses the primary as a source. Also, the point is that secondary sources made article about the subject of international reactions. That's what we need for WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 09:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's absolutely wrong, and has been discussed at length on pages like RS and NOR. A secondary source is expected to make some type of novel transformation of the information - analysis, critique, comparison, etc. - from primary and other secondary sources. (Being reported in a different work makes something third-party, but that's not the same as secondary) Most newspaper articles that aren't op-eds are primary sources in re-reporting what others have said, and that's what these are. It doesn't make them improper sources, but they don't help to satisfy the GNG. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This strikes me as very bizarre and beyond the concept of secondary sourcing. Can you point me to the discussions you are talking about? --Cyclopiatalk 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have this in policy at WP:NOR (which follows Secondary source), and explained out at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I can't easily point to any specific discussion but most of that will be at WT:NOR (there's searchable archives there). Key to remember, it is not that newspapers are immediately always primary sources, it depends on context. But rote repeating of other statements without additional analysis will make that a primary source. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's good to learn. I had a look and I see no explicit reference in policy to the fact that a reported declaration is primary, but I'll look harder. --Cyclopiatalk 15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARYNEWS's example of "interviews" mentions reporters restating a political's speech as being primary, and relinks back to NOR (policy). I will note that the footnotes in NOR point to several university libraries' pages on the distiction, and there are different schools of thoughts where the line of secondary and primary can be drawn and often depending on field, but importantly for WP, we generally have drawn the line as stated at NOR: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Simply requoting a speech clearly fails that. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may butt in here a bit. This is something that took me a while to understand so it is understandable that there might be some misunderstanding. To use an unrelated example, say I am a famous politician and stand in front of my palace declaring that blue is the greatest colour in the world. A reporter might hear, and since I am famous, will report that Aircorn thinks "blue is the greatest colour in the world". That is Primary news. I am obviously the primary source, but they are just repeating what I said. However if the reporter didn't just repeat it, but said something along the lines of "Aircorn recently said that blue was the greatest colour, but that contradicts his recent thoughts on green being superiour, let alone his inclination for red". In this case they are not just repeating what I said, but analysing it. Then it is no longer primary news. Anyway, that is my understanding of how it works in the case of reporting quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't understand is, mostly, how adding a comment/analysis changes anything when dealing with notability. If a news media decides to repeat a comment verbatim, it still means it considered it worth of reporting, and that's what we ask for notability, the existence of multiple sources who judge the subject worth considering. I am still perplexed by the fact that a quote repeated by a news media is primary and not secondary, when the news media itself is in general a secondary source, but at least I sort of get the desired logic there. --Cyclopiatalk 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why things like NOT#NEWS or NOT#PLOT (for fiction) comes into play. The analysis etc. provided by secondary coverage gives the necessary context to make primary elements relevant and appropriate to include in an encyclopedia - otherwise, we're just being a glorified newspaper or database. Take this article for instance. Yes, world leaders have given sympathy and condolences for the event, that's an appropriate fact to include but that takes all of one sentence to say. None of these responses have any other impact on the shooting or understanding its impact (the statement that many world leaders responded is enough to show impact), and are basically quotes to show quotes. They're invaluable as news items but trivial as encyclopedic topics, unless, as Aircorn suggests, some journalist compares and contrasts statements and finds, say, a significant deviation from a previous position (best I know, that hasn't happened here). --MASEM (t) 16:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The analysis etc. provided by secondary coverage gives the necessary context to make primary elements relevant and appropriate to include in an encyclopedia" - Honestly I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. The point of secondary sources for notability is that we follow their judgement in deciding what is worth talking about and what not. If, how and why they decide to do so is not our business -at least, not when we debate notability. --Cyclopiatalk 13:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why things like NOT#NEWS or NOT#PLOT (for fiction) comes into play. The analysis etc. provided by secondary coverage gives the necessary context to make primary elements relevant and appropriate to include in an encyclopedia - otherwise, we're just being a glorified newspaper or database. Take this article for instance. Yes, world leaders have given sympathy and condolences for the event, that's an appropriate fact to include but that takes all of one sentence to say. None of these responses have any other impact on the shooting or understanding its impact (the statement that many world leaders responded is enough to show impact), and are basically quotes to show quotes. They're invaluable as news items but trivial as encyclopedic topics, unless, as Aircorn suggests, some journalist compares and contrasts statements and finds, say, a significant deviation from a previous position (best I know, that hasn't happened here). --MASEM (t) 16:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't understand is, mostly, how adding a comment/analysis changes anything when dealing with notability. If a news media decides to repeat a comment verbatim, it still means it considered it worth of reporting, and that's what we ask for notability, the existence of multiple sources who judge the subject worth considering. I am still perplexed by the fact that a quote repeated by a news media is primary and not secondary, when the news media itself is in general a secondary source, but at least I sort of get the desired logic there. --Cyclopiatalk 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may butt in here a bit. This is something that took me a while to understand so it is understandable that there might be some misunderstanding. To use an unrelated example, say I am a famous politician and stand in front of my palace declaring that blue is the greatest colour in the world. A reporter might hear, and since I am famous, will report that Aircorn thinks "blue is the greatest colour in the world". That is Primary news. I am obviously the primary source, but they are just repeating what I said. However if the reporter didn't just repeat it, but said something along the lines of "Aircorn recently said that blue was the greatest colour, but that contradicts his recent thoughts on green being superiour, let alone his inclination for red". In this case they are not just repeating what I said, but analysing it. Then it is no longer primary news. Anyway, that is my understanding of how it works in the case of reporting quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARYNEWS's example of "interviews" mentions reporters restating a political's speech as being primary, and relinks back to NOR (policy). I will note that the footnotes in NOR point to several university libraries' pages on the distiction, and there are different schools of thoughts where the line of secondary and primary can be drawn and often depending on field, but importantly for WP, we generally have drawn the line as stated at NOR: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Simply requoting a speech clearly fails that. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's good to learn. I had a look and I see no explicit reference in policy to the fact that a reported declaration is primary, but I'll look harder. --Cyclopiatalk 15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have this in policy at WP:NOR (which follows Secondary source), and explained out at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I can't easily point to any specific discussion but most of that will be at WT:NOR (there's searchable archives there). Key to remember, it is not that newspapers are immediately always primary sources, it depends on context. But rote repeating of other statements without additional analysis will make that a primary source. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This strikes me as very bizarre and beyond the concept of secondary sourcing. Can you point me to the discussions you are talking about? --Cyclopiatalk 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's absolutely wrong, and has been discussed at length on pages like RS and NOR. A secondary source is expected to make some type of novel transformation of the information - analysis, critique, comparison, etc. - from primary and other secondary sources. (Being reported in a different work makes something third-party, but that's not the same as secondary) Most newspaper articles that aren't op-eds are primary sources in re-reporting what others have said, and that's what these are. It doesn't make them improper sources, but they don't help to satisfy the GNG. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. That's a bad misunderstanding of primary vs secondary sources. The primary source is the quote itself, as it being on an official statement, or Twitter account, or whatever. If a news source repeats the quote, it is being reported by a secondary source, that uses the primary as a source. Also, the point is that secondary sources made article about the subject of international reactions. That's what we need for WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 09:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles reiterate the quotes, and provide no additional comment or analysis, and thus are primary sources. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, technically it passes GNG. There are articles such as "Sandy Hook Shooting: World Reactions To Connecticut Tragedy" (Huffington Post), "World Leaders React To The Sandy Hook Massacre" (Business Insider), and "The world reacts to Sandy Hook school shooting with outpouring of ..." (Global Post), as well as at least a few others. This is not just a subject that some Wikipedian decided to create. Auchansa (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ample reference showing that it passes the GNG just fine. Multiple news sources would've covered everything a foreign leader said about this, all the newspapers in their own country at the least. Dream Focus 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- News sources repeating quotes are not secondary sources, hence why this is more a news article appropriate for Wikinews than WP. (we need to keep it somewhere since none of this information should be lost.) --MASEM (t) 23:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone actually use Wikinews? There is a historic event, with the leaders of the world commenting on it. And it is secondary sources when they quote and comment on what one of the leaders said. Dream Focus 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that we don't off-put more content to Wikinews is probably why less people actually read it, but that's what its there for. And no, I'm not seeing these sources "comment" on the statements made. Including them in an article, sure, that's fine primary reporting, but the newspapers need to further comment and critique such statements and that doesn't appear to be happening, ergo the sources used to report these quotes are not secondary. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone actually use Wikinews? There is a historic event, with the leaders of the world commenting on it. And it is secondary sources when they quote and comment on what one of the leaders said. Dream Focus 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- News sources repeating quotes are not secondary sources, hence why this is more a news article appropriate for Wikinews than WP. (we need to keep it somewhere since none of this information should be lost.) --MASEM (t) 23:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ample reference showing that it passes the GNG just fine. Multiple news sources would've covered everything a foreign leader said about this, all the newspapers in their own country at the least. Dream Focus 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like it, but for policy reasons you didn't cover. I'm not questioning it's sourcing, but I'm saying that loosely related comments like these aren't notable. As Masem said, simply copying verbatim quotes doesn't constitute "coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete: Firstly, all of the international responses say pretty much the same thing so the notability is kinda questionable. The main article didn't include a list for that reason. However, if the consensus changes, then this can be merged into the main article. This isn't like an article with a much bigger international reaction, such as the Syrian Civil War which has enough notable international reaction to warrant it's own article. 90.223.147.187 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 90.223.147.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mifter (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right on. Bad faith tagging of a comment simply because you don't agree with it makes the strongest possible case you could be making. Excellent argument, Mifter! --87.78.0.235 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to that, I can see much more of an argument for notability for an incident with the international relevance of the Syrian Civil War than for an American shooting which appears to have no bearing on any other nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 90.223.147.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mifter (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is not notable information, it is the predictable and meaningless repetition of condolences, condemnation, and empathy. Unless something were to result from from these typical form statements, the fact that several nations all are saddened by this is not encyclopedic, notable, or worthy of an article. Reywas92Talk 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is the WORST possible thing. I can read what the people who don't want the article are trying to say. However, even redirect is better than delete since the information is there for people to read and use, if some of the information turns out to be useful later. Deletion just destroys potentially good material. Auchansa (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is not an encylopaedic topic, it is a collection of repetitious condolences as noted above. Till 01:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." - WP:NOTMEMORIAL
- The subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The policy is only for others who "do not" meet such requirements. Mkdwtalk 03:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. The shooting is notable. The international reactions are a page full of cruft that defines what Wikipedia is WP:NOT in several ways. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is a POV term. What is cruft for you is critical information for someone else. We strive to decide what to include in an objective manner. --Cyclopiatalk 10:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I shouldn't have called it cruft. It's still not notable information, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate how this information is notable, let alone critical. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is a POV term. What is cruft for you is critical information for someone else. We strive to decide what to include in an objective manner. --Cyclopiatalk 10:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. The shooting is notable. The international reactions are a page full of cruft that defines what Wikipedia is WP:NOT in several ways. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable for the international reaction to a non major world event. You dont get the world's attention for just any shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's quite clear the shooting is notable, still not clear that the repetitive statements themselves are notable. Same for the comment below: the event's notability does not confer notability upon this, with people saying the exact same thing as for every calamity.
- Every calamity that happens does not get the attention of the world, if it did I would agree with you. Where do you define the word calamity and how big or small are we talking about? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's quite clear the shooting is notable, still not clear that the repetitive statements themselves are notable. Same for the comment below: the event's notability does not confer notability upon this, with people saying the exact same thing as for every calamity.
- Keep The article has its own claims for notability, as well as positively contributing to the completeness of encyclopedic coverage on this event. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The discussion for this content's inclusion was made at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_4#Consensus_Restore_International_Reaction. Mkdwtalk 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a consensus can be tricky on a talk page that's filling up as quickly as that one. I didn't see that discussion, so this is the place to determine consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable stand-alone topic. Needs to be improved, though, of course. Statυs (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest? The reactions to the reactions, the ramifications and impact of these typical, generic statements? Unfortunately those don't really exist. Reywas92Talk 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep partly based on news articles not about the killings but about the international reaction. Then allow the article to improve by not just limiting the article to quotes from heads of government but adding other non-government international reaction. Auchansa (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS says that just because something is newsworthy doesn't mean it deserves a wiki article. What lasting effect will come from the reactions? From the massacre, hopefully a few policy ones, but these banal generic statements will be forgotten in a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was agreed upon in a consensus that I was too late to participate in. The article highlights the significance of the shooting. Comparable to many other articles with their own article of reactions, Operation Pillar of Cloud for example. I agree with all statements in support.--198.228.228.153 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 198.228.228.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF can exist that sometimes shouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Support The following is exactly what I said in the discussion leading to the creation of this article, and it is still relevant today. >> I agree with all of the statements in Support. It DOES shows the importance of what happened and it doesn't memorialize it. Does the 9/11 reactions page memorialize 9/11? Why don't you say every reaction page/section memorializes? One sentence is not enough to sum up the significance of this shooting. I agree, the world is watching. Is this enough to sum up a reaction? "Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson and a lot of people were sad." How about "People in India was upset over the Sikh temple shooting"? Obviously not.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "No, that's exactly the summation of this page. As for the 9/11 page, it's not at issue here. "The world is watching" means what? We need to memorialize everyone's canned press released statement is what I'm hearing from your argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not a WP:content fork as this content was not at the main article when this one was created. Contrary to what is said above, the discussion on the talk page did not reach a consensus to create a new article. So this needs to stand on its own legs and satisfy the WP:GNG. To do that it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources". So far what we have is news articles from various countries outside the US that have included the leaders reaction as a matter of course. Almost all the articles themselves are on the shooting, not the reaction. We have in effect synthesised them together to create this article. Maybe one day there will be scholarly studies that look at the reaction of the international community in relation to this event, but until then I don't think this meets our notability criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It also violates a few nots in the process, such as the not news and not directory, plus in its current state is a quotefarm, with pretty much the same quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was on the main article first, but many felt it too large, with some just not liking that sort of thing at all. So putting it in its own article made sense. This is what is done with a lot of articles in this situation. I look through the history of the article but so many edits are made each day, I don't see where it was originally at. Here [1] had part of that list, domestic reactions and then international reactions complete with bullet list, quotes, and flags. It grew to be its current size as what is here now. Dream Focus 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikinews - I have no idea why the other discussion was moved prematurely to the talk page, but I think that a move to a more appropriate project would be better for these reactions. Super Goku V (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are some examples of more worldwide reaction: [2] - Flowers and toys laid down at the American Embassy in Moscow Russia. [3] - Crosses on a beach in RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil. [4] - Pakistani Children Pay Tribute To Sandy Hook Shooting Victims. These responses are more than just from world leaders and are covered in reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And per WP:NOTNEWS, just because that is covered in reliable sources doesn't make it notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to WikiNews. It would seemingly fit there, and this does not appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article; at the very least, merge some of it into the main article. I also concur with Aircorn (talk · contribs). TBrandley 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--Wikinews will not accept this as a transwiki at this point, as their policies specifically prohibit articles being added to their archives retroactively; the only articles there are ones that were written at the time of the event. It's not a dumping ground for rejected news articles on WP. C628 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pointless. There is nothing notable about any of the responses. Now if some country banned guns or did something measurable in response to this event, well then you have an actual response. All this is to this point is the heads of various states giving their condolences to this tragedy, as if anyone from any country would not do such a thing as a default. If someone really thinks that it needs to be noted that a completely predicitable response to this tragedy was done, then make a mention in the primary article that heads of states from many countries gave their condolences and so forth regarding this. Arzel (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not encyclopaedic. Nothing notable about the reactions. I may come across as heartless, if there is a consensus that the article be kept for a while for the bereaved, then count my vote as keep, cold logic puts me in the delete camp. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep and Rename to "Response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" per Marc Kupper (see below). I had changed to delete, given the predictable character of the reactions. But now I believe that this is the best solution. It was subsequently proposed by Marc Kupper and I agree with it. As I said previously, I don't care one way or the other about whether there is an international reactions article. What is sorely lacking is an article on the domestic reaction. That's the discussion we should be having. For seven nights running CNN has lead off with U.S. reaction to the shooting, and we not only don't have an article but we don't even have much in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting story. I haven't been involved actively in Wikipedia for long and I have to say that this has confused and troubled me a great deal. Coretheapple (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise idea There is a great compromise idea and that is to start writing to add domestic reaction then to propose changing the article name to "Reactions to the Sandy Hook...." I would support such a compromise between the keepers and the deleters. Auchansa (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is an excellent idea. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are domestic "reactions" any more notable than international ones? The only reactions that really matter are the ones that can lead to changes in policy. Is that what you mean, or do you mean canned statements about the horror and tragedy and etc.? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The problem here is it is just quotes or periods of observation, which I am sure all those affect appreciate, but that can literally be summed up in one sentence for encyclopedic coverage. Again, I point out Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, which discussions actions that actually occurred domestically and around the world in response; this appears to be a good encyclopedic article. And even there, its not filled with a list of quotes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be fixed to remove the avalanche of quotes and describe the substantive way this has affected the nation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The problem here is it is just quotes or periods of observation, which I am sure all those affect appreciate, but that can literally be summed up in one sentence for encyclopedic coverage. Again, I point out Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, which discussions actions that actually occurred domestically and around the world in response; this appears to be a good encyclopedic article. And even there, its not filled with a list of quotes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are domestic "reactions" any more notable than international ones? The only reactions that really matter are the ones that can lead to changes in policy. Is that what you mean, or do you mean canned statements about the horror and tragedy and etc.? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is an excellent idea. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise idea There is a great compromise idea and that is to start writing to add domestic reaction then to propose changing the article name to "Reactions to the Sandy Hook...." I would support such a compromise between the keepers and the deleters. Auchansa (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Whole world is sad or whatever. But their grief isn't encyclopedic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename to "Response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting." The condolences from world leaders is a small part of the response. President Obama's Sunday evening speech was both well covered and itself received responses from both sides of the political isle. Where I live (San Francisco bay area) the response has included immediate increased security at schools, a threat phoned to a local school claiming they would be the next Sandy Hook, etc. I suspect schools in the immediate Newtown area went into lockdown. The gun control/rights debate has been a major topic of the news coverage, and may result in legislation, both in the USA and internationally. The immediate putting up for sale the manufacture of the main gun used in the shooting is another response. Mental heath, with regard to the shooter, support opportunities for someone like his mother, and for the victims and responders has also received much coverage. I have also seen secondary coverage of the media coverage.[5] At least one person has been arrested that seemed intent on a copycat crime.[6] I looked over some of the articles in Category:International reactions and it appears we have a good chance at making a quality "Response" article. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A legitimate content fork of the reactions article would be fine and quite possibly necessary if this leads to major permanent changes to gun laws and school security in the US. However this is a very different beast to what we have here and what the intentions of the creators were. Also it should really naturally emerge from the parent articles section. Such an article will allow some expansion of the international reaction, but due weight would demand that the main focus would be remain on the domestic one (as I think you are suggesting). Apart from expressions of greif, there are probably not too many other reactions from the international community and any that are would be better expressed in prose. AIRcorn (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mark Kupper. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Adds nothing. World leaders just say the same things over and over again. This does not help our readers understand the shooting or the after effects any better. Deserves a sentence or small paragraph in the main article. I don't think the article should be renamed to include all reactions just yet. It's only been a week. We don't have a crystal ball to see if the after effects will be big enough to warrant an article. Just wait. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge This just deserves a paragraph in the article.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and merge - as I said on the TAlk page of the main article, this should be summarized. This is not the funeral home website, where everyone's thoughts are kept. If world leaders said something other than condolences, it might be worth keeping, but they don't. This is absurd to include each quote in the main or this article.Parkwells (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable enough for a standalone article -RoseL2P (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Not long or notable enough for a separate article, but would fit well in the main article. EvilHom3r (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- *Merge: It deserves to be a section of the main article. Take a look at Category:International reactions and the articles that survived are diplomatic or have to do with foreign relations among countries, as those reactions can have impact on the outcome. While the information in the article itself is important enough for inclusion in the main article, it doesn't meet the test of independent notability. Crtew (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has, on several occasions, removed this article, when incorporated into the main article. A reactions article seems to be reasonable since there were international reactions, news articles solely about the international reaction (and not about the shooting), a very different domestic response, even the NRA making a statement, which is very unusual. There is great hesitation to improve this article with AFD being like a gun to the head. If the article has no AFD, I would certainly improve the article. I've already given some ideas in the preceding sentences. Auchansa (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename An overall "response to Sandy Hook" would be more appropriate for domestic and world reactions.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked above, but I don't see anyone answering my question of why "domestic" responses of grief are any more notable than international ones. As is pointed out above, the "Reactions to Occupy" article actually shows the impact of the Occupy movement, and is worth keeping. This is just an unencyclopedic repository of canned statements run through PR departments. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added more to the worldwide reception, and improved the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unnecessary FORK from the original article. There's been discussion about a reactions section, but afaik that hasn't even gotten enough traction yet. There's certainly not enough for an "international" section which is simply a collection of statements following a tragedy, which happens with surprising frequency. It's just this appears to be on everyone's mind atm. Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, possibly rework. The full impact of the event on public sentiment towards gun laws seems to be significant. It's fine for now but might be treated better in some other fashion to show the impact of the event. Insomesia (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added China's reaction there was criticism of the government due to the media reporting on the shooting in the United States while ignoring an attack which happened in China the same day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - For every tragedy, there are always going to be international reactions supporting the victims and condeming the violence. It is common sense. For example, for Virginia Tech School Massacre, I know there was similar response from international community.Tarikur (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this an argument to delete? If anything, you are giving a good case for building an analogous article on Virginia Tech. --Cyclopiatalk 13:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this delete vote rationale is WP:Run-of-the-mill, which I can agree with. These are run of the mill comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this an argument to delete? If anything, you are giving a good case for building an analogous article on Virginia Tech. --Cyclopiatalk 13:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mark Kupper. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Metalhead94 T C 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now.
Per previous AFDs about trascending events like this one.I am sure that there are some users believing that this is a clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, but this goes far beyond that trend. This event is notable enough by many reasons that were, are and will be discussed by media throughout time. This won't stop in a week or so, which is what NOTNEWS states.This, just like Death of Tia Sharp, are pretty notable topics derived from a single event.— ΛΧΣ21 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Clearly the event is notable (the shooting itself). Here is the question of the notability of the topic "International reactions to the shooting". Newspaper articles repeating quotes are not showing how this topic has enduring notability. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I agree with you Masem. I didn't take too much care to evaluate that question, and thanks for the comment. Sadly, newspapers seem to just have been copy-pasting the information rather than adding any new sign of enduring notability. I expect to see such information available in the future (like that shooting that happened on a college, which name I can't remember), otherwise I would have to vote delete in this article's next AFD. — ΛΧΣ21 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As it happens, ΛΧΣ 21, the name you can't remember is probably Virginia Tech. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I agree with you Masem. I didn't take too much care to evaluate that question, and thanks for the comment. Sadly, newspapers seem to just have been copy-pasting the information rather than adding any new sign of enduring notability. I expect to see such information available in the future (like that shooting that happened on a college, which name I can't remember), otherwise I would have to vote delete in this article's next AFD. — ΛΧΣ21 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the event is notable (the shooting itself). Here is the question of the notability of the topic "International reactions to the shooting". Newspaper articles repeating quotes are not showing how this topic has enduring notability. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valuable material that will be helpful for those interested in IR and related disciplines. Excellent decision by the article creator to spin this out, as there's too much useful information to easily fit into the main article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - mostly per FeydHuxtable, Marc Kupper, and Mkdw...I disagree with this being characterized as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS; what comes from this disaster will certainly have lasting notability (especially through gun laws, etc.). That said, Response to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is a much better title than what we currently have. Go Phightins! 17:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's not an article. Rather, the page is a list of reactions from those who can speak on behalf of a particular country. The page should be judged as a list. The problem come from WP:CSC: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group should only be created if a complete list is interesting to readers, e.g., interesting to readers now and years from now. However, the list is a list of loosely associated quotations or paraphrased statements, failing WP:NOTDIR. The loose association as a topic also predicts that the topic will not be interesting to readers years from now, largely due to WP:NOTNEWS and the audience draw of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting topic. WP:LISTPURP further explains WP:CSC: a list may be a valuable information source. This AfD nominated list should support the parent article, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but that article only has a relatively small "Reaction" subsection, which explains, "Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences through the weekend after the shooting." Such government reactions are routine under similar situations and there is nothing in this list of international reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or the parent article that shows the list is sufficiently valuable to understanding the reaction subsection in the parent article to justify having a stand-alone list. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the delete !voters are arguing that an article like this is a fork, why would there be so many entries in Category:International reactions? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 09:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Some of those have the same problem, some don't (eg Reactions to Occupy Wall Street). --MASEM (t) 13:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Masem. The purpose of the Occupy movement was/is to generate reaction in anyone and eveyone, local and international, in hopes of causing political action to further their cause. The occupations of buildings, parks, etc. were secondary to the primary desire for reaction. That supports a Reactions to the Occupy movement fork. In the death of Osama bin Laden, the US government took actions (burial at sea, etc.) to lessen reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, making the actual reaction despite the U.S.'s efforts an important subtopic. The primary purpose of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was not international reaction, it was the action of the shooting itself. The primary motive has yet to be fleshed out, but it was not for international reaction or even reaction beyond the local area. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually most mass shootings of this type are believed to be motivated in part by a desire to get a reaction. Of course since Adam Lanza is dead now we won't be able to know for sure what motivated him, but psychologists have often argued that the extremely large amount of mass media coverage that follows shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook may partially inspire some copycat attacks by mentally disturbed individuals who believe that they never amounted to anything in life, so they would rather "go out with a bang" in order to become (in)famous in death. The desire for posthumous publicity (or publicity while still living, in the case of men like Anders Breivik and James Eagan Holmes, who didn't take their own lives) is often a prime motive in these kinds of massacres. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's "reactions" and there's "reactions". The Occupy reactions or those in response to bin Laden's death are about actions with traceable effects (enduring) due to those events. On the other hand, reactions like to the shooting are just statements with no explicit intent of action, and simply a show of sympathy and compassion. These latter types are nice quote-filled texts but unless something actually comes of that, its not encyclopedic beyond the brief mention in the event article. Enduring reactions to an event are instead appropriate. Now, there's likely no question that gun control will be a big issue, so there's that as a reaction, but so far, all that can be reasonably said is on the event page. If there are any other enduring actionable responses, its not apparent. Hence the difference between these types of articles. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually most mass shootings of this type are believed to be motivated in part by a desire to get a reaction. Of course since Adam Lanza is dead now we won't be able to know for sure what motivated him, but psychologists have often argued that the extremely large amount of mass media coverage that follows shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook may partially inspire some copycat attacks by mentally disturbed individuals who believe that they never amounted to anything in life, so they would rather "go out with a bang" in order to become (in)famous in death. The desire for posthumous publicity (or publicity while still living, in the case of men like Anders Breivik and James Eagan Holmes, who didn't take their own lives) is often a prime motive in these kinds of massacres. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Masem. The purpose of the Occupy movement was/is to generate reaction in anyone and eveyone, local and international, in hopes of causing political action to further their cause. The occupations of buildings, parks, etc. were secondary to the primary desire for reaction. That supports a Reactions to the Occupy movement fork. In the death of Osama bin Laden, the US government took actions (burial at sea, etc.) to lessen reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, making the actual reaction despite the U.S.'s efforts an important subtopic. The primary purpose of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was not international reaction, it was the action of the shooting itself. The primary motive has yet to be fleshed out, but it was not for international reaction or even reaction beyond the local area. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Some of those have the same problem, some don't (eg Reactions to Occupy Wall Street). --MASEM (t) 13:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Abosulety keep this is a very important event JayJayTalk to me 20:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about an event - it is about reactions to the event (The event is notable in a separate article.) --MASEM (t) 23:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge — the nominator basically said it all. All it says is "this country's sad, that country's sad, we're all sad". This can be said in all of one paragraph, as everything here is just repetitive condolences. Summarize the condolences into one line on the Reactions section of the main page (...oh wait, they kind of did that already), but if anything significantly more than that pops up, then give it some notice. As far as this is going right now, it's a repository of news. But, hell, even if this isn't condensed into one paragraph, it could still fit on the Sandy Hook shooting page without it becoming excessively lengthy. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 19:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the countries' responses are more diverse than that. Iran, for instance, promoted a conspiracy theory blaming the Israelis for the shooting, and also made a polemical point equating the victims of the shooting with Gazans and Syrians. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This information would otherwise be in the main shooting article itself and, thus, it's completely valid to have a spinout article. That's kind of what you're supposed to do. And reactions are rather important actually, because they inform the reader about the opinions of other countries. It is perhaps not as apparent in this sort of event, but for more contentious ones, countries that praise and those that do not praise an event are important distinctions that the news recognizes as important and we are meant to be a proper reflection of such things. International opinions have always been an important topic. SilverserenC 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "meaning" of all the reactions is not explicitly commented by other sources, us putting them in there to let the reader figure it out is a big example of indiscriminate information; it doesn't beg OR but simply excessive info that not all readers will need. Again, the same purpose is served by moving this to Wikinews and linking to that Wikinews article from the shooting, so that those readers that are curious to the international response can still get them. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing that "all readers need". If a reader doesn't need the article, they won't read it -just like for every article. Easy as that. There's nothing indiscriminate in this information, it's all properly sourced with a clear cut title. --Cyclopiatalk 15:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void - I can argue that for any topic there would be at least one person that would be interested and therefore must be kept. Our indiscriminate policy is to make sure that we are summarizing to a point that the topics we cover are of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers and offload the details that would be of interest to smaller groups to references or other locations (which is why we have several sister projects that make excellent candidates for that type of information). In the case of the shooting, we collectively recognize the importance of the timeline of the event, who was killed, who the shooter was, and the enduring reaction that have/will occur from it, hence why all that's covered. The international reaction, lacking any enduring effects, is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know about the event and thus better suited for a sister project where that metric isn't in place (read: wikinews). --MASEM (t) 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void" - Nope. You should know that, in logic, implication doesn't work two-ways: if A -> B, it doesn't follow that B -> A. Specifically, what I mean is that the bogus argument is "this doesn't interest all readers, thus it must be deleted", which is basically the WP:BORING argument. We have written nowhere that the topics we cover have to be "of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers", and in fact our policies allow us to cover a lot of frankly obscure subjects, provided they're covered by multiple reliable sources. That the reaction " is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know" is your own personal opinion, not backed by anything, but even if it was fact, it is completely irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. After all, if encyclopedias should only cover what every layman wants to know, they would perhaps have less than a dozen articles. --Cyclopiatalk 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained the fundamental principle our notability guideline (the embodiment of NOT#IINFO) works on. By have significant coverage in independent secondary sources, we are able to judge how much a topic is of interest to a range of readers, using the metric that if a reliable independent source gives coverage in a secondary (analytical/critical/transformative) manner to a topic, then that source must think the topic important to its readers, and ergo WP can consider that. I'm not saying every reader has to have interest in a topic, just that we have to consider how broad a range of readers would likely be interested in. That's why it is important to recognize that while many sources have provided snippets of these responses by the international community, the lack of any further discussion on them shows that they lack notability or enduring coverage, and thus not of broad interest. They're factually true and I'm sure readers interested in world politics would be curious, but the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but breadth of readership is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are sources; we don't care how many people will actually read these sources or the articles based on them. If what you proposed was true, then we would have to collect readership data about the sources we use for our articles, or decide topic inclusion on the basis of popularity. That's clearly not what we do, and for lots of good reasons. Also, when you say "the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had" you again put a weirdly subjective and unsupported statement on what readers do, that as such as no relevance. --Cyclopiatalk 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We do, indirectly, considere readership numbers in considering reliable sources; a small town local paper is not considered a reliable source for major world events. Of course, it's not hard numbers that are used but more what the intended audience is of the source relative to the field; major academic journals in some fields may only have readerships in the thousands but that would often represent a broad slice of the academic field's community they represent. This is far different from popularity (which as you say is a not a consideration for notability). But this is getting off point; we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call and we do at times have to make assumptions about what the readership of an encyclopedia are interested in. There are lots of things that WP doesn't cover or had deleted despite having a large body of readers but we have decided that not all those readers are coming here to read those in the context of an encyclopedia and hence we have removed that information (eg. many many articles on fictional works reported in-universe, or the case of numerous MMA events). We have to look here at these reactions, and consider that because they are not influencing any of the events of the shooting case nor have had enduring coverage by reliable sources, that on average readers of an encyclopedia are not going to be interested in them (That is a subjective call, yes). As a news item yes, and thus those extra details can be put elsewhere (Wikinews) and linked in to provide the details we as an encyclopedia cannot. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call " - No, we don't have to do that, because it isn't. We have the GNG and our other notability/appropriateness guidelines, exactly because we want to make objective calls as much as possible. Yes, some of these guidelines have subjectivity wiggle room, but that's a bug, not a feature. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG and SNGs are only for notability of a topic on a stand-alone page. We have to use other metrics for content (eg most of WP:NOT), but these are all still subjecting (even the GNG is subjective as to what is "significant coverage"). As a standalone topic "(International) reactions to Sandy Hook" fails the GNG as there are no secondary sources about the topic's enduring coverage - it's just primary source quotes. If this content were merged to the Sandy Hook article, it would be indiscriminate info that is given undue coverage (the reason it was removed from there in the first place). Wikinews is a perfect home for it where IINFO or WP:N doesn't apply. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call " - No, we don't have to do that, because it isn't. We have the GNG and our other notability/appropriateness guidelines, exactly because we want to make objective calls as much as possible. Yes, some of these guidelines have subjectivity wiggle room, but that's a bug, not a feature. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We do, indirectly, considere readership numbers in considering reliable sources; a small town local paper is not considered a reliable source for major world events. Of course, it's not hard numbers that are used but more what the intended audience is of the source relative to the field; major academic journals in some fields may only have readerships in the thousands but that would often represent a broad slice of the academic field's community they represent. This is far different from popularity (which as you say is a not a consideration for notability). But this is getting off point; we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call and we do at times have to make assumptions about what the readership of an encyclopedia are interested in. There are lots of things that WP doesn't cover or had deleted despite having a large body of readers but we have decided that not all those readers are coming here to read those in the context of an encyclopedia and hence we have removed that information (eg. many many articles on fictional works reported in-universe, or the case of numerous MMA events). We have to look here at these reactions, and consider that because they are not influencing any of the events of the shooting case nor have had enduring coverage by reliable sources, that on average readers of an encyclopedia are not going to be interested in them (That is a subjective call, yes). As a news item yes, and thus those extra details can be put elsewhere (Wikinews) and linked in to provide the details we as an encyclopedia cannot. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but breadth of readership is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are sources; we don't care how many people will actually read these sources or the articles based on them. If what you proposed was true, then we would have to collect readership data about the sources we use for our articles, or decide topic inclusion on the basis of popularity. That's clearly not what we do, and for lots of good reasons. Also, when you say "the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had" you again put a weirdly subjective and unsupported statement on what readers do, that as such as no relevance. --Cyclopiatalk 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained the fundamental principle our notability guideline (the embodiment of NOT#IINFO) works on. By have significant coverage in independent secondary sources, we are able to judge how much a topic is of interest to a range of readers, using the metric that if a reliable independent source gives coverage in a secondary (analytical/critical/transformative) manner to a topic, then that source must think the topic important to its readers, and ergo WP can consider that. I'm not saying every reader has to have interest in a topic, just that we have to consider how broad a range of readers would likely be interested in. That's why it is important to recognize that while many sources have provided snippets of these responses by the international community, the lack of any further discussion on them shows that they lack notability or enduring coverage, and thus not of broad interest. They're factually true and I'm sure readers interested in world politics would be curious, but the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void" - Nope. You should know that, in logic, implication doesn't work two-ways: if A -> B, it doesn't follow that B -> A. Specifically, what I mean is that the bogus argument is "this doesn't interest all readers, thus it must be deleted", which is basically the WP:BORING argument. We have written nowhere that the topics we cover have to be "of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers", and in fact our policies allow us to cover a lot of frankly obscure subjects, provided they're covered by multiple reliable sources. That the reaction " is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know" is your own personal opinion, not backed by anything, but even if it was fact, it is completely irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. After all, if encyclopedias should only cover what every layman wants to know, they would perhaps have less than a dozen articles. --Cyclopiatalk 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void - I can argue that for any topic there would be at least one person that would be interested and therefore must be kept. Our indiscriminate policy is to make sure that we are summarizing to a point that the topics we cover are of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers and offload the details that would be of interest to smaller groups to references or other locations (which is why we have several sister projects that make excellent candidates for that type of information). In the case of the shooting, we collectively recognize the importance of the timeline of the event, who was killed, who the shooter was, and the enduring reaction that have/will occur from it, hence why all that's covered. The international reaction, lacking any enduring effects, is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know about the event and thus better suited for a sister project where that metric isn't in place (read: wikinews). --MASEM (t) 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing that "all readers need". If a reader doesn't need the article, they won't read it -just like for every article. Easy as that. There's nothing indiscriminate in this information, it's all properly sourced with a clear cut title. --Cyclopiatalk 15:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "meaning" of all the reactions is not explicitly commented by other sources, us putting them in there to let the reader figure it out is a big example of indiscriminate information; it doesn't beg OR but simply excessive info that not all readers will need. Again, the same purpose is served by moving this to Wikinews and linking to that Wikinews article from the shooting, so that those readers that are curious to the international response can still get them. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory where information is collected indiscriminately. Reactions can be covered adequately in the main article without resorting to the creation of a quotefarm. Hekerui (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all the International reactions are quotes though, or by just world leaders. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's the big chunk of the article. I don't believe the rest is so significant it has to be in the main article, though one could make the argument for merging that paragraph back. Hekerui (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Splitting out content is necessary. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the vast majority of these are just condolences, and while they're nice, they don't mean a lot. Any reactions beyond that can and should be incorporated into the main article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.TheMillionRabbit (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I second TheMillionRabbit's Merge vote, and furthermore it should be a distinct Section within that Main Article (which it used to be, so it should be again). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about MASEM's argument. I see that a little above he agrees it meets the WP notability standards, and argues there shouldn't be an article nonetheless, on the basis of his judgment that it isn't important enough, and gives a variety of reasons for thinking that judgment correct. My own judgement is just the opposite, but both of our judgements are irrelevant. WP basically goes by the sources, and what the world thinks is notable is, unless there's some really specific reason. Here there is just the general prediction that nobody much will care about it after a while. Examining WP:N, the reasons given for not making a separate article even when we have notability are primarily applicable when there is insufficient material to be worth covering separately, and a better article can be written as a merge. That is a matter of judgment at the borderline cases, but still is basically objective. The lack of sufficient material is very obviously not the case here, so I just cannot figure out a logical reason for merging that isn't entirely subjective. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said this topic (being "Interntaional reaction to teh Sandy Hook Shootings") was notable; I've explicitly stated that it isn't. The shootings themselves are clearly notable, but the reactions to them fall well short of the GNG. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fender (vehicle). Consensus from editors who are independent of the subject seems to be fairly clear that the "Tube fender" as a product is not significant enough to have its own article yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tube fender
- Tube fender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Tube fender" is a product name created by one company, Metalcloak.com, which is partly owned by User:Matsonian who created this article. The product name is not universally used. No third party sources discuss it. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tube Fender" is not a product name. It is a category of products produced by at least two dozen companies in the off road industry and hundreds of DIY owners of off road vehicles. I am familiar with Tube Fenders because of my company which manufactures a variation of that product category as well as bumpers, suspensions and other product categories for Jeep vehicles. Matsonian (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So then your task here is to find some third-party sources which define and discuss the tube fender. Without two very prominent sources, such as national level publications, the article will fail WP:GNG. I was unable to find such sources. I wish you luck in your search. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons given by Binksternet. Seems like an obvious attempt at a neologism, possibly to boost SEO for the manufacturer's web site. - MrX 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, as the deletion rationale is extremely faulty. A quick Google image search for "tube fender" returns many hundreds of photos. It appears to be a generic term, not a product name. Belchfire-TALK 05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can help the article survive deletion by finding a reference that defines and discusses the auto part with the indicated name "tube fender". Personally, I see in my searches a bunch of products such as this one falling under the general description of "off-road fenders" or "fender flares". For instance, Amazon.com sells the Genright Tube Fender Flare, a subset of Fender Flares. Basically, the whole group of custom fenders should be described at Fender (vehicle). Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, the article could be and should be improved. And thanks for acknowledging my point concerning the validity of your deletion rationale. Belchfire-TALK 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was pointing out that you had not offered any reliable sources to help the article. You still have not. I looked for some myself and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You found nothing? Did you actually search? As I said before, a quick Google search [7] readily shows that your original claims ("Tube fender" is a product name created by one company...", "The product name is not universally used", "No third party sources discuss it.") are simply false and, quite frankly, laughable. Belchfire-TALK 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "sources" I was only looking for reliable sources which could be used to satisfy WP:GNG, not websites selling various custom fenders, not photos of the fender. You are arguing that it exists, which is not the point. I am arguing that it has not been defined and described by a third party enough to bring it up out of the noise of various fender types and into its own article. Of course tube fenders exist! Your "strong keep" appears to be based on the fact that tube fenders exist rather than on satisfying WP:GNG. Existence of something does not mean we should have an article about it. For instance, orange fish exist—I can totally prove it—but we do not have an article about them. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You found nothing? Did you actually search? As I said before, a quick Google search [7] readily shows that your original claims ("Tube fender" is a product name created by one company...", "The product name is not universally used", "No third party sources discuss it.") are simply false and, quite frankly, laughable. Belchfire-TALK 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was pointing out that you had not offered any reliable sources to help the article. You still have not. I looked for some myself and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had hoped that when I wrote it originally in 2010, that others more qualified then me would come along and improve it. Kind of surprised all this is coming up now. But all critique and feedback is welcome. Matsonian (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, the article could be and should be improved. And thanks for acknowledging my point concerning the validity of your deletion rationale. Belchfire-TALK 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Binksternet's recommendation, the article was edited with a reference. Matsonian (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (trimming massively)) to Fender (vehicle). KillerChihuahua 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but Merging is like putting V8 Engine under Engine... does not something of significant impact to a sport or industry qualify for its own article? Matsonian (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How many reliable, independent sources do you have which state this is of significant impact to the sport and/or industry? I'm sorry, but you cannot write your opinion of it's significance, no matter how accurate and true it is; you must source it. KillerChihuahua 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is not like putting the entirety of V8 engine under engine. The V8 engine article is quite substantial including history of development, pros and cons vs other layouts. A tube fender is a fender made in part or whole from tubes, as opposed to sheet metal. There's not a lot more can be said. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A V8 Engine is combustion engine made of metal. But it has a specific function in transportation. Similarly a tube fender has a function beyond typical automotive fenders. Matsonian (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is not like putting the entirety of V8 engine under engine. The V8 engine article is quite substantial including history of development, pros and cons vs other layouts. A tube fender is a fender made in part or whole from tubes, as opposed to sheet metal. There's not a lot more can be said. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How many reliable, independent sources do you have which state this is of significant impact to the sport and/or industry? I'm sorry, but you cannot write your opinion of it's significance, no matter how accurate and true it is; you must source it. KillerChihuahua 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but Merging is like putting V8 Engine under Engine... does not something of significant impact to a sport or industry qualify for its own article? Matsonian (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as it stands the text of the article is a close paraphrase of the reference. Almost too close. Is there any merit in creating a wikitionary entry instead of an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to do some reading to better understand Wikipedia standards. I will do so tonight and rewrite the entire article so it better reflects standards. Thanks all for the feedback and I look forward to learning more. Matsonian (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After re-reading guidelines including Your First Article I've decided to completely re-do the Tube Fender Article. As mentioned before, I wrote it in 2010 without any regard for creating the ideal article, expecting others to improve on my work. If you wish to delete the article, be my guest. If you want to leave it until I do a complete rewrite, that's okay too. Either way, I will do a proper Tube Fender article per the guidelines. Thank you all for your feedback. Matsonian (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge as this is just one small item to have its own, esp with the lack if support it shows.--198.102.29.195 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added to the article a reference to a short section about tube fenders in a book. You may be able to see some or all of it here, depending on what kind of mood Google Books is in. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Fender (vehicle) or bullbar, although there is not much that is worthy or in need of merging. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per what MrX said. Wikipedia is not for popularizing brands. Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carbon footprint. MBisanz talk 04:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon handprint
- Carbon handprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Loaded term and violation of WP:NEO. Syncratic to the environmentalist movement, and not particularly notable therein. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As WP:NEO, WP:ESSAY, WP:SYNTH and WP:SPAM, since I assume it was written to promote the 'movement'. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi guys. Fair enough if you don't like the article - it's the first one I did. I wouldn't say it was written to promote the "movement" - I'm not associated with it or anything like that, I just came across it and thought it was a nice subject for my first article. This seems a bit elitist - I'm clearly not a spammer, but you're making it really hard to contribute with dismissive comments rather than anything constructive. - EggsIgnio
- Don't take it personally. It's normal when you put an article in mainspace that it can be attacked or criticized. It's part of the process. Sorry sometimes Wikipedia is not as friendly as it should be. --Cyclopiatalk 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The term seems to be notable. The article needs a lot of work to avoid the policies cited above, however. PianoDan (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article lists enough sources about the concept to pass WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be merged with Carbon_thumbprint ? EggsIgnio (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They look like they're different enough to have their own articles. --Cyclopiatalk 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From where I stand, they both look non-notable enough to be deleted. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why a topic with Times of India, Huffington Post and Time Magazine references about the concept (as WP:NEO asks), plus more, is not notable in your opinion? Because it passes the WP:GNG with flying colours. --Cyclopiatalk 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify here, the reasoning behind my delete !vote (and I suspect others) is that I get one book hit on Google for this, and zero on Scholar. As far as I'm concerned something like this needs to be an accepted scientific term, rather than a clever neologism coined by some random activist. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you (or I) are concerned with is hardly relevant, what is relevant is that it passes our policies and guidelines. If you find also a book hit, in addition to the news sources, then you're actually strenghtening the case for keeping it. --Cyclopiatalk 23:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the single book hit is actually in the index, referencing the website that this article is intending to promote. This is a neologism with dubious value and an ad for a website, nothing more. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but what about the sources in the article? --Cyclopiatalk 09:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about them? The single Time article, plus one that is unrelated to the subject concept? You are being taken to the cleaners by a marketing campaign. Try and figure out what exactly "The Carbon Handprint Working Group" is and you'll understand my stance here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO, WP:coatrack. Also frankly peacock. Greglocock (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain your !vote? To me it passes WP:NEO: sources are about the concept, they don't just use it. About the coatrack, I just don't get it. --Cyclopiatalk 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but could you please link to some of those sources? I did the basic level of googling before nominating this, and some more after you referenced them, but I still wasn't really able to find anything conclusive. Of course, that probably just means I didn't look hard enough, but would you mind mitigating my laziness and tracking them down? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF? Did you at least see the article you nominated? They are there. --Cyclopiatalk 09:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway: [8], [9], [10]. --Cyclopiatalk 09:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop being rude to me. I let your condescending apology on my behalf slide, and I ignored your whining about every single delete !vote, but I don't take well to being accused of not doing my research before nominating an article. Regardless, columnists love to use neologisms - notably, all three of those columns use the term handprint, as opposed to footprint, to either make a point or discuss the usage of the term. Furthermore, a term used in a handful of opinion pieces, but only seeing 3,000 GHits falls under a much simpler notability guideline: WP:DICTIONARY. Anyways, I'm going to go back to what I've been doing all along - watching this AfD from afar, and seeing what arguments other people make, and generally avoiding trying to discredit every single !vote I disagree with. I'd encourage you to do the same. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Carbon footprint. Neologism or not, the two are so closely related that having two separate articles would be unnecessarily spreading the knowledge out to multiple articles. Also, since Wikipedia articles should generally be about things, not terms, having a separate article constitutes a form of content forkery. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantis (Stargate)
- Atlantis (Stargate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional spaceship. Article is a plot-only description of a fictional element which is already suitably discussed at Stargate Atlantis. Claritas § 00:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to think keep is the best option as this is a natural split off of the main article, and maintaining it there would be too large. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it's cool that the show has a city-sized spaceship, the article is 100% sourced to the show itself. This tends to show that the ship is not notable to the outside world. It would be better to just mention the ship in the article on the show and let people watch the show, or visit fan-sites which could be linked, to find out all the details. Borock (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Warning: Rant. Please don't consider this in the AfD discussion but I couldn't help saying it.) There's reasons why things are presented in fiction, rather than non-fiction prose. If the writers of this show wanted tell us about this spaceship through a non-fiction article they could have done so themselves, and probably better than we on WP. (Thanks. I feel better now.) -Borock (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not going to try and argue with the last bit, but non-notable? Seriously? Being the main location of a big series like Stargate is not notable? That's exactly the same as saying Walford from EastEnders is not-notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's notable, it should be facile for you to verify notability by including citations to secondary sources which discuss it in detail. I believe your argument is one to avoid... --Claritas § 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're erroneously conflating two different things. Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making an OTHERCRAPEXISTS comment at all. As to finding sources on it, that's not exactly easy, due to the name of the series tending to take priority. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'll find and add sources, which clearly exist. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two book sources added from my personal library, GNG is now met. I'll find and add others over the course of the AfD, of course, but that's what I had tonight. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG isn't met until we verify notability, quote relevant sections please and I'll withdraw nom if they're sufficient. Claritas § 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Put another way, WP:V requires that facts are verifiable, not verified, nor that they are easily to verify with a click of a mouse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you unwilling to quote the relevant pages if they contain significant coverage of the material ? If I write an article about Cheese consumption in 13th century Transylvania, and cite lots of extremely obscure Hungarian books from the 19th century which don't exist outside legal deposit libraries, would you travel miles to disprove me, or request that I quote ? It's an obvious case of the burden being on those who wish to keep material. @Dennis, things have to be verified. The statement that "It's raining" is verifiable, but it's not always true. You don't understand what the words mean. --Claritas § 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's your job, not mine. I'll spend my limited Wikipedia time as I see fit, and if you want to kick down the sandcastles I build, you need to do your own homework, not say "show me" and "that's not good enough" if I comply. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Claritas, trying to convince Jclemens of anything that doesn't go his way is useless. He has an inclusionist agenda and will always try to push for his own extremely loose and unconsensual interpretation of the GNG, but his AfD comments will rarely fool reasonable closing admins. It would be a waste of time trying to argue with him.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Next you'll be accusing me of stalking you to yet another AfD in which I participated before you did. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Claritas, trying to convince Jclemens of anything that doesn't go his way is useless. He has an inclusionist agenda and will always try to push for his own extremely loose and unconsensual interpretation of the GNG, but his AfD comments will rarely fool reasonable closing admins. It would be a waste of time trying to argue with him.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's your job, not mine. I'll spend my limited Wikipedia time as I see fit, and if you want to kick down the sandcastles I build, you need to do your own homework, not say "show me" and "that's not good enough" if I comply. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you unwilling to quote the relevant pages if they contain significant coverage of the material ? If I write an article about Cheese consumption in 13th century Transylvania, and cite lots of extremely obscure Hungarian books from the 19th century which don't exist outside legal deposit libraries, would you travel miles to disprove me, or request that I quote ? It's an obvious case of the burden being on those who wish to keep material. @Dennis, things have to be verified. The statement that "It's raining" is verifiable, but it's not always true. You don't understand what the words mean. --Claritas § 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without proof, anyone could save an article just by claiming it has offline sources. Whether or not the claim alone is sufficient is up to consensus I suppose. Curiously, no page numbers were listed. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mistaken. If you'd looked at the article, instead of just zooming to the reflist, you will see that page numbers are cited using the {{rp}} functionality. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, I missed the page numbers. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mistaken. If you'd looked at the article, instead of just zooming to the reflist, you will see that page numbers are cited using the {{rp}} functionality. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Put another way, WP:V requires that facts are verifiable, not verified, nor that they are easily to verify with a click of a mouse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG isn't met until we verify notability, quote relevant sections please and I'll withdraw nom if they're sufficient. Claritas § 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading Stargate SG-1 p. 251 is a list of dictionary-like entries and has only 3 sentences on Atlantis. Other interesting dictionary entries include Blood of Sokar, [tok'ra] Blending, and Body-swapping machine, but none are enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. If anyone wants a scan of p. 251, please leave me a message on my talk page and I would be more than happy to share educational resources with you. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Approaching the Possible: The works of Stargate SG-1. p. 453's citation does not support the statement it is cited at. It only mentions Atlantis in passing, dealing with it as a series rather than a place. p. 453 does not claim that "Full Circle" is the first time that Daniel mentions Atlantis, so the citation should be removed. Again, if anyone wants a scan of the relevant page, please leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to share it. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the impression I get from the other sources that editors have identified for their support of keeping the article - they are in-universe guides to explain what Atlantis is and provide no insight on the fictional element's concept by the show's producers, its design, or any type of reception about the ship itself (not the show). As there's little out-of-universe information to write, it fails NOTPLOT, despite how many apparent sources there may be and thus not appropriate to keep. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two book sources added from my personal library, GNG is now met. I'll find and add others over the course of the AfD, of course, but that's what I had tonight. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jclemens, and the sources he has added. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources he has added only seem to point to the fictional existence of the spaceship, which was never in question. All the rest of the information in the article is sourced to the show itself. It doesn't look like coverage in depth in multiple secondary sources. Borock (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "significant coverage" (or "Non-trivial", historically) is the standard, not "in depth". Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the works you cited to substantiate notability, and there's no way those constitute "significant coverage". There's plenty of rehashing of primary sources, but very little serious secondary analysis. --Claritas § 09:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh? Do you care to post detailed quotes from the sources to substantiate your rationale? Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will if you do :) Claritas § 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've yet to see anything to convince me that you've actually read the sources in question. Seeing as how I added both of them myself, I know quite clearly well that I have. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will if you do :) Claritas § 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh? Do you care to post detailed quotes from the sources to substantiate your rationale? Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the works you cited to substantiate notability, and there's no way those constitute "significant coverage". There's plenty of rehashing of primary sources, but very little serious secondary analysis. --Claritas § 09:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "significant coverage" (or "Non-trivial", historically) is the standard, not "in depth". Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources he has added only seem to point to the fictional existence of the spaceship, which was never in question. All the rest of the information in the article is sourced to the show itself. It doesn't look like coverage in depth in multiple secondary sources. Borock (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to what Jclemens has found, I'd like to point out this series got a lot of coverage before and during its run, and you can't talk about the series without talking about the city of Atlantis its based in and about. Highbeam search for "Atlantis" "city" "Stargate" has 106 results to look through. [11] I see coverage of them finding the city in a distant solar system, it sunk, built by the ancient, reviews and previews of episodes when its been attacked by this and that and the other, when they sank it to protect it, etc. Bit coverage, but taken as a whole, that is something. The entire notable series was about this city, that why they named the show after it. Dream Focus 14:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet GNG as the subject hasn't been significantly covered (in detail, with more than trivial mentions, allowing to write more than a definition of the topic) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The recent trivial additions don't change that fact.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Those darn verifiable sources; the article is so well written and should be included in this encyclopedia directly commenting on its content! Sources are surely out there, and surely substantiate much of the information in this article. The subject matter and sheer fact that this is a legitimate sub-article of a section from the main series is relevant to the series with in this encyclopedia. That said, the article does need solid verifiable sources to steer it away from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and at present it does not and so I must put myself in the delete argument for the time being. I surely hope you can find some more sources before the AfD closure at which time I will re-evaluate my position. Mkdwtalk 09:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Far too in-depth and significant a subject to merge back into the main article, and while the sources are a bit weak, I think they are good enough for the article to stand on its own. Of course this does not mean that the search for additional sources should not continue, as they can only serve to improve the article as it is. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubbify and attempt expansion with renewed focus on concept, design, production, and critical response. --EEMIV (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. May be worthwhile to summarize into the the Stargate mythos article. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholly in-universe. Critical commentary from outside of the franchise itself is nonexistent. The argument that this needs split for length carries no water for precisely those reasons: there is not enough independently notable material on this subject (a fictional space ship's fictional facilities) to justify including enough detail on it to warrant a split. This belongs on a dedicated external wiki, which can go into as much detail on topics covered exclusively by primary and closely-affiliated sources as it sees fit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the whole thing is very in-universe and the sources seem (without being able to access them) to also be fairly Stargate-universe (no pun intended) focussed. But in-universe ≠ non-notable, in my opinion. I suppose I can see some value in having an article for a significant plot-line item from a notable television show, but there seems to be a lot of content in the article that's of no real encyclopaedic value. So while I see no particular reason to delete the article, I think there's a good argument for paring it back a little bit. For those above, Reading Stargate SG-1 (Beeler & Dickson) is available online. Pages 107-109 provide "historical" (in-plot) background for the ship, details of some of its features, technology, etc, and its placement in the general Stargate plot-line with regard to previous seasons and characters. I think the page-specific citation in the article might be an error, or perhaps just not the best one available in that book. It is obviously focussed on the Stargate "universe", but it provides coverage of the subject in that context. Approaching the Possible: The World of Stargate Sg-1 (Storm) is also available online, though the book is incorrectly cited in the article as works of Sg-1, not world. Anyway... Stalwart111 02:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a policy based argument. There's simply no value in using secondary sources which regurgitate primary sources. Claritas § 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not really an anything-based argument - just an opinion on what has been presented. My comments on the sources were more a response to concerns (above) that particular sources were not available online. People can make their own judgements about them but I think they are better than the usual primary-source-only citations for in-universe stuff. Stalwart111 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary sources per our definition at WP:NOR would provide the necessary commentary and critique to pull this article into an out-of-universe approach. (You may be confusing using third-party primary sources, like recaps, as replacements for the show itself, but that's not protecting it from notability). --MASEM (t) 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above discussions of source, etc. If I can quibble with the OP, though, Atlantis may be a spaceship (really a starship) technically, but its in-university function is primarily that of a city and location of a defunct country/capital city, not that of a starship. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a lot of other editors have noted, we need to do more than just verify in-universe plot elements. See WP:NOT#PLOT. We need something to WP:verify notability. There's nothing independent and reliable to really say whether this is notable. The quality AND quantity of coverage matters, and articles that are merely WP:SYNthesize together various descriptions gleaned from the story can't meet the WP:GNG or policy on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and add a link to the disambiguation list. There are other starship cities in science fiction Cities in Flight, about the Okie Cities, are some. Noting the number of uses of the word "Atlantis", however, I'd like to keep a redirect from Atlantis(Stargate) to Stargate just to prevent confusion even if the article is deleted.htom (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note A detailed book search here shows plenty of reliable secondary sources--once you filter out the Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources, and first-party sources, there are plenty of books like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. These are only a selection of the books available, but it seems people simply don't trust me when I say that sources are available--these are the ones that come readily to preview, that aren't already represented in the article or available to me personally. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at the sources, as opposed to just a search? Of the 5 you list, the 2nd may be a possible source, but the book appears more focused on the STargate technology than the ship Atlantis (But that's as far as the google book preview allows). 1 is a companion guide, implying non-independence. 3 and 4 are discussions of the general Atlantis (the ancient lost city on Earth) myth, and while they mention the common name, is far from signification coverage. 5 seems to be a third-party recap/summary, ergo a primary source. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. "Companion" books are not under the editorial control of the showrunners, hence independent and non-primary--however, while each season has its own book, I simply listed one of the five. A third party recap is, by definition, not a primary source. The 3 and 4 references demonstrate that the "city of Atlantis" from Stargate Atlantis receives mention in works dedicated to "Atlantis" as a cultural phenomenon. And, as you point out... this is all limited to/by Google Books Preview. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen several companion books that are issued by the showrunners - its impossible to tell from just the ref, but the blurb for that implies that it is more focused on characters as opposed to the mythos that the ship would be in. Third-party recaps (if that is all they do) are primary sources because they do not impart any original analysis to make them secondary, and that source, as best as can be seen from GBPreview, is only that (if anything it may be a tertiary source, but even still, notability requires independent secondary sources). And just because a few sources spend a couple sentences to note that the ship is named after the Earth mythology is not "significant coverage". Remember, it's not just notability here , but also NOT#PLOT that is a concern, even though that latter is a content aspect; but so far the amount of non-plot content relative to the body of this article of in-universe coverage suggests that we're never going to be able to get the right balance without trimming the bulk of the existing article. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. "Companion" books are not under the editorial control of the showrunners, hence independent and non-primary--however, while each season has its own book, I simply listed one of the five. A third party recap is, by definition, not a primary source. The 3 and 4 references demonstrate that the "city of Atlantis" from Stargate Atlantis receives mention in works dedicated to "Atlantis" as a cultural phenomenon. And, as you point out... this is all limited to/by Google Books Preview. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at the sources, as opposed to just a search? Of the 5 you list, the 2nd may be a possible source, but the book appears more focused on the STargate technology than the ship Atlantis (But that's as far as the google book preview allows). 1 is a companion guide, implying non-independence. 3 and 4 are discussions of the general Atlantis (the ancient lost city on Earth) myth, and while they mention the common name, is far from signification coverage. 5 seems to be a third-party recap/summary, ergo a primary source. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Association football in Curaçao. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chippie Polar Cup
- Chippie Polar Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by article creator; there is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should this get deleted? It is a valid tournament in Curaçao, which big clubs from Netherlands, Suriname, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao have participated in. It is to promote football on the island, and features clubs from the Sekshon Pagá as well as clubs like Ajax, Feyenoord, Hubentut Fortuna, RKSV Centro Dominguito, Walking Boys Company, FC Groningen, and more. I agree more can be said about this tournament, but most articles you will find on it It is a four day tournament that takes place in Curaçao, sponsored by Chippie Mobile, the main cellphone service providers in the Netherlands Antilles. If you google the tournament you will find plenty of articles written about it in Dutch and Papiamento. I have gathered what I found on the Duthc Wikipedia, and translated it, I agree more information on the subject would be nice, but I don't see that a reason to delete the valid information that we have. Curaçao is a valid country in the World, even if it is a small country. This tournament is one of the bigger tournaments they have. The Amsterdam Tournament from Ajax is also an invitational tournament with its own articles. The South African Rothman's Cup also has i's own article. I have already added more sources to the article, I feel there should be more articles on football in the Netherlands Antilles and in Suriname in general, and that this one needs to be improved, but not deleted. Subzzee 02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something exists does not mean it is notable. You have failed to demonstrate how this meets the general notability guideline - has it received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? No. GiantSnowman 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- YES It has seen significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources!! Did you even bother to check? Obviously not! Just because you have never heard of it in England (I am assuming that is where you are from) does not mean it is not a very relevant event 7,500 Km away from where you are in the World. What do you want to prove the tournaments notability? Do I have to provide links to every single article write up about this event? I very well can, I suggested you google it, to save me the effort. You won't be able to read most of them, since they are either in Dutch or Papiamento for the most part anyway. I have provided links to the sources of all my information listed, as this tournament has seen coverage not only in the ABC islands, but also in the Netherlands (maybe not in England, but who cares if England is paying attention or not, makes no difference to us). Curaçao just went through some political restructuring, and as a result this tournament has been put on hold since they are no longer a part of the Netherlands Antilles, and their Football governing body has changed. This tournament however is not done for, and I find it very rude and inconsiderate for you to come around and say that this tournament lacks in notability, when it is the biggest friendly football tournament in Curaçao, apart from the Sekshon Pagá (league play) and the ABC Championship (another tournament which is played between the various Dutch islands, that I am sure you have not heard of, since you seem to be very ignorant to the on goings in the Dutch Caribbean football sphere). Tell me what you need to see in order for this article to remain intact (I have intentions of improving this article, as there is a lot more detail which can be included, just have not gotten around to it), but don't come with this snobbery about notability, when we are discussing a tournament which has seen top clubs from various countries in the Dutch Kingdom, just because you feel it is irrelevant in your microcosm. Subzzee 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any - and seeing as you have not provided any I gather you can't either? GiantSnowman 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, I will add some articles to show this tournaments validity when I get home from work. Subzzee 1:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any - and seeing as you have not provided any I gather you can't either? GiantSnowman 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- YES It has seen significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources!! Did you even bother to check? Obviously not! Just because you have never heard of it in England (I am assuming that is where you are from) does not mean it is not a very relevant event 7,500 Km away from where you are in the World. What do you want to prove the tournaments notability? Do I have to provide links to every single article write up about this event? I very well can, I suggested you google it, to save me the effort. You won't be able to read most of them, since they are either in Dutch or Papiamento for the most part anyway. I have provided links to the sources of all my information listed, as this tournament has seen coverage not only in the ABC islands, but also in the Netherlands (maybe not in England, but who cares if England is paying attention or not, makes no difference to us). Curaçao just went through some political restructuring, and as a result this tournament has been put on hold since they are no longer a part of the Netherlands Antilles, and their Football governing body has changed. This tournament however is not done for, and I find it very rude and inconsiderate for you to come around and say that this tournament lacks in notability, when it is the biggest friendly football tournament in Curaçao, apart from the Sekshon Pagá (league play) and the ABC Championship (another tournament which is played between the various Dutch islands, that I am sure you have not heard of, since you seem to be very ignorant to the on goings in the Dutch Caribbean football sphere). Tell me what you need to see in order for this article to remain intact (I have intentions of improving this article, as there is a lot more detail which can be included, just have not gotten around to it), but don't come with this snobbery about notability, when we are discussing a tournament which has seen top clubs from various countries in the Dutch Kingdom, just because you feel it is irrelevant in your microcosm. Subzzee 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something exists does not mean it is notable. You have failed to demonstrate how this meets the general notability guideline - has it received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? No. GiantSnowman 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- THis is a legit tournament, that is won several times by Dutch Clubs. Please review the following Cite Quotes: Enjoy-Curacao[1]; Coverage in one of the biggest Dutch online news sites Nusport.nl [2]; Covered in the Dutch Worldnews (radio station on Longwave) [3]. I agree with Subzzee that this IS a notable, albeit friendly, tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvainm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, thank you Silvainm. Nice to see that I am not the only one here who feels that this tournament is worthy of an article (granted the article needs improvement, but worthy none the less), I will list more news articles below, as requested, thanks.
- THis is a legit tournament, that is won several times by Dutch Clubs. Please review the following Cite Quotes: Enjoy-Curacao[1]; Coverage in one of the biggest Dutch online news sites Nusport.nl [2]; Covered in the Dutch Worldnews (radio station on Longwave) [3]. I agree with Subzzee that this IS a notable, albeit friendly, tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvainm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Topvoetbal op Curaçao: Chippie Polar Cup (Dutch)" (PDF). Paradise Magazine. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in Bi-Monthly Curaçaoan Magazine - Paradise Magazine.
- "Ajax wint zevende editie van Chippie Polar Cup (Dutch)". Soccernews.nl. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in online Dutch football Magazine - Soccer News.nl.
- "Suriname verliest op Chippie Polar Cup (Dutch)". Waterkant.net. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in online Dutch Magazine Waterkant - about Suriname losing to Brazilian side Flamengo from Teresina at the Chippie Polar Cup in 2008, which was eventually won by FC Groningen.
- "Ajax wint Chippie Polar Cup (Dutch)". Dolfijn FM 97.3. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published on website of Dolfijn FM one of Curaçao's biggest radio stations - Dolfijn FM
- "NEC verkent Ergilio Hato Stadion (Dutch)". De Gelderlander. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in Dutch newspaper De Gelderlander from the Gelderland province in Netherlands - De Gelderlander.
- "Niemand buitenspel bij Dutch Caribbean Stars (Dutch)". Radar. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in Dutch online magazine - Radar.
I hope these are enough news articles relating to the tournament, if you need more I can provide them, but with the three articles that Silvainm listed, along with mine, you now have nine third party articles, in addition to the sources I listed in the main article, from very credible sources, that I think justify this write up. I am not arguing that this article needs improvement. I agree with that, and had intentions of coming back to make it better, but I don't think it should be removed. Curaçao however small it is, is a real country (even if it isn't sovereign) with it's own currency, and culture, and I think that their events are not any less valid then any other friendly tournament hosted in a wealthier country. Subzzee 19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks - I have asked at WT:FOOTY for someone to check the sources for notability (I don't speak Dutch unfortunately). GiantSnowman 09:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - per my comments here. I can't see the need for both and agree one of them should go, but I don't really have a preference for which. Stalwart111 02:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge as a compromise, ideally both into Dutch Caribbean Stars. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chippie Polar Cup has very little to do with the Dutch Caribbean Stars. The Dutch Caribbean Stars have only played in one Chippie Polar Cup to date. I think you are confusing the Dutch Caribbean Stars with the Netherlands Antilles national team (which was disolved after the disolution of the Netherlands Antilles) Curacao are their successor of their FIFA records. Dutch Caribbean Stars are an AllStar team of players from Aruba, Bonaire Curacao and Netherlands of Antillean decent. The Chippe Polar Cup has seen various teams from the Dutch Caribbean islands play in them, including Hubbentut Fortuna, SV Britannia, Deportivo Barber, and more. Please don't make it your mission to delete these articles without reasoning, because the reason suggested as of now is not accurate. Both articles are valid entries, I have supplied numerous news sources, and can happily provide more even though I think some 20+ articles should suffice. I will improve both articles as I have been doing, but to lump the two together makes little sense, as they have little in common, except the the Dutch Caribbean Stars played in one of the Chippie Polar Cups, and they are both football subjects from the Dutch Caribbean islands. Subzzee 16:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we could pick this back up after the Holidays it would be appreciated, as I will be traveling and will have limited access to the internet, I return from my travels on January 3rd and would be happy to discuss this further, and to see if I can take the necessary steps in improving this article to where it can meet all Wikipedia requirements and standards. With that said happy holidays and happy new year, and I will talk to you soon. (Same goes for the Dutch Caribbean Stars, since I will be out of town) Subzzee 11:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the sources listed above may be enough to pass GNG; neither my Dutch nor my knowledge of Dutch-language media are good enough to properly assess their quality. But the competition seems to be one regularly held over several years, with well-known clubs entering. I don't think we should discriminate against this one because the sources are relatively less accessible to the English speaker. If the closing admin disagrees, I'd suggest a merge to Association football in Curaçao, which is a one-line stub. Either way, removing most of the pretty flags might be an idea. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Association football in Curaçao. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch Caribbean Stars
- Dutch Caribbean Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by article creator; there is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch Caribbean Stars are a real team, they exist and there are several articles online to prove it. They are not a club that plays in an actual league. They are like the Curaçaoan AllStar team. They are Curaçao's answer to the Suriprofs. Suriprofs are another Football team, which is made up of players of Suriname decent both who play in Suriname (Hoofdklasse teams) and Netherlands (Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie teams) Suriprofs have featured famous players including Clarence Seedorf and Edgar Davids. They are like Surinames team, if the Suriname National team, and the Surinamese Dutch players, played together. They then play in many matches to raise money to build football fields in these countries, and to promote the sport. They are very much present in Dutch, Surinamese and the ABC Islands media. The Dutch Caribbean Stars are the same thing, they feature players from the Curaçao national team, and Antilliean players in the Netherlands, who might play for the Netherlands, but are eligible to play for the Dutch Caribbean Stars in these events. Dutch Caribbean Stars have participated in invitational tournaments, and should not be deleted in my opinion. I can also add the squad if you would like, but have not finished this article, but translated the Dutch article into English for now. Subzzee 02:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something exists does not mean it is notable. You have failed to demonstrate how this meets the general notability guideline - has it received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? No. GiantSnowman 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you just copy and paste the same response to every post? Are you a robot? Please don't make untrue statements in this debate. The Dutch Caribbean Stars are a very relevant team, they are basically an All-Star team of the Netherlands Antilles, which include players who play for the Dutch national team otherwise, as well as Antillean players abroad and on the various Dutch Caribbean islands. There are various news articles about this team, which take part in various fund raisers and friendly football tournaments in the Netherlands, Suriname, Curaçao, etc., similar to the Suriprofs. They are a known team in Dutch media, and I suggest you google them and see for yourself, before making such claims about their notability. You do realize there is media and relevant subject matter outside of what you know right? I don't come to your articles about something that might have relevancy where you are from that no one has heard of in my part of the World, and tell you that it is irrelevant and lacks notability. I suggest you look into the subject matter, before making such statements about the subjects notability. You clearly do not have an understanding of Dutch media coverage, and what is relevant in our sphere of influence, and I suggest you refrain from passing judgement over it. I have provided sources for all my information in this article, and can easily add more. Subzzee 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reliable, third-party coverage exists then I strongly suggest you evidence it. GiantSnowman 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay fine, I will do so today when I get home from work. Subzzee 1:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just because something exists does not mean it is notable. You have failed to demonstrate how this meets the general notability guideline - has it received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources? No. GiantSnowman 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch Caribbean Stars are a real team, they exist and there are several articles online to prove it. They are not a club that plays in an actual league. They are like the Curaçaoan AllStar team. They are Curaçao's answer to the Suriprofs. Suriprofs are another Football team, which is made up of players of Suriname decent both who play in Suriname (Hoofdklasse teams) and Netherlands (Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie teams) Suriprofs have featured famous players including Clarence Seedorf and Edgar Davids. They are like Surinames team, if the Suriname National team, and the Surinamese Dutch players, played together. They then play in many matches to raise money to build football fields in these countries, and to promote the sport. They are very much present in Dutch, Surinamese and the ABC Islands media. The Dutch Caribbean Stars are the same thing, they feature players from the Curaçao national team, and Antilliean players in the Netherlands, who might play for the Netherlands, but are eligible to play for the Dutch Caribbean Stars in these events. Dutch Caribbean Stars have participated in invitational tournaments, and should not be deleted in my opinion. I can also add the squad if you would like, but have not finished this article, but translated the Dutch article into English for now. Subzzee 02:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will share the validity for this team today. (bare with me, I do have children and a life outside of Wikipedia) but I just wanted to note that I did not forget. Subzzee 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will list several news sources and published articles below that refer to the Dutch Caribbean Stars to prove that although this team is not one that participates in league play, they are a valid team, and represent an All-Star selection from the Dutch Caribbean Islands. Vurnon Anita, Javier Martina, and many others have played for them. Harlem Globetrotters have an article on Wikipedia, and they don't participate in league play either. Dutch Caribbean Stars have played in several tournaments around the world (Curaçao, Suriname, Netherlands,..) and should be considered a valid entry in my opinion.
- "Dutch Caribbean Stars helpen Antilliaanse jongeren (Dutch)". RNW. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by RNW (Worldwide Dutch Longwave news broadcasting network) - RNW.
- "Dutch Caribbean Stars spelen benefietwedstrijd tegen FC Dordrecht (Dutch)". CMS Dordrecht. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by CMS Dordrecht (Dutch Magazine from Dordrecht) - CMS Dordrecht.
- "Dutch Caribbean Stars veroveren Curaçao (Dutch)". RNW. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by RNW (Worldwide Dutch Longwave news broadcasting network) - RNW.
- "Dutch Carribean Stars: voetballers met een missie (Dutch)". De Gelderlander. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by De Gelderlander (Dutch newspaper from the province of Gelderland) - De Gelderlander.
- "Voetbal als redmiddel voor de jeugd (Dutch)". AD.nl. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by AD.nl (Very popular Dutch news site) - AD.nl
- "Nelisse (33) stopt met voetbal (Dutch)". De Telegraaf. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by De Telegraaf (Leading Dutch newspaper) where Nelisse speaks of his retirement, and his role as the Ambassador of the Dutch Caribbean Stars - De Telegraaf
- "Ook dit jaar een voetbalkamp in de tussenvakantie (Dutch)". Curaçao Sport. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by Curaçao Sport (Leading Curaçaoan online sports journal) - Curaçao Sport
- "Hattrick Vleminckx tegen Dutch Caribbean Stars (Dutch)". De Gelderlander. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by De Gelderlander (Dutch newspaper from the province of Gelderland) - De Gelderlander.
- "Niemand buitenspel bij Dutch Caribbean Stars (Dutch)". Radar. Retrieved 2012-12-17. - Article published in Dutch online magazine - Radar.
- "Ajax verovert Chippie Polar Cup (Dutch)". NU Sport. Retrieved 2012-12-18. - Article published by one of the top Dutch sport magazines NU Sport - NUsport.nl
Above are ten credible sources, I can list more if necessary, but I hope this is enough to prove my case that this team is a valid subject matter. There are several prominent footballers with Antillean roots who have played for this team in friendly tournaments and fund raisers, who otherwise play for other national teams, but have Antillean roots. Players from Chelsea, Ajax, Feyenoord, West Brom Albion, Red Bull Salzburg and more. The team is the Allstar team of the Dutch Carribean Islands, they are popular in Curaçao, Aruba, Bonaire, Suriname and the Netherlands, and they do great things for the sport in Dutch Caribbean islands, helping to raise funds to build football pitches, hosting tournaments, and building football academies throughout the islands. They have also beat good clubs and won the occasional tournament as well. Let me know if any further detail is required. Like I stated earlier I intend on improving the article a great deal, and clarifying their position more in the scope of world football, giving a better understanding of who they are, what they have done, and where they stand. Any suggestions for improvements of the article are welcome. Subzzee 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked for a Dutch speaker to analyse the sources. GiantSnowman 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - GoogleTranslate is my friend. The sources provided above would certainly seem to be reliable (from actual news organisations) and most of them focus on the subject in question. I do, though, question the need for this article and Chippie Polar Cup (also at AFD here) which would seem to be a tournament designed to bring Dutch clubs to the Carribbean to play against the subject team. I can't see the need for both. So either keep this one and include a section on the cup (which seems to be its main reason for being anyway) or keep the cup article and include a section on the club/team formed to compete in it. I really can't see any need for both, though I have no particular preference as to which should be merged into the other. Stalwart111 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge as a compromise, ideally both into Dutch Caribbean Stars. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait what? What you guys are suggesting and saying is incorrect. Dutch Caribbean Stars only played in one of the Chippie Polar Cup tournaments, which is the tournament which they won. Suriprofs have also participated in one tournament. I think you guys are confusing the Dutch Caribbean Stars with the Netherlands Antilles national team, which has played in more Chippie Polar/Expo Cups than the Dutch Caribbean Stars. The Netherlands Antilles national team no longer exists, since the country was dissolved, and Sint Maarten and Curacao are now their own country. The Dutch Caribbean Stars also include players who play for the Netherlands national team, and the Aruba national team as well.
- Dutch Caribbean Stars are not the national team. They are an All-Star team of players from the Dutch Antilles and Dutch players of Antillean decent. I disagree that these entities be merged since they are not the same subject at all. The Chippie Polar Cup is an international friendly tournament hosted in Curacao. Teams from Suriname, Curacao, Aruba, Brazil and the Netherlands have played in it.
- The Dutch Caribbean Stars is an AllStar team that played in one Chippie Polar Cup, but in other friendly tournaments in Aruba, Suriname and the Netherlands as well. The two entries are separate and do not belong together, you would not merge AFC Ajax and the Amsterdam Tournament either, and those two entries have more in common, then the ones we are discussing right now. Subzzee 3:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then we need to work on making the distinction - in sources and in the article. I, for one, am not on a merge-drive but there didn't seem enough to substantiate two articles. More than happy to listen to arguments that there is. For the record, the team article seems to be the weakest. It's not a professional team, there's no specific selection criteria, they don't play in a professional comp. So rather than pass a football criteria, it would probably need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH like other charity/not-profit entities. Stalwart111 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we could pick this back up after the Holidays it would be appreciated, as I will be traveling and will have limited access to the internet, I return from my travels on January 3rd and would be happy to discuss this further, and to see if I can take the necessary steps in improving this article to where it can meet all Wikipedia requirements and standards. With that said happy holidays and happy new year, and I will talk to you soon. (Same goes for the Chippie Polar Cup, since I will be out of town) Subzzee 11:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Teletraan
- Teletraan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional computers. Claritas § 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Actually a notable fictional computer. Teletraan is a reoccuring character throughout over a dozen different TV series and comic book lines. Mathewignash (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Someone who was blocked for using socks to try to delete Transformer articles, is allowed back in, and all he seems to be doing is rampaging around nominating Transformer articles, among others, for deletion. You can't talk about the Transformer's history without mentioning Teletraan, it making them what they are. Significant fictional creation found in many notable versions of the series over the years. Dream Focus 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bond Arms
- Bond Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a manufacturer and therefore preferable to have the one page rather than those for individual products. Also there are reviews in gun magazines ([12], [13], [14]). Its listed in the major price guides as well. I think that's sufficient, no for individual items, but enough for the manufacturer. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Notable manufacturer of firearms, and probably the largest and highest quality maker available amongst manufacturers of derringers. No reason to delete this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Songs that use the Be My Baby drum beat
- Songs that use the Be My Baby drum beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Without references confirming that these songs actually use this beat, this list is pure original research. ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and it is listcruft. There is too great a fixation with lists by too many editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; list is unverifiable, unsourced, and a magnet for non-notable band vanity entries, YouTube video links, Croatian songs, and similar ephemera. --Seduisant (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely made up original research, impossible to search for reliable sources to substantiate anything, probably complete bollocks as to its factual accuracy. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the footnoted entries to Be My Baby. Oh, wait. There are none. Delete per nom. — AjaxSmack 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Good call, I needed the push, I was getting to feel a little sentimental...--Richhoncho (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's original research without secondary sources, and it's not the sort of obvious list (songs starting with B?) that it is possible for readers or editors to verify without knowledge of the subject. AgnosticAphid talk 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CrowdStar
- CrowdStar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. It has produced some popular games but that does not make it a notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At time of nomination it had cites to 8 stories from reliable sources in business and video games press (VentureBeat, Bloomberg, San Francisco Business Times, TechCrunch, All Things D, Gamasutra). It meets WP:GNG. It's hard to see this nomination as being made in good faith: possibly the nominator thinks he/she can bring down the whole corrupt capitalist system by AfDing corporate pages on Wikipedia - if only that was all it took. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing against the capitalist system but what I don't like is the WP is far to easily used to promote a commercial enterprise. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable company. Passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Unless/until the nominator has a better deletion rationale, it sure looks like Colapeninsula's commentary on sources would trump the vague assertion of being "non-notable". Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Concannon
- Joseph Concannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable person per WP:POLITICIAN. It smacks of electioneering. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Losing candidate in a state senatorial race with no other claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOV. Not only is the election over (and he lost, apparently), but even back when the election was still going on content like this rightly belonged on his campaign Website, not Wikipedia. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. As pointed out by Another Believer below, all !votes after the first few day were "keep"; one person who !voted "delete" changed his/her !vote to "keep" based on the strength of coverage. Keeping this nomination open any longer would be a disservice to the 2,000 people accessing this article every day. Pete (talk)
Clackamas Town Center shooting
- Clackamas Town Center shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I know this is new, but WP:NOTNEWS Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a near-duplicate of the first article:
- 2012 Clackamas Town Center shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MrX 02:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (for now) - we simply don't know what the longer-term WP:EFFECT might be. Until we can substantiate any effect with verification from reliable sources we are just bouncing between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. The result is an article which might very well have been created WP:TOOSOON, but until we know, we just don't know. Let's get rid of it for now but if a longer-term effect can be substantiated then there's nothing wrong with re-creating in in the future. Stalwart111 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do these sorts of events ever not result in Wikipedia articles? WP:RAPID may apply. - MrX 01:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming number of crimes, even in public places, even when murders, do not result in articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, of course. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. - MrX 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming number of crimes, even in public places, even when murders, do not result in articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's too soon to tell what effect there will be if any. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom, at least until further information is available. Right now, all we know is a man shot and killed two people in the mall...that's not really encyclopedia material. Fruckert (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the time being. Too soon to see what long-term effects this incident will have, if any. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clackamas Town Center. The shooting can be covered there for now. If a lot of details come around in the future, the article can be split out again. Dough4872 05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another one of the days' stories; it does not need an article. Shootings are recently becoming really popular on Wikipedia for some reason. Every time there is a shooting, a page is created instantly as if it holds more significance than other daily news. This shooting of such a minute number of casualties does not deserve such attention here. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Clackamas Town Center. The shooting has a low body count and it does not deserve an article. ComputerJA (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but Merge with 2012 Clackamas Town Center shooting. Wikipedia is becoming very useful as a source for immediate news. After a couple weeks it can be considered what to do with the article. I recommend that this be the standard policy. Friendly Person (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can recommend policy until the cows come home, but that isn't the current policy. Wikipedia is not only a terrible place for immediate news, I am hard pressed to think of a worse place. We have existing policy in place that specifically says that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If you seek to have the policy changed, you must do it on that talk page, not at AfD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth mentioning that there is already a sister project, Wikinews, where news content is welcomed (and appropriate).- MrX 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note that content here can not be copied over there, and there has been some talk of shutting that site down around here, due to a lack of participation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth mentioning that there is already a sister project, Wikinews, where news content is welcomed (and appropriate).- MrX 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merge to Clackamas Town Center. --Esprqii (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For right now, I have to agree with merge with the Mall article. It has a brief article in WikiNews, which is O.K., but it's body and victim count right now do not appear to justify a separate article other than its summary in the mall article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.112 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a "ordinary" encyclopedia first off, this event is a large scale event. it needs to be recorded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to Wikinews. Shame about the licensing problem or I would have said (as I ignorantly have advocated before) transwiki there. The subject is news, that's where it belongs. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clackamas Town Center and Wikinews.Clearly this is getting worldwide attention[15][16] so perhaps it will eventually be seen as up there with Littleton, Colorado.If so, it can be unmerged.—EncMstr (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am revising from Merge to Keep due to the persuasive arguments by Wilsonchas, AlaskaMike, Helvetica, and Jbenjos. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as separate entry, not merged. As is the case with the 2012 Aurora Shooting at the Town Center at Aurora, Clackamas Town Center is generally not known by the world at large apart from being the site of this shooting: merging the entries will tend to make searches for the Clackamas shooting more difficult. As for its overall "longer-term WP:EFFECT" (per Stalwart), I believe a Wikipedia entry for this mass shooting, even though with fewer deaths and injuries than others such as the 2012 Aurora Shooting, the 2011 Tucson shooting, and the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (to name just a few) advances Wikipedia's place as an online resource for historical events and a starting point for in-depth research on the topic. Wilsonchas (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote Keep. This event has received national (and even international) coverage and there are plenty of news sources to justify an independent article.
I would propose moving the article to "2012 Clackamas shooting". On second thought, I am not sure if this title is most appropriate since it appears the address for Clackamas Town Center is actually in Happy Valley, Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KEEP as a separate article. Eventhough the death toll was (thankfully) relatively low, there's a definite precident for Wikipedia having articles for high-profile mass-shooting incidents of this sort. Also, merging would be a bad idea IMO, as including all the relevant details in the Clackamas Town Center article would give undue weight to the incident in an article which should primarily focus on the mall itself. -Helvetica (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clackamas Town Center, unless there are lasting effects (gun law changes, for example). WP:NOTNEWS applies. David1217 What I've done 20:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge only the brief, relevant, encyclopedic content to Clackamas Town Center, in accordance with WP:NOTNEWS inclusion policy. - MrX 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another strong KEEP as a separate article. -And we drown (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Mass shootings always warrant a page. This is a highly notable event. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this article here, though it's not about a shooting spree, helps illustrate a more reasonable standard for inclusion than some of the "deletionists" are arguing for in this discussion - Richmond Hill explosion. The death toll was "only" two, and it's too soon to say what exactly the lasting impact might be in terms of changes to regulations of natural gas or whatever. But it's clear that this was a major event, and that its inclusion will be valuable for people into the future researching the history of these sorts of explosions in the USA and the world. Likewise, while the death-toll for this particular shooting spree was relatively minimal and its hard to say what (if any) impact it might have on future gun regulations, it's clear that Wikipedia's coverage of mass-shootings in the US would be incomplete without it. This would certainly be a dis-service to future Wikipedia readers. -Helvetica (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. I am actually surprised by the number of delete votes. This event is certainly notable. I imagine a couple of editors could easily put together a Good article within the next couple of months. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's what most of the "delete voters" are saying too. This might very well be a notable news event, but we don't cover notable news events. That's exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is about - we're not a news reporting service. We don't report things as they happen. We report things that previously happened that have since been shown to have had a long-term WP:EFFECT. Keeping something because it might have an effect (or because we "don't yet know" what the effect might be) is basically crystal ball gazing. As is guessing what an article might be in the future based on a guess as to what effect the event might have. This may very well be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as is the case with many "news" items. But I understand where you're coming from - we had a very similar case with this AFD. Having had a few months to let everything settle down, it became obvious that the event had a lasting effect and that could be substantiated in the article with reliable sources. For events only days ago that is always going to be very difficult. No one is suggesting, I don't think, that it's not an important event or that it won't be notable long-term. But it was probably created too soon to know what the effect would be and so it ended up here. Stalwart111 03:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more here than just a single news event about a man opening fire in a mall.
- http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting.html
- Yes, I think TOOSOON is at play here. If the article is deleted, I imagine it will crop right back up. I will probably work on a draft in the near future. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with it being userfied as well. Then if there is actual notability, such as laws changing due to the incident, etc. it can be revisited. We have no crystal ball, so we have to look at the article as it is today, which falls short of the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This was a relatively major event even thought the number of deaths was small. (I hope this isn't the only reason certain shootings are considered notable.) To respond to the "larger impact" comments above: In light of the school shooting today, I believe this shooting will have a larger impact because it will very likely be referenced by the media when reporting on the Connecticut shooting, which will definitely receive an article. -Noha307 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Shootings are always major events in American society. Thetalkingheads (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Shootings are notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the logic of this AfD, but nominating it for deletion three days after the event isn't appropriate (see: WP:RECENTISM). It's a fairly well written article on something that is quite notable now, and it's way too early to say this this won't be notable in the future. Jbenjos (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E). Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - I'm dubious of the long-term notability but let's wait a few weeks and see first. Against the current (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG. The WP:EFFECT of this shooting and the Connecticut shooting in tandem has already led to some discussion of gun control, which is also notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG for now. We can wait a few weeks and determine its lasting notability (also, the Connecticut shooting seems to have had an effect on the media and shootings) Canuck89 (converse with me) 21:30, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unfortunately, the event is notable enough for being in the Wikipedia--Noel baran (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event easily passes notability guidelines, in correlation with the much larger shooting in CT, in which both have subsantial media coverage. This one in particular, has plenty of coverage to merit notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least for now. This, coupled with the shooting in Connecticut, are likely to spawn a national debate on gun control, and therefore, at least for now as we await the impact of that discussion, I think the article should be kept. Go Phightins! 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.171.94 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it may not have had a high body count, but it is nevertheless an important moment in spree shooting history. There are articles for shootings that have had 1 or 0 casualties, why is that a proper reason for deleting this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFStudios (talk • contribs) 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously notable. Counsel nominator against making such ludicrous nominations. Everyking (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with you that the article should be kept, I would remind you to please assume good faith. I highly doubt Dennis would have done anything in bad faith based on my personal interactions with him. While I respectfully disagree with him, calling this nomination "ludicrous" is, well, ludicrous because in his nomination, Dennis cited policy and explained his thinking. Consensus seems to be against him, in this case, but hey, that's why we have discussions. Go Phightins! 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the nomination was made in bad faith; I just said it was ludicrous. He did not, in fact, articulate an argument; he just said "NOTNEWS"—and while I'm sure he does fully believe that NOTNEWS applies to this subject, he did not explain why he thinks so, and so I consider the nomination to be ludicrous. Anyway, AfD should be for discussions of subjects that are of borderline notability, and I think using it to have a discussion on something that got extensive, national media coverage is a misuse of the process. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with you that the article should be kept, I would remind you to please assume good faith. I highly doubt Dennis would have done anything in bad faith based on my personal interactions with him. While I respectfully disagree with him, calling this nomination "ludicrous" is, well, ludicrous because in his nomination, Dennis cited policy and explained his thinking. Consensus seems to be against him, in this case, but hey, that's why we have discussions. Go Phightins! 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the mall event was a random sinister shooting, and a scary event, regardless of the fact that only 2 people were killed (and a couple wounded or injured). Body count is not the only issue. But the fact that it was all over the news, and also the fear factor...and panic in that Oregon vicinity. It's stand-alone, notable, and in the light of today's events, somewhat relevant in a way, and poignant. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - A record of national news worthy, highly covered, events, particularly random shootings, are of enormous encyclopedic interest to those researching gun policy, a contentious and highly researched issue. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - A record of a specific group of events Ttk371 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - I see the keep positions urging keep because the topic meets WP:GNG. However, quantity of source material is only half the story. The topic still needs to meet the second test - WP:NOT, in this case, WP:NOTNEWS. There are many killings in the United States each day, each of which is newsworthy. However, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. The event is recent and, as a timely news subject not suitable for Wikipedia, the topic may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not explain why you feel the subject is "not suitable". Why does the article fail WP:NOTNEWS? It received widespread, national media attention—it seems clear that this is not a routine, minor event of the sort that would fall under NOTNEWS. Most killings receive only local attention—since this one got national attention, we can see that it deserves special attention here on Wikipedia. Under what circumstances do you consider any killing notable? Everyking (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, as it passes three of the five criteria of WP:NEWSEVENT (WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE), for the other two (WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT) it's too soon to make any kind of judgment. Indeed, basically every shooting in the Usa, in spite of any bodycount or circumstance, appears to fail to have any lasting effect in politics and legislations, so judging a shooting only on the basis of the lasting effect would result in deleting almost all the mass shooting happened in the USA. I suggest a review of the article in one year, at least to have elements about the duration of coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, it also seems the recent school shootings have changed peoples minds. This shooting reicived plenty of attention, shootings are always a big deal in this country. JayJayTalk to me 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No reason to delete this article, as it contains references. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but merge the two together. The fact that this has been mentioned prominently (by Obama and in several news outlets) in conjunction with the Newtown shooting is sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you feel it should be merged with? Ryan Vesey 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep along the lines of Cavarrone's reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I've prepared a longer statement on my view of this discussion so far in response to a query on my talk page, it is clear that I neglected to provide a relist statement. In view of what appeared to me to be shifting views and perhaps shifting evidence regarding WP:LASTING/WP:EFFECT, which the is the key policy-based controversy discussed so far, I felt the discussion had not quite reached a clear consensus, I also felt that it had not yet reached a point where that consensus was unlikely to be reached. Is that within the precise remit of WP:RELIST? Fair question. I believe so, but there are certainly sensible views otherwise, and DRV is the appropriate channel for appeal. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment: All of the merge/delete votes were recorded December 12–13, immediately following the event. Since then, all but one of the votes have been to keep this article. I think there is strong consensus here, actually. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lasting notability with the shootings theme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Obvious keep, mass shooting with widespread national coverage. Fact it didn't meet technical definition of "mass" because of the number of death is irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: meets notability as national news worthy event in the United States. Quis separabit? 21:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: notable event. —Theopolisme 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now that this is no longer brand new, I see that it meets WP:GNG and WP:EFFECT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican-brazilian
- Mexican-brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no reason for this article to be included, as it is non-notable. This is a simple fact, we could also create an article on Canadian-British or something. It has no notable meaning in reliable sources for significant coverage. Propose deletion. TBrandley 18:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, arguably a valid speedy delete as A3 since there's little more here than a rephrasing of the title, although the article creator hasn't had a lot of time to expand it yet. Hairhorn (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a dictionary definition and barely that. I went ahead and tagged for A3. Safiel (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete per WP:DICTDEF. I declined the A3 as it really isn't applicable, but it will inevitably be deleted absent creative redirecting. Monty845 19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Dict def and also a synthesis. Typical problem with combining two factors (or two countries) and making a new article. e.g. People from country Y living in country X. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dicdef. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R3 Ring road (Belgium)
- R3 Ring road (Belgium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article about a ring road located in Belgium appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage. According to an internet search, there are no reliable sources regarding the subject and the first result is the Wikipedia article itself. The references provided in the article itself have no evidence that they are reliable. TBrandley 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Isn't this the kind of numbered, limited access, national road system highway that is generally kept, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES and per the statement at Wikipedia:Notability (highways) that "highways that are numbered and signed as part of a single, national highway network are generally notable and should have their own articles"? Note that the French[17] and Dutch[[18]] Wikipedias, and others, have comprehensive coverage of the Belgian ring roads, and that a GNews search for <r3 ring Charleroi> turns up current coverage of this road [19][20].--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:GEOROAD and WP:ROADOUTCOMES. This is exactly the sort of highway article that should be kept. Imzadi 1979 → 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above. --Rschen7754 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above. –Fredddie™ 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep R3 is a state highway which under WP:GEOROAD are notable. Mkdwtalk 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 then redirect to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent a massive waste of time. Half of this article is unencyclopaedic editorialization and exhortation based upon recent events in the U.S., and the other half is copied from Wikipedia in the first place. Editors' time is far better spent doing something else than spending a whole week of everyone agreeing here. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
United states constitution 2nd amendment
- United states constitution 2nd amendment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be an unreferenced invective that falls foul of WP:NOTESSAY. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It's an obviously POV essay lacking in reliable sources, and duplicates a small part of the existing discussion of the meaning of the amendment. The title is possible as a search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lounge music . MBisanz talk 05:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra lounge
- Ultra lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DicDef. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources show that they exist, however to extract the information from them takes original research since they are tourist guidebooks which tell about individual lounges but not about the concept in general. I would say "keep" if some true secondary sources could be found. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the sources again. This one says the phrase ultralounge [...] means "fancier than a bar, smaller than a nightclub". This one says Ultra lounges aren't nighclubs [...] Entering a great ultra lounge should make you feel glamorous, sophisticated...". Those are not targeted to individual lounges but describing the concept in general. I think you mistake the meaning of WP:OR - there's nothing original in attributing content to external sources. Diego (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge/delete to nightclubs/lounges. Its a marketing/slang term, with no practical difference from the parent concept. Lounges have had music and seating areas for decades. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lounge music or Bar (establishment). The topic is verifiable and shouldn't be deleted per WP:PRESERVE policy. Diego (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources are sufficient to show notability.Kubigula (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons)
- Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability - no significant coverage in secondary sources. Claritas § 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). I've found some trivial mentions, but nothing substantial. Still, possible search term, and should be included in that list. —Torchiest talkedits 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep thanks to all the new sources added in the last few days. —Torchiest talkedits 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion yet: This independent source analyzes the real-world impact of the use of fiends in (A)D&D in general, and on page 21 and following also a bit about Asmodeus specifically. Maybe someone can use it to improve the article and clarify notability. Daranios (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an independent source, but it is an undergraduate level thesis, which does not qualify as a reliable source, and it mentions Asmodeus only once. Not significant coverage--Claritas § 20:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. But wait! If you're gonna delete/merge Asmodeus, who's like the main dude, or the Arch-devil of hell, then what about all the other devils. Like:
- At least with these we're still in the Arch- or Prince- or whatever-big-guy category. But then we also have:
- black abishai, blue abishai, green abishai, red abishai, and white abishai (lesser devil), the bearded devil (lesser devil), the spined devil (least devil), the princess of Hell Glasya, the dukes of Hell Amon, Bael, Bitru, Hutijin, and Titivilus, and the arch devils Belial, Mammon, Mephistopheles, and Moloch. Dozens of unique devils appeared in a two-part article by Ed Greenwood, including the greater devils Bist, Caim, and Nergal, the dukes of Hell Agares, Alocer, Amduscias, Arioch, Balan, Bathym, Biffant, Caarcrinolaas, Chamo, Focalor, Gaziel, Gorson, Herodias, Machalas, Malphas, Melchon, and Merodach, and the princesses of Hell Cozbi, Lilis, and Naome
- (ok, some of these are circular links, but most are not) And then the Dukes, let's not forget the Dukes:
- We need a good ol' fashioned deletionist crusade against Hell me thinks! Volunteer Marek 21:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Claritas is nominating fictional things from television series and from video and rôle playing games. The Asmodeus from Hell is at Asmodeus, of course. This is the Asmodeus from Dungeons and Dragons. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the push to merge and redirect. This is a singular entry with significant unique information, as are any of the other entries under "Devil". You can't possibly store ALL of the unique information under one heading, so I presume information will be lost in the merge. What kind of encyclopedia goes out of its way to REDUCE information content? If you want to stay ahead of Google, you can't backpedal on providing more, and complete, information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drexxell (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
pending a search for sources, but merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to straight Keep, per Patricia Pulling source found by Torchiest and good faith that there may be others like it. BOZ (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article already has plenty of sources and it is easy to find more such as Wizard's Presents which tells us that "Since the publication of the 1st Edition Monster Manual, Asmodeus has stood out as one of the greatest villains in the D&D game...". Warden (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not independent, published by the creators of the game. Claritas § 18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Current sources 2, 3, and 12 appear to be independent, reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they contain no significant coverage of this character. --Claritas § 12:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 2 and 3, which were already in the article, are just trivial listings, but the new source 12 I added qualifies as significant coverage, and could easily be mined for more in some kind of reception section. I'm guessing there could be similar such sources, especially from books and newspapers in the 1980s, when the anti-D&D hysteria was at its peak. —Torchiest talkedits 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they contain no significant coverage of this character. --Claritas § 12:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep added 2 sources from Judges Guild and 2 from Green Ronin. I have two more books sitting on my desk at home and there is of course all the Pathfinder books. Web Warlock (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- found another one. Web Warlock (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and another. Web Warlock (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- found another one. Web Warlock (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Back in the 90s when I used to play D&D, this character was one of the most noteable and powerful creatures for high level campaigns. Notability is not temporary. Also per the detailed coverage in sources, especially per the ones added by Web Warlock. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As usual, no proof of notability. All sources are either primary or contain only trivial mentions. And as usual, too many D&D fans seem to intentionally ignore the GNG requirements for notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you have not actually read any of these sources your opinion is meaningless. Web Warlock (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we're not on a wikia for obsessive D&D fanatics my opinion actually means much more than yours.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I research this topic like I do any other topic here or elsewhere. The PhD I have pretty much makes my opinion better. Web Warlock (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we're on wikipedia, a serious project. Your "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" game belongs in a playground, not here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amusing given you were the one who let fly with "obsessive D&D fanatics" above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, there it is, the real reason many deletionists are so gung-ho about trying to get rid of popular culture articles; "but, but, but, this is a serious project, we're supposed to have articles about math, science, medicine, art, religion, and history... I can't stand it that we have so many articles about movies, games, toys, and comic books - I have to do something about that..." You can't satisfy people with this sort of attitude, because they don't want this material here at all, no matter how many good sources you can find, because they will always argue against you and want to delete or marginalize the material because they don't want it here in the first place. The best thing you can do is to improve an article enough that their opinion is drowned out, because they will never change a vote to keep or remove their delete or merge vote once they get one on there. They think that the inclusionists/fans are the ones here to ruin Wikipedia by including material that the serious encyclopedia crowd doesn't want, but it is really these sort of uncollaborative contributors who are doing the most damage against subjects that people really do want to read about. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we're on wikipedia, a serious project. Your "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" game belongs in a playground, not here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I research this topic like I do any other topic here or elsewhere. The PhD I have pretty much makes my opinion better. Web Warlock (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we're not on a wikia for obsessive D&D fanatics my opinion actually means much more than yours.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you have not actually read any of these sources your opinion is meaningless. Web Warlock (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has significant out-of-universe discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Only trivial and primary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- your bias is showing. Explain how any of resources added are trivial. Web Warlock (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they only mention the name once and don't elaborate on it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Have you read all of these? Web Warlock (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they only mention the name once and don't elaborate on it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abeir-Toril
- Abeir-Toril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional planet. Claritas § 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
or merge with one of the main Forgotten Realms articles.I have found one source that discusses it so far: MacKay, Daniel (2001). The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art. McFarland. ISBN 978-0786408153. I'm still looking for more. —Torchiest talkedits 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I found a Wired article, "Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide Chronicles the World’s Epic Changes", talking about the 4th edition D&D books and changes to the world. —Torchiest talkedits 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Torchiest's found source; note that anyone looking for sources is more likely to find references to just "Toril", as this is how it is more commonly referred to in game fiction. BOZ (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources identified above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep There are sources. Will be looking for them. Web Warlock (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment stricken because users cannot give a recommandation twice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due the notability 'in world', but it might be stronger to merge it with the main Forgotten Realms article. In most of the sources I have uncovered Abieir-Toril = Forgotten Realms. It makes teasing the two apart much more difficult. Web Warlock (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as usual I see none of the "significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources" that WP:GNG requires for a topic to be notable. In the article, source 1, 2, 3 and 4 are trivial and are actually first party and thus non-independent (Tom Costa wrote for WotC, Brian R. James's work has been bought and distributed by WotC, Dragon magazine is an official D&D publication, and Jeff Grubb is a TSR/Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms writer).
Concerning sources that have been brought up here, The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art merely mentions "Abeir-Toril" within a description of a gaming session or plot summary and is thus not a "significant coverage" (actually not a coverage at all). Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide Chronicles the World’s Epic Changes is even worse since "Abeir-Toril" is only mentionned as part of the description of the reviewed book's content. I don't see how anyone, except devout D&D fans, of course, could say anything different.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Merge to Forgotten Realms. Thanks for what has been found but I don't think it merits a stand-alone article (nothing from the MacKay source has appeared in the article). Hekerui (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is essentially a re-creation of Everything-stays-proof. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theorem on the imperishability
- Theorem on the imperishability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Incoherent essay about a subject with zero apparent mentions in academia or the wider internet; given sources are a Facebook page, a Dropbox PDF and a book which does not appear to exist. The page has been built by a group of fresh accounts, at least one of which has also been involved in at least one similar article: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything-stays-proof. As in the previous AFD, I hear the quack of a WP:HOAX or private joke. Altered Walter (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable topic: Google searches give nothing. I'm disinclined to open a random PDF on Dropbox, but that doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source. Maybe if there's a German equivalent of this title, it might produce more hits, but right now it seems original research tending towards made up one day. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pool of Radiance. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pool of Radiance (novel)
- Pool of Radiance (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the notability guideline for novels. Claritas § 15:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support or Merge (as below) as the editor who originally proposed deletion on listed grounds, though I'll note that User:Jclemens removed my proposal expressing a belief that, because the novel inspired the first of several D&D games, there may be sufficient sources to satisfy the notability guideline. I'm open to that possibility, but I'm equally open to the possibility that no sourcing is available for this. In any event, I've advised them of this discussion. Doniago (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pool of Radiance. The book might not be clearly notable on its own, but at least some of the article's content can be included with the main video game article. —Torchiest talkedits 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge all there are 3 pages, one for each novel in the series. All should be merged to the game article. If sources can be found which can significantly expand the novel articles, then they could be split out, but as it is, there is no reason to have an essentially one paragraph page for the novel. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor point: there are corresponding games for each of those novels as well, so they would need to be merged to three different targets, not all to the first game in the series. —Torchiest talkedits 13:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Torchiest; I don't think the novel is notable in its own right but the information here would serve as a useful extension to the main article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to Pool of Radiance otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are two separate merge targets here: 1) merge each novel to its corresponding game, or 2) Merge all three novels into a series. Thus, my argument isn't "keep forever", but rather "keep for now and remand the merge decision to a discussion" since we have two good ideas. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was the book did not meet either GNG nor NBOOK j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa Stone and the Lake of Fire
- Alexa Stone and the Lake of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable self-published book. PROD declined. Only referenced to Amazon entries, with possible copyvio problem depending on whether the article or the Amazon entry was published first. No reliable independent sources or claim to notability. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a search for this earlier last night and there just isn't any sort of chatter about this very newly released and self-published novel to where it'd pass WP:NBOOK. I don't deny that it's insanely hard for self-published books to pass notability guidelines here on Wikipedia, nor that it's difficult in general for them to gain notice from the mainstream or blogging world. That doesn't mean that indie or self-published books get a free pass on notability guidelines, however. This book simply lacks coverage in reliable sources and links to merchant sites do not show notability and are generally inappropriate to add to the article as a whole, even in the external links section. They may prove that the book exists, but even with that claim aside there is still the argument of notability. Existing is not notability, as the old saying goes on here.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If it is hard for self-published books to become notable, it is the world that is being unfair; Wikipedia merely reflects the world. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep - Has an ISBN now (ISBN 978-1481266444), meaning that it is available in print. Still might be WP:TOOSOON.--Auric 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards for book notability have changed over the years to where you need more than an ISBN to show notability. It shows that the book exists, but existing isn't enough for notability. Since it's so new and unlikely to fit any of the other parts of WP:NBOOK, we have to go by coverage in reliable sources, which isn't out there. There are only merchant and primary sources out there. The two sources on the article are both primary sources that show the book's cover, so while they do prove that the book exists, they don't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the WP:TOOSOON part of my vote.--Auric 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm confused as to how you're saying that having an ISBN merits a keep- that hasn't counted towards notability for years now. Having an ISBN means nothing as far as notability goes. It means that it's probably more likely to have sources (since it means it would potentially be able to be sold in more places), but having an ISBN doesn't count towards notability in the slightest and hasn't for at least a good 2-3 years now. It's sort of an exclusionary thing rather than an inclusionary one. That's why I'm confused as to the "keep" rationale.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying that an eBook by itself is less likely to be notable than a printed version. An ISBN is usually attached to a printed book. A book without one is more likely to have been printed by a vanity press. Hence the "weak" part of my vote. I'm not saying the ISBN makes it notable, I'm saying it makes it more likely to become notable. Hence the WP:TOOSOON part.--Auric 12:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I still don't see where the "keep" comes into this. Just because it might have been non-self published (which is not the case here, as it is a self-published book) doesn't mean that it should be kept. I guess I don't see where your argument merits a keep at all. You're saying "keep" because it has an ISBN, which hasn't been a part of the inclusionary criteria for years and whether or not a book has been self-published, vanity published, or professionally published has never been something that has really factored into notability at all. Even if a book has been published through a bigger publisher (such as Random House) and has an ISBN, those factors do not give any sort of notability to merit a keep vote in any form. Heck, every book in the average bookstore have ISBNS, yet less than 1/10th of those books will even come remotely close to passing notability guidelines. Having an ISBN does not equate to notability and a book shouldn't be kept merely because it possesses one. I could write write 20 pages of nonsense detailing what color underwear I have and publish it through CreateSpace or any number of self-publishing platforms and get an ISBN for it. Getting an ISBN isn't the arduous task that it used to be and nine out of ten self-publishing platforms offer their authors ISBNs automatically. Even the vanity platforms are getting in on this, as it makes people think the book is fancier for having one. That's why ISBNs mean nothing as far as notability goes- just about everyone and their mother can get one just by going through a random self-publisher. It's not like it was 4-5 years ago when having an ISBN meant that you were publishing through a mainstream company or that the book was more "legitimate" than a vanity or self-published book. Even Lulu and Smashwords give out free ISBNs when you publish through them and Lulu is considered to be sort of "lower tier" when it comes to self-publishing. (In that people don't take Lulu books as seriously as they would through other self-publishing companies.) That's why I'm saying that nothing in your argument supports a "keep" vote, weak or otherwise. Having an ISBN is so commonplace that it isn't a sign that a book is special for having it. It's like saying that having hair is a sign of potential notability. And as far as print vs ebook goes, that's not a sign of notability either. It just means that the author clicked the little box on CreateSpace or on their self-publishing website for print versions to be available. It's not a sign of notability in this instance either, because again- it's incredibly easy to get a print version with an ISBN. It's not a sign of having any special merit, just that they made the choice to publish in print. In the case of CreateSpace, the authors don't have to pay anything for a print version unless they specifically choose to order copies for themselves. It's very much print on demand through almost all self-publishers now. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an ISBN merely shows existence. It's just a registration number. TG is right, above. It's a bit like being listed on Amazon. If you are listed on Amazon, it means nothing. They sell almost anything they can get on demand - it's quite quick nowadays, and being an ebook means they don't even have to do that. It's a few MB of storage, and a page on the website. Money for jam - if it sells. Coppers in cost if it doesn't. Not being listed on Amazon (for current books) means definitely non-notable. ISBN means it's got a number - like thousands and thousands of Ford Fiestas have registration plates. It doesn't make them Rolls-Royces. Also, potential sales don't count. WP:CRYSTAL. It might turn out to be the best seller of the century. If it shows signs of that, we'll happily list it here. Till then, no. Certain new books have instant notability - anything new by Terry Pratchett or J.K. Rowling will be notable because they are, and their notability will gain the coverage before the book appears. A new author, no. Far too soon for any success to show yet. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article already deleted. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amankumar100
- Amankumar100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Personal essay; see WP:NOT. Noiratsi (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: CSD:A7. -- Patchy1 11:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UFC 158
- UFC 158 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event is still about three months away, the numerous primary routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 11 winners and 11 looser but beond that any significance at this stage will be pure speculation.
For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the inclusion policy. Mtking (edits) 11:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's an upcoming UFC event. Why delete it and redo it later. Leave it up and people can build on it as information becomes available. At 3 months out, we will start seeing the fight card come together over the next couple weeks. Absolutely silly to try to delete it.Willdawg111 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge An article 2013 in UFC should be created to omnibus this and other UFC event articles not yet ready for stand alone articles. Kevlar (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's not even UFC 155 yet, and already we are setting up the card for 158. We don't even know if that's the official card, yet. Wait awhile, and recreate it when it's more sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.214.85 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This event has a title fight that has been years in the making, it will have lasting significance. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This will be more relevant as we get closer to the date no point in deleting it now then remaking it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.202 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The keep arguments have failed to address issues with this article, particularly in light of other recent AfDs in which future UFC events were deleted. Also the article currently fails WP:SPORTSEVENT due to its lack of well-sourced prose; it has practically no prose. I would advice those wishing to keep the article would do better to write actual prose discussing the background of the event thus far as it would bolster any notability arguments they are attempting to make. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an omnibus page until it can be established whether the event will be notable or not. The coverage right now is routine, speculation, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Once the event gets significant coverage, it can be spun out into its own article. CaSJer (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is a presumption among anyone with the faintest knowledge of MMA that every UFC event will have a lasting impact. Yes, 11 losses and 11 wins are a lasting impact. 176.254.114.25 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A championship fight that's been several years in the making, along with two contender fights with major impact on the potential next challenger for the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) Welterweight (170 lbs) Championship. I was even kind enough to put the meanings in brackets, because I'm convinced the originators of this Witch hunt have not the foggiest clue as to what they are talking about. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The deletionists are just going to keep ruining wikipedia. This issue with UFC articles is just a small portion of a larger problem; there's a systemic flaw in the way deletions are proposed and the completely arbitrary nature of their resolution. And as a result, the consequences is rewarding those destroy and driving away those who contribute. In the words of Wikipedia's founder: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." As long as deletionists get to have their way, this dream will never be realized. --Shponglefan 8:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Vote struck - quack quack. Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Upcoming welter weight championship; reliable and independent sources for this type of event are heavily prevalent and WP:FUTURE specifically states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As stated in other AfD's, CRYSTAL is mainly to discourage editors from making assumptions about events. The main problem with UFC would be WP:NEVENT, but as evident at WP:MMANOT, another policy is required to assert the notability of MMA events where NEVENT cannot. As such, the coverage for this event is significantly more than previous upcoming events where the event itself is the subject of the publication. Mkdwtalk 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mkdw. Also, even if event has yet to occur, it has already received plenty of media coverage. [21] [22] [23] [24] are just some examples. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sweet Dreams (band). Courcelles 04:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby McVay
- Bobby McVay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable radio presenter. Elongated shorty (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sweet Dreams (band). Notability derived from winning Eurovision with this group. --Phazakerley (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweet Dream, I didn't find any other sources about this guy Dishv80 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sweet Dreams (band): I don't think he's independently notable, though there will be some press coverage from the 1980s about his Song For Europe/Eurovision appearances. Therefore merge to the most notable band of which he was a member. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hurly-Burly (Journal)
- Hurly-Burly (Journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for non-deletion:
Hurly-Burly is a notable journal with a solid reputation in the field of psychoanalysis and the wider field of contemporary cultural theory. The former President of the World Association of Psychoanalysis, Éric Laurent, stated this year at the NLS Congress in Tel Aviv: "I would like to iterate just what an instrument of public service the journal of the New Lacanian School is" (see: http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=2593).
The editorial policy of Hurly-Burly is opposed to peer-review selection, thus precluding inclusion on academic databases, which indeed it has never sought.
Since the creation of the article on the morning of 6 December 2012, a number of links to the article have been created, often by adding hyperlinks to existing references to the journal on other Wikipedia pages. comment added by Refusecollection (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Refusecollection (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Refusecollection has, unwantedly, made a pretty good case for deletion. If this is the best you can come up with in defense of this article, I rest my case... --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Randykitty. I'm afraid I don't follow your argumentation. I took it that your point was that Hurly-Burly was not available on academic journal databases. I sought to explain why Hurly-Burly would not be found on such databases. Does this exclude it automatically from inclusion on Wikipedia? Or did your reference to my "unwanted" case for deletion allude to some other factor? This is my first article entry on Wikipedia, and any further advice would be much appreciated. Refusecollection (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sorry for being a bit sarcastic in my previous post. The point is, for an academic journal to be notable according to WP:NJournals, inclusion in selective databases is an important criterion. Your post showed that I did not simply miss such an inclusion, but explained why there will not be an inclusion in the future either. It's not the only way to become notable for a journal, but for that we need independent reliable sources, which apparently are not available either. That's why I said that your post basically was an argument for deletion. Please note that "notability in the WP sense" is not a judgement about the value of lack thereof of something, it just is an evaluation of the sources that exist about something. Being an encyclopedia, WP articles cannot be based on our personal opinions/judgments. Hope this explains a bit better (and less sarcastic). Creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here, I would advise you to first get a feel of things by working on some existing articles, perhaps participate in a few more of these AfD debates, and then continue perhaps with the creation of new articles, that might prevent some disappointment. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Randykitty. Thank you for your reply. I understood the situation regarding the independent reliable sources, and I was simply making it clear to anyone who might be inclined to search (either in support of the Journal's WP inclusion or seeking its deletion) would not find anything in such databases and indexes. In seeking to comply with the WP WP:NJournals criteria, I have added secondary source references to the article and to the talk page. Hurly-Burly is a young journal, but in its short history has earned itself a powerful and notable reputation, not just in the field of psychoanalysis, but in the wider field of cultural theory and contemporary philosophy. I am thoroughly convinced that it warrants inclusion on WP, but I am wary of my own incompetence in arguing its case here! I will continue to search through the relevant pages offering help and criteria, but would welcome any further information from you (whether in support of inclusion or deletion) pertaining to those criteria that are unrelated to database/index data (which are not applicable here).
Refusecollection (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the argument to delete this journal:
I am surprised and rather shocked that a journal such as Hurly-Burly, that has such a world-wide readership (UK, USA, Australia, Greece, Israel, Poland, Ireland...) and which is such an important source for those working in psychoanalytic practice on such a scale, would be deleted because of the strict application of these rules. The two major psychoanalytic institutions on an international scale are the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and the World Association of Psychoanalysis (WAP). The IPA's English language journal "The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis" is recognised by Wikipedia, whereas the English language journal of the WAP, Hurly-Burly, is being contested? It might be noted that Hurly-Burly is the only English language publication to have official translations of papers by Jacques Lacan such as: "Report on Seminar XI" (HB issue 5), "The 1st International Encounter of the Freudian Field" (HB issue 6), "Postface to Seminar XI" (HB issue 7), "Address on Child Psychoses" (HB issue 8). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blabbler (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Blabbler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The addition of an infobox to the article today prompted me to look up the journal's OCLC number. While doing so, I noticed that there are 3 (three) university libraries that carry this journal (one each in France, British Columbia, and New Zealand), another indication of the current lack of notability of the journal. Two references have been added to the article since the start of this AfD, one to a blog, another of unclear notability/independence. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Randykitty. Thank you for your clean-up work on the infobox and text. Could you just expand a little on your comment that "Éric Laurent, the former president of the WAP" is of "unclear notability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refusecollection (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following Randykitty's remark that reference 1 is to a blog (thus implying unclear notability) I have changed the reference link to the same quote in a more notable source. Refusecollection (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My remark about "unclear notability" did not regard Laurent, but the website where his address was published. The same goes for the above-mentioned blog, which is now sourced to just another journal of absolutely unclear notability, Umbr(a). --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I’ve just stumbled upon this article and its deletion notice. It’s quite remarkable that the inclusion on WP of a Journal of this stature should be contested. Hurly-Burly features important historic documents that are unavailable elsewhere in English: Jacques-Lacan’s texts from the 60s, 70s and 80s; first-hand accounts by people in analysis with Lacan; testimonies from people who have been through the process of the Pass that Lacan invented in 1967. There is nothing of the like in English. The texts by Lacan alone ensure that this Journal easily meets criteria 3 of WP:Njournals. Guzave (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lacan passed away in 1981. It's difficult to see how a journal established 22 years later can have "a historic purpose or ... a significant history" by providing translations of these old publications of him. Please base your arguments on WP guidelines/policy. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahoova ITSM/BSM
- Ahoova ITSM/BSM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. No references in independent sources to be found. PROD and endorsed PROD removed by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, this is my first article, how does this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx880107 (talk • contribs)
- Instructions left at user's talk page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. --Makecat 13:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2021 Asian Youth Games
- 2021 Asian Youth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing which can be built on yet (event is still 9 years away). It can be recreated as the event approaches — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems too far in advance; the likeliest chance for notability would be if there was substantial press coverage of the bidding process for prospective hosts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:TOOSOON. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 08:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having this article seems to predict the oft-made plea to remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The event has been awarded to Surabaya, Indonesia. Information will start to come in. Its not like a city was listed as bidding they actually won. As a coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Multi-sport events I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. I also expanded the 2017 Asian Youth Games article and plan on doing so for 2021 as time allows. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not a speculation. This event has been awarded to Surabaya on 8 November 2012 by Olympic Council of Asia. So, it's not violates WP:CRYSTAL.Yogwi21 (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you do have a point there. – Michael (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that show guaranteed notability? What can be built on this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though not fully developed look at the 2017 Asian Youth Games article. It can be developed. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you do have a point there. – Michael (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is going to be a steady stream of information about the development of the city to host this event. e.g. [25] John Vandenberg (chat) 11:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, WP:TOOSOON is for people and films whose notability is not yet clear. WP:CRYSTAL says 2020 Summer Olympics is an appropriate topic. I presume 2028 Summer Olympics is too. 2019 Copa América and 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup are also an appropriate topics? 2019 Cricket World Cup? And we have 2019 Pan American Games and 2022 Commonwealth Games, which are still in the bidding process. Why not 2021 Asian Youth Games? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Yellow Pages. MBisanz talk 05:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow Pages (UDDI)
- Yellow Pages (UDDI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has the same content as that of the UDDI Page section titled 'Structure' - This is an attempt to eliminate redundancy and do a redirect to the section instead of this page. Compfreak7 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why start 3 AfDs around the same thing and not just do one multi AfD? Lukeno94 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry. I was not aware that a multi AfD too is possible. I used the xfd button, how do i do a multi AfD (I am a newbie). Thanks! Compfreak7 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:AFD#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that page! Now, i shall do a multi-AfD next time whenever possible and applicable. By the way, how many days should i wait until my request is granted/denied. I mean do i need to notify some administrator or do something else like adding some nominated-for-deletion template on those marked pages? Compfreak7 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can do it straight away yourself, by incorporating the other ones into this, and closing the other AfDs, giving the reason that they had been grouped into this. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that page! Now, i shall do a multi-AfD next time whenever possible and applicable. By the way, how many days should i wait until my request is granted/denied. I mean do i need to notify some administrator or do something else like adding some nominated-for-deletion template on those marked pages? Compfreak7 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:AFD#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry. I was not aware that a multi AfD too is possible. I used the xfd button, how do i do a multi AfD (I am a newbie). Thanks! Compfreak7 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An unnecessary content fork. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Yellow Pages, nearly identical, and not long enough to require splitting out yet. Altered Walter (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drum Machine (software)
- Drum Machine (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged since 2008. No primary source coverage, no establishment of notability, reads like and probably is an advertisement. WaltCip (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found a TechRepublic source, but everything else was in an unreliable source or a passing mention that it made earlier versions of Wine segfault. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources and fails to claim notability. GliderMaven (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gintautas Dumcius
- Gintautas Dumcius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable reporter for neighborhood newspaper, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the four references listed, one is from his paper, one is a broken link, one merely lists his Twitter handle, and the last is an article he wrote, not an article about him. A Google search [26] turns up, in order, his homepage, his Twitter feed, his bio page on his paper's site, his Linkedin page, his Facebook page, this article, sequeing in to whitepages.com and zoominfo.com, a classic sequence for non-notable folks. Ravenswing 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Easily fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. —Theopolisme 17:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted page by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery netizen
- Mystery netizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable topic and subject, fails WP:GNG. Mediran (t • c) 07:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Michig (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Greenleaf Cloudman
- John Greenleaf Cloudman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was referenced in seven books: 1. 2005, Davenport, Ray Dvenport's Art Reference: The Gold Edition 2. 2005, Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson, The Artists Bluebook 3. 2002, Hughes, Edan Miltion, Artists in California: 1786-1940 4. 1999, Falk, Peter Hastings, Who Was Who in American Art 1564-1975 5. 1989, Hughes, Edan Milton, Artists in California: 1786-1940 6. 1985, Dawdy, Doris, Artists of the American West: A Biographical dictionary (3 volumes) 7. 1856, McCracken, Harold, Western Paintings: A Distinguished Collection[4]
- ^ http://enjoy-curacao.com/en/events-activities/leisure-events/celebrations/curacao-events-chippie-polar-cup-2012.html?monthEvents=2012-05&parentURL=celebrations
- ^ http://www.nusport.nl/eredivisie/2253617/ajax-verovert-chippie-polar-cup.html
- ^ http://www.rnw.nl/id/caribiana/article/chippie-polar-cup-mee-naar-nederland
- ^ AskArt.com
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejkravitz (talk • contribs)
- Sources do not equate to notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I looked at WP:ARTIST and the subject appears to pass "(d) - is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." See Portland Museum of Art 1, 2; Maine State Museum and Maine Historical Society 3. Although these three museums are all in Maine, the Smithsonian American Art Museum consider him important enough to have a database record for his works in their index 4. Plus, the article mentions the Bangor Public Library collection, not strictly a museum, but still... Also, I found this book citation which indicates some coverage of his work, talking about "few known works" here and the snippet view cuts off tantalisingly with a glimpse of the next paragraph which is obviously about Cloudman and refers to his "distinctive painting style, which was not always crit [ically]...(snip)" - something that tells me that there is further material out there about this artist that is not readily available online, but which counts as coverage. The Milton book above has a biographical entry about the artist. It seems to me that based on all this, he just about passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Mabalu (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw as nominator and per Mabalu and lets move on. The article has also had significant changes since my nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin Myers
- Griffin Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
obscure or unknown actor Bhny (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Gong show 18:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genrikh Graftio
- Genrikh Graftio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reliable independent sourcing on this person to indicate notability. The Russian articles and "encyclopedia entry" only indicate that he was one of several engineers who worked on a hydoelectric dam. While the hydo-electric dam is notable, this engineer is not. Outside of being part of the immense team that built the dam he is virtually unknown. There are many people who did similar work who do not merit Wikipedia articles. I refer to WP:BIO, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was a member of Russian Academy of Sciences, which makes him automatically notable as WP:ACADEMIC (#3). In addition to this, he has a personal entry in Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the main state-sponsored encyclopedia in Soviet Union (similar to Britannica in notability) which is an independent source. I do not quite understand what we are talking about. For me, this should be a speedy keep case and a trout to the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced that #3 applies. For those who do not have time or energy to look it up: "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." Any person in or out of Russia of any nationality can become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is akin to "National Geographic". Yes it is prestigious. No it is not necessarily selective. While they do have a selective body, there is no indication that Genrikh Graftio was ever a member of it. No citation. No nobel-like ceremony. No news coverage. No sourcing. I can get a three year membership and claim to be a member too, that does not make me a notable Russian Scientist. The "encyclopedia entry" is equally problematic. It was rated a "3" on accuracy, that's lower than Wikipedia, and we should strive to improve ourselves at all times. It is well known among academics not to be relied apon without a secondary source, as it still contains a lot of puffery left over from the cold war. Read point#2 here:Evaluating reference Material the point i am trying to make is this: The article simply needs more citations and sources in order to be valid. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about. The Russian Academy of Sciences holds elections every three years. It is similar to the French Academy, the membership is for life, and if an academician dies, his/her seat becomes available for elections. Only other academicians vote. The most prestigious encyclopedia in Russian states very clearly that he was elected in 1932. I am not sure what inauguration reports do you want. The results of the elections were published in the most prestigious newspapers like the Pravda, but I do not have access to the issues of the Pravde or the Izvestiya from 1932. I am not sure why you are fighting against the windmills. Imagine you nominate for deletion a member of US National Academy who has a personal entry in Britannica which is one page long - and claim he is not notable because Britannica is not reliable - how many trouts do you get?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take all of this personally. I am just a messenger. The "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" is nowhere near the quality of Brittanica or even Wikipedia, as my link above bears out. There are articles in that "Encyclopedia" proclaiming how great the Berlin Wall was. It simply isn't a reliable source. I am not saying that this person didn't do interesting things. There are many interesting things that do not get their own Wikipedia Articles. Perhaps we could merge this into a larger article about obscure Russian engineers or something. I don't know. I have been trying to find sources for this article for hours. Contrary to what you may think, I would like to save it. I simply can't find any reliable sourcing yet. If some decent sourcing shows up, I will be all too happy to withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am not even sure what source would be reliable for you. I will check the correspnoding village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a request--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take all of this personally. I am just a messenger. The "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" is nowhere near the quality of Brittanica or even Wikipedia, as my link above bears out. There are articles in that "Encyclopedia" proclaiming how great the Berlin Wall was. It simply isn't a reliable source. I am not saying that this person didn't do interesting things. There are many interesting things that do not get their own Wikipedia Articles. Perhaps we could merge this into a larger article about obscure Russian engineers or something. I don't know. I have been trying to find sources for this article for hours. Contrary to what you may think, I would like to save it. I simply can't find any reliable sourcing yet. If some decent sourcing shows up, I will be all too happy to withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about. The Russian Academy of Sciences holds elections every three years. It is similar to the French Academy, the membership is for life, and if an academician dies, his/her seat becomes available for elections. Only other academicians vote. The most prestigious encyclopedia in Russian states very clearly that he was elected in 1932. I am not sure what inauguration reports do you want. The results of the elections were published in the most prestigious newspapers like the Pravda, but I do not have access to the issues of the Pravde or the Izvestiya from 1932. I am not sure why you are fighting against the windmills. Imagine you nominate for deletion a member of US National Academy who has a personal entry in Britannica which is one page long - and claim he is not notable because Britannica is not reliable - how many trouts do you get?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced that #3 applies. For those who do not have time or energy to look it up: "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." Any person in or out of Russia of any nationality can become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is akin to "National Geographic". Yes it is prestigious. No it is not necessarily selective. While they do have a selective body, there is no indication that Genrikh Graftio was ever a member of it. No citation. No nobel-like ceremony. No news coverage. No sourcing. I can get a three year membership and claim to be a member too, that does not make me a notable Russian Scientist. The "encyclopedia entry" is equally problematic. It was rated a "3" on accuracy, that's lower than Wikipedia, and we should strive to improve ourselves at all times. It is well known among academics not to be relied apon without a secondary source, as it still contains a lot of puffery left over from the cold war. Read point#2 here:Evaluating reference Material the point i am trying to make is this: The article simply needs more citations and sources in order to be valid. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject:Russia notified of this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC as mentioned above, and there are plenty of Russian-language sources in the Russian version of the article which indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of independent and reliable sources that prove notability on a number of levels. Why would we ever want to delete this article? Azylber (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Source them into the article so that we can put an end to this. All I am asking to see is the most basic of independent and reliable sourcing. If this person were as notable as is claimed, there should be something more than a note in a highly dubious "Encyclopedia" and what could be a public membership in a science academy. Where is the press coverage? As I have mentioned several times, I will happily withdraw the article if even the most basic of reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GSE was of course under heavy ideological pressure, but it is still the most reliable encyclopedia available in Russian. I would never use it for example to source that Marxism is the future of our civilization, but I see absolutely no reason to doubt when it says that the Volga River has its mouth in the Caspian Sea or that Graftio was a full professor in one of Saint Petersburg universities since 1921 and was elected to Academy in 1932. Furthermore, the Academy is not public. A usual person from the street can not just enter. Even I, a full professor in one of the most prestigious universities in Europe, am not a member, and would probably get difficulties to get elected there. To become an Academy member in Soviet times was the most prestigious possible career for a scientist, better that the State Prize. Whereas definitely there are more sources, and I will eventually add them, I insist that what was available in the article at the point it was AfDed was proving notability beyond a reasonable doubt.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sue: I don't really understand your comments. Several reliable sources have already been added. Notability has been established. I don't mean to be disrespectul, but have you looked at the sources and read all the comments above? Azylber (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Source them into the article so that we can put an end to this. All I am asking to see is the most basic of independent and reliable sourcing. If this person were as notable as is claimed, there should be something more than a note in a highly dubious "Encyclopedia" and what could be a public membership in a science academy. Where is the press coverage? As I have mentioned several times, I will happily withdraw the article if even the most basic of reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep verifiable information from reliable soiurces. Soviet encyclopedia may be unreliable for propaganda, but for all other things Soviet science was reasonably good and reliable. - Altenmann >t 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azylber, It is because of those very sources that I have nominated the article for Afd. I would like to save this article. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a very interesting person. But this article needs sourcing. Good sourcing. Not a blurb from "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia" that makes "Heroes" out of favored people, or an academy that may or may not have had the subject in it's private inner circle as opposed to it's public "club". Is it is too much to ask for sourcing that we demand from every other Wikipedia article? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per all above. A look at Sue's Talk page and comments to Catalyst about "fluffing up page creation counts" indicates a mismatch with the purpose of increasing en.wp's international article coverage. When covering Soviet subjects Soviet sources are acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch! Was that a bite? I do not believe that this article was any part of that discussion. In fact I am sure it wasn't. Please don't make this so personal. My concern here is that the two sources being used seem unreliable to me. That is the beginning and the end of it. I don't understand what the problem is to ask for a bit of additional sourcing. Surely if this person was as famous as everyone is saying, there would be a newspaper interview or something. There is nothing like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am really confused. You refuse to accept the national encyclopedia (the only one at the time) as a reliable source on the basis that it was ideologically controlled, but you would accept an interview in a pre-1949 Soviet newspaper (the guy died in 1949) which were all ideologically controlled at the same level? Or do you want to see an interview in NYT? I am afraid Graftio was never interviewed by NYT.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is The Forbes good enough for you?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I'm getting a dead link. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is The Forbes good enough for you?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am really confused. You refuse to accept the national encyclopedia (the only one at the time) as a reliable source on the basis that it was ideologically controlled, but you would accept an interview in a pre-1949 Soviet newspaper (the guy died in 1949) which were all ideologically controlled at the same level? Or do you want to see an interview in NYT? I am afraid Graftio was never interviewed by NYT.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch! Was that a bite? I do not believe that this article was any part of that discussion. In fact I am sure it wasn't. Please don't make this so personal. My concern here is that the two sources being used seem unreliable to me. That is the beginning and the end of it. I don't understand what the problem is to ask for a bit of additional sourcing. Surely if this person was as famous as everyone is saying, there would be a newspaper interview or something. There is nothing like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have rolled back the closure due to the fact that the discussion has not run the full 7 days. thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robot (song)
- Robot (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unremarkable single. Almost entirely self-sourced by the publisher/producer. Not on any charts or anything. Fails a number of inclusion filters. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, that's what I was afraid to happen. I was supposed to made the article one month ago when the articles about Robot popped but this time I waited to be released. About the charts, since it was released today obviously didn't charted yet, but Oricon Daily is out in a few hours so this is not a problem. Japanese releases, specially singles, are a little hard to find sources besides their websites and all, that's why some of my artices of Japanese singles lacks this. I'll try to find some proper sources of the single. Rafatisd (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see they are under Warner Music Japan . Not to mention all of their indie work. That makes them notable under WP:BAND PortlandOregon97217. I think Sue is suffering from a case of "If I haven't heard of it then it isn't notable" (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A remarkable single. Not not on any charts or anything. Puhlenty of sources in the Japanese language. Passes WP:GNG easily. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Another truly incompetent nomination. At the very least with a single released the same day, check the categories, in this case Category:CN Blue songs. Not to mention Japanese and Korean sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hate to bring out my crystal ball, but keeping tally of the Oricon daily singles chart, it's all but confirmed that "Robot" will debut at number two on the weekly singles chart. Even ignoring that, these sources go into detail about the content of all three versions of the physical CD, this source announces the single and provides critical commentary of one of the single covers, this source talks about the first-day sales of the single and the genre of the song, and this source talks about all three tracks (sans the instrumental, of course), as well as the music video preview posted on Warner Music Japan's YouTube channel and when the full music video will be uploaded. Notability is definitely there. — ξxplicit 02:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:COPYVIO and sourcing issues have been sorted out. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourp Hagop Armenian Hospital
- Sourp Hagop Armenian Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unremarkable hospital in Armenia. There is no independent sourcing. Fails WP:Notability Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Armenian as in it belongs to the Armenian community of Istanbul.Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This hospital has played a significant role in Turkish history since 1831. It has saved many lives during the 31 March Incident in 1909. It is an Armenian Christian hospital in a Muslim country which is rare throughout the Muslim world. It has important cultural role in the Armenian community of Istanbul. It should definitely remain in wikipedia. It fulfills all nobility requirements. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We require notability not nobility. Notability involves the subject being documented in depth by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. You need to point to the history books that document this 19th and early 20th century history that you allude to. Ironically, you're using a source that names one such history book, and offhandedly mentions another. Point to that history book of hospitals.
And write in your own words. I've already seen two sentences that you've just copied exactly, word for word, from the source. If you cannot write original free-content prose and can only copy non-free content, then don't submit things to Wikipedia. Every edit page that you've seen here has told you this.
- We require notability not nobility. Notability involves the subject being documented in depth by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. You need to point to the history books that document this 19th and early 20th century history that you allude to. Ironically, you're using a source that names one such history book, and offhandedly mentions another. Point to that history book of hospitals.
- KEEP.This is a Turkish hospital in Turkey and is as notable as any other Turkish hospital. The only problem about this article (and some others edited by certain users) is to try to impose a character that the object matter does not have. I edited the article to fit WP policy, principles, rules and standards and will keep an eye on it. --E4024 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm leaning towards keep here. Its history is quite long for a hospital. I can't find any details of the building, which may be notable as a piece of architecture in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are no less than 9 İstanbul hospitals in WP. Why to delete this one ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could only find THESE, and you'll note that none of them are in Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Excuse me, you're right. I'm awfully sorry for the incorrect information. Accidentally I' ve included the external links. But this doesn't change the validity of the argument. There are many hospital articles in WP and there is no reason to delete this one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your argument remains as wholly invalid as it was to start with. "Why not?" is not a rationale based in deletion policy. Two rationales that are based in deletion policy are "This is an undocumented hospital." (which is the nominator's rationale and which is based, albeit only implicitly, upon the policy requirement that reasonable attempts to find sources properly documenting the subject have all failed) and "This is a documented hospital that can be found discussed in history books." (a rationale yet to be propounded by anyone, despite my prodding the article creator and other editors twice now). Pull your collective fingers out, you who want to make a proper argument for keeping, and cite the history books! Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just removed a large portion of the article as being verbatim and close paraphrase copyright violation. This also removed one of the cited sources. I have not evaluated any of it for reliability or notability and have no opinion on that matter. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let us re-write this article, with a sincere collaboration among Wikipedians. We can do much more and better than fighting... --E4024 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go and read Wikipedia:deletion policy, E4024, and stop mischaracterising this as "fighting". Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep A notable verifiable historical establishment. - Altenmann >t 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If it is notable, then there should be reliable and independent sourcing. Add it to the article, if it exists, and I will withdraw the nomination. Arguments along the lines of WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not enough. read: Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are questioning reliability of the given sources, please provide convincing reasons. I know alphabet soups myself, such as IDONTLIKEIT. - Altenmann >t 03:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out above, the source that was being copied wholesale by Proudbolsahye names the actual history book(s). Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw that earlier but missed it when I was going over the wholesale copying. I'll go ahead and close this discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If it is notable, then there should be reliable and independent sourcing. Add it to the article, if it exists, and I will withdraw the nomination. Arguments along the lines of WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not enough. read: Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Straightforward keep. Just needs looking beyond the Armenian name to alternative spellings and beyond English. I've added English, French, German sources. Please add some sources in Turkish and Armenian someone. And Sue - maybe you want to be less quick with non-English language AfDs? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OUCH! was that another bite? That's the third time today. Just so you know, I speak English, Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and German. But I thank you kindly for your very valuable advice. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. This article is now properly sourced. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lupton City, Chattanooga
- Lupton City, Chattanooga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-town with no significance attached to it. No sourcing of significance. There was once a post office here, but apparently the postal service felt it wasn't necessary to keep it open. Fails WP:NOTABILITY Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are several reliable sources cited in the article. See WP:GEOLAND and having a post office puts it as being legally recognized. Royalbroil 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides, this is a neighborhood with significant coverage in a major city, it appears to have once been a distinct community, and it had its own post office for a long time, all indicators of notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps that "precident" should be changed. This "community" appears to be abandoned... Perhaps if somebody could explain why this "precident" exists, it may make more sense to me, and I will withdraw the nomination. I will also point out that WP:GEOLAND is simply a guidline, not policy, and that guidline says that such places MAY be notable, not that they are automatically notable. There is absolutely nothing notable about this place in it's history, and especially not now in the present. . --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Abandoned? There's an article from only six years ago that says it has over 250 families. The post office closed, but a lot of post offices have been closing lately thanks to budget cuts; that says nothing about who still lives there. Besides, Notability is not temporary. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you read the article about the post office closing it was due to structural issues with the building. Additionally, the same article goes into depth about the history of the town, including it's original purpose. WP:BEFORE nominating you should review the sources and actually present the facts, "apparently the postal service felt it wasn't necessary to keep it open" isn't a fact it is a spin of the actual fact from the source. Speedy Keep 2e may apply here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the above, GBooks turns up other potential sources about this former company town, notably including Marirose Arendale, "Lupton City: Chattanooga's Model Mill Village," Tennessee Historical Quarterly 43 (1984): 68-78[27]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Arxiloxos's academic journal article is all I need to see, we don't need multiple published sources for a town, only verified existence. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with congratulations to the article creator for starting a nice (and nicely sourced) little article about this discrete (and notable) community within the city limits of Chattanooga. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My gentle fellow editors, please read WP:NRVE. Other than an article about the post office closing, can sombody produce something to show WP:NOTABILITY? What did Lupton "City" ever do to stand out? No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. Where are the recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Arxiloxos just did that. Second of all, according to the five pillars Wikipedia should contain elements of a gazetteer, which includes settlements such as this one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added some content about this community's history, based on two articles from the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture. This was a planned community established around a large thread-spinning mill, established by John Thomas Lupton, who had made a fortune from bottling Coca-Cola. TheCatalyst31 added a relevant book source, too. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is now properly sourced, and meets WP:NOTABILITY. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is properly referenced now. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McDonald, Tennessee
- McDonald, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another place that may become a town someday (or not), with no significance attached to it. It's an unicorporated area near cleveland. There is no independent and reliable sourcing which indicates that this place is any different from any other area without a town or village. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a verifiable settlement, which makes it notable by long-standing AfD precedent. Besides, it even has a post office, which also suggests this is a significant place. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps that "precident" should be changed. Perhaps if somebody could explain why this "precident" exists, it may make more sense to me, and I will withdraw the nomination. At the very least, cite some wikipolicy for keeping it. Or is Wikipedia now a catalogue of places with a U.S. Post office? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources have been found for this one too, plus there's a whole book about the community. This is why the precedent exists; the sources are always there if you look hard enough. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Does appear to be a real community, which are always kept no matter what country they're in and whether they're a city, town, village or hamlet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Link by The Catalyst to a book published by the Bradley County Historical Society is all we need to see — the benchmark for inclusion of towns and villages at Wikipedia isn't multiple independently published sources, it is confirmed existence. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - McDonald is notable. It's a very real and widely recognized place, as demonstrated by the multiple references cited here and in the article. Tennesseans tend to be suspicious of government, so about half of the state's population is outside of incorporated municipalities, often in well-established distinct settlements like McDonald. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agreed it is well referenced now. Quite honestly, the book reference should have been there from the beginning. If it had been, this article would not have been nominated for Afd. This looks like a decent article at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitry Vasilyev (footballer born 1983)
- Dmitry Vasilyev (footballer born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Russian Premier League. This is false. He has single appearance in the Russian League Cup, which was essentially a friendly competition. There was no international qualification or serious prize money on the line, and clubs were permitted more than the standard three substitutions per match. As result, the competition was not taken seriously. More importantly, the Russian League Cup, and Mr. Vasilyev's appearance therein have received next to coverage, meaning this article very clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this may be a hoax, but at the very least, none of the links in the article actually link to this guy, and the presence of a few other footballers with the same name makes it hard to find anything on him. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. C679 10:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of timelines in fiction
- List of timelines in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
a list of 3 articles, after years of editing, means we dont need this list of "lists". how does this in any help navigate the project? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at this edit [28], I'm wondering why this was all removed from the lit page. - jc37 06:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I've restored some of the list entries that were removed without much explanation. It's still not a massive list, but it's a slightly more legitimate navigational aid than it was before. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well thats better. in retrospect, i could have checked the edit history. but why would someone remove legit items (that they may feel are not legit), reduce to this level, and not themselves afd it? odd editing behavior. If an admin wants to presume im withdrawing, thats fine. my main argument is now gone.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lists of lists have a legitimate navigational purpose, no reason for deletion applies. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One editor seems to have gone through and deleted most of that article previously. I added one thing back in. Looking over the rest to see. Anyway, as I said in the first AFD, this article is a valid Wikipedia list article as it list blue links to other articles, all grouped by having something in common. Dream Focus 02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richland High School shooting
- Richland High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Not every tragic event should have an article. Reywas92Talk 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This shooting received a lot of coverage, not just in the aftermath of the shooting. See this lengthy article in the LA Times five years after the event, a few paragraphs in this 2000 The New York Times article cited in our article, and coverage, and coverage [29] in a CBS news article from 2007. None of these are news stories in the sense that they are not covering a recent event about the case, but rather discussing the case as an example of a school shooting, and none of these are less than 5 years after the event. I think these articles add up to WP:GNG for me, and demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER doesn't apply here. Editors may wish to use the name of the perpetrator as a better search term than that listed above. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Multiple national published sources, including the New York Times, indicate considerable significance outside basic news reportage of the event itself. School shootings have broad academic and political policy interest as well. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of lasting notability nor significance. Also, NOTNEWS --Nouniquenames 03:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources and coverage show notability. —Theopolisme 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I looked at the first cited reference, and found that it was a New York Times retrospective piece on rampage murders, published 5 years after this particular shooting. This shooting is one of the cases that receives the most attention in the piece. That published coverage, by itself, demonstrates to me that this is not an ephemeral news item, but a notable event. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. --Orlady (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell County High School shooting
- Campbell County High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Not every tragic event should have an article. Reywas92Talk 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article hasn't been kept up to date and the event didn't happen in a major metro area with active news media, but this event that happened 7 years ago has hardly been forgotten. It's notable. It appears on most lists of school shootings. It was on the TV news on Monday in a story about the effect of the security changes Campbell County made after the shooting and it was in a Knoxville newspaper story on Saturday: "Campbell sheriff says LaFollette shooting changed county". Also, the fact that a 14-year-old was tried for murder as an adult was controversial and the fact that was talked into pleading guilty without seeing the full plea agreement or getting a chance to discuss his change in plea with his parents is the subject of an ongoing appeal; here are a few links to ongoing coverage of the appeal: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A fatal firearms attack upon school administrators on school grounds has obvious social implications beyond the actual news event itself which moves this piece past ordinary NOTNEWS concerns. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not seeing that obvious social implication, nor any other evidence of lasting notability. NOTNEWS, EFFECT. --Nouniquenames 03:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable event. —Theopolisme 14:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hetzel Union Building shooting
- Hetzel Union Building shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Not every tragic event should have an article. Reywas92Talk 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Poorly sourced and poorly titled, but this fatal Penn State University sniper shooting has social and political policy significance beyond the simple news coverage of the event. Here is COVERAGE FROM THE SITE OF THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER about a Carnegie Medal awarded to the man who thwarted the 2006 Penn State sniper attack. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anybody wants to source this out, here's COVERAGE OF THE SENTENCING OF THE SNIPER. (HighBeam Subscription Required). Unusual in that the perp in this incident was a woman. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the Philadelphia Inquirer's COVERAGE of the event itself. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anybody wants to source this out, here's COVERAGE OF THE SENTENCING OF THE SNIPER. (HighBeam Subscription Required). Unusual in that the perp in this incident was a woman. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The event was in the news, the killer was sentenced; I never would have guessed! This still does meet WP's inclusion criteria. Reywas92Talk 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:EFFECT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no lasting effect, no enduring notability, NOTNEWS --Nouniquenames 03:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Any sources about a lasting effect can be found. Somehow I doubt that they will be found. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is well referenced at this point. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherwood, Tennessee
- Sherwood, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is another unicorporated community. There is no significance attached to this place, and there is no independent reliable sourcing that might show that this area stands out in some way from the thousands of other would-be villages across the planet. They do have a post office, but that does not confer notability in any way. Wikipedia is not a list of places that have a post office. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a verified settlement, which makes it notable by long-standing AfD precedent. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps that "precident" should be changed. This "community" consists of something like seven households. Perhaps if somebody could explain why this "precident" exists, it may make more sense to me, and I will withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent is only a guide to what commonly happens. It isn't unassailable. Notability is not a blanket. Nor is it a good rationale. But a rationale that pointed to policy would say that per the Five Pillars Wikipedia does incorporate elements of a gazetteer, as indeed do other encyclopaedias. That a place is small is not a reason for not including it in the encyclopaedia. Nor is the assertion that a place has no significance. Not only is that a subjective judgement, that notability is not, but the idea of "unimportant" things not belonging in an encyclopaedia, when it is exactly that sort of I've-not-heard-of-it thing that readers come to encyclopaedias to look up, was soundly rejected by Jimbo's "no" in 2004. That a place is undocumented is a reason for deletion, per deletion policy. The simple fact, that leads to the overextended blanket assertions, is that many named populated places, by their very natures, are documented. Local history books cover them. Governments provide census records. Geographers, geologists, and explorers do reports. Newspapers publish articles. None of that is true of the plot of grassland next to my house, but it generally is true for named populated localities. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps that "precident" should be changed. This "community" consists of something like seven households. Perhaps if somebody could explain why this "precident" exists, it may make more sense to me, and I will withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is now up to ten references, plus there are some more articles from the 2000s about a proposal for a new mine, and a few sources cited in the external link that I don't have access to. There's a reason for the precedent; the sources supporting these communities' notability always seem to come up, even if they're not easy to find at first. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Does appear to be a community, which are always kept no matter what country they're in and whether they're a city, town, village or hamlet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources establish that this is a distinct and notable community. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with congratulations on the development of a nice (and nicely sourced) little article about a community I never heard of before today. Sources fully establish its notability. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, it seems to be well referenced now. Good job, it looks like a real article now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied via G4. (Non-admin closure) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jamal Lasri
- Jamal Lasri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a puff piece created by the subject. There is no independent reliable sourcing. Fails WP:BLP and a few other inclusion screens. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm fixing this nom after it came up incorrectly. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: I've fixed a speedy template to it in case this is the same article content that was deleted the other day.04:35, 19 December 2012 (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 merge to Kylie Minogue albums discography. Courcelles 05:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essential Mixes (Kylie Minogue album)
- Essential Mixes (Kylie Minogue album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article about a remix album should be deleted as non-notable due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. Unless sources are brought forward, we should not have an article on this topic. Till 04:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dl2000 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Kylie Minogue albums discography. I couldn't find much coverage, but there is a review at Allmusic. It's encyclopedic content, so should either be kept or merged to the discography article. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one source. WP:GNG expects more than one source for a topic to satisfy notability. Till 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - encyclopedic album. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what policy states that if a topic is encyclopedic we must have an article on it, despite a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources? Till 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is not enough sources, you can find the new sources and add to the article. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find sources, that's why we're here—because of a lack of sources outside the article. Till 01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is not enough sources, you can find the new sources and add to the article. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what policy states that if a topic is encyclopedic we must have an article on it, despite a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources? Till 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apart that no other sources are present, the album didn't even chart and fails WP:NMG#Albums. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to discography article - that way a reader looking for it will at least end up somewhere useful - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meatheads Burgers & Fries
- Meatheads Burgers & Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small burger chain; only 3rd party ref is in "Chicago Eater"-- as such publications normally cover practically all restaurants in a city, they're not discriminating enough to support notability, and their article is essential PR DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree they are small, but so was Five Guys at one point. They have been rapidly expanding and now have 10 locations here in Illinois, and have plans for 5 more locations including in Indiana which is no minor feat, seeing that this is a huge city. I would venture to guess that there are many other much more places on Wikipedia which are smaller and perhaps have only one location, for example Jean Georges in N.Y. and Fatburger in L.A. with one location (Not to mention all the professional athletes who have Wikipedia pages and played two months in the pros, yet somehow have a page.) This company is significant enough for a minor article here in this community and meets guidelines for WP:N. Also DGG's claim to only one 3rd party reference is false, a Google search of "meatheads reviews" brings up 6 more, not counting those on Yelp, including urbanspoon and This article in the Chicago Tribune. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I won't "vote" since this was just listed at ARS, but I was able to find and add a significant number of references in a brief period of time.[35]. The nomination's claim that there is only one available 3rd party ref, of limited value, is no longer applicable. The sources I have added include a profile in Nation's Restaurant News, major Chicago television stations, Chicago Business Journal, and Crain's. Compared to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flip Burger Boutique, this chain is much more significant.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This topic passes WP:N. Regarding sources, for starters see the additions to the article made by User:Milowent. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep small chain, but adequate sourcing to prove WP:CORP or WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Sure it passes GNG, but why is this anything more than just another burger joint? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No shortage of space in Wikipedia. If other burger joints are notable as well, they'll have an article. Dream Focus 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The space of our hard disks is not a consideration. Mentioning other articles existing is challenged with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't make any other stuff exist argument. I made a WP:NOTPAPER one. Dream Focus 03:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The space of our hard disks is not a consideration. Mentioning other articles existing is challenged with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found an interview published with the guy who founded it about this business. [36] Anyway, enough sources already found to prove its notable. Dream Focus 01:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is the basic criteria for inclusion, with many "however"s. The big "however" here is "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
- WP:NOTABILITY explains its notable if it meets the WP:GNG which this one does, or one of the subject specific guidelines. Dream Focus 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is the basic criteria for inclusion, with many "however"s. The big "however" here is "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
- Delete per "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.". If somebody can explain how this is more than just another company with a few references to help it pass GNG, please speak up. I haven't heard that yet, but will change my !vote if I do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per WP:IS NOT A BUSINESS DIRECTORY. There is a systemic bias in WP towards many things, including companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While I usually oppose the article rescue squad, this time the article and sources provided are actually about the subject and not just passing references and reviews. It meets the requirements. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, wow, I'm !voting keep on an article that DGG has brought to AFD. Nonetheless, I think that the references provided pop this quite comfortably over the general notability guideline. The article prose doesn't seem overly promotional to my eyes. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep sources provided indicate notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 03:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andrews Manor, Maryland
- Andrews Manor, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a town that does not exist yet, and may never exist. there is nothing of significance in the area's history, and there is certainly no independent reliable sourcing. It reads like a brochure from the developer. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a verified settlement, as it appeares in the Geographic Names Information System, a reliable source; by long-standing AfD precedent, this makes it notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and this community is verified. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NGEO. This is not legally-recognized. It's a part of a CDP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey and multiple branches of Maryland government, though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The USGS only recognizes names. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey and multiple branches of Maryland government, though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No different from any other populated place; the USGS recognises places and many of their attributes besides names. I don't understand why you say "does not exist yet" — the GNIS entry is from 1979, so it's been in existence for over thirty years. Moreover, why would you want to get rid of the title? If you don't think we should have an article against it, why is deleting it a better choice than redirecting it to the CDP? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Stittgen
- Dan Stittgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing looks good now. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chikyū Kaihō Gun ZAS
- Chikyū Kaihō Gun ZAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game from 1992. No sourcing. Fails a number of notability tests. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand/improve the article. --Hydao (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - fails WP:GNG, can't find any information on it whatsoever, and the article is totally unreferenced. There's nothing to expand with at present, unless someone with access to Russian sources shows otherwise.Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are many sites:
- http://www14.atwiki.jp/gball/pages/387.html
- http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ua4s-njm/gb_soft/gstg23.html
- http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/jetboy_256/6519379.html
- http://nicosound.anyap.info/sound/sm3308295
- http://www.giantbomb.com/chikyuu-kaihou-gun-zas/61-32925/
- http://www.blamethecontrolpad.com/gbshooters/gbshooters3.htm
- http://www.disgruntleddesigner.com/chrisc/ZASreview/reviews/ZAS/
- http://www.shmup.com/index.php?page=fiche&id=824
- http://hg101.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=games&action=display&thread=6147
- http://www.racketboy.com/retro/best-undiscovered-gameboy-game-boy-color-games
- It will be difficult to find more info about this uber-obscure game. This game seems very rare, and it's expensive as hell:
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPER-RARE-NINTENDO-GAMEBOY-GB-Chikyuu-Kaihou-Gun-ZAS-w-box-JAPAN-T-E-Soft-/360520691498?pt=TV_Movie_Character_Toys_US&hash=item53f0b52f2a
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/GAMEBOY-GB-Chikyuu-Kaihou-Gun-ZAS-JAPAN-SUPER-RARE-NINTENDO-/150964181469?pt=TV_Movie_Character_Toys_US&hash=item23262a99dd
- Maybe I can find some info about it on some old magazine, but first I need to ask some people. --Hydao (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are many sites:
- Keep - After doing some researching and using the information from a few of Hydao's references, there is enough information about this obscure non-recent Japanese video game to keep the article on English Wikipedia. The only reason this game is obscure in North America/Europe is that the game was never released in North America/Europe. GVnayR (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obviously GVnayR and Hyado are much better at finding information than I am, I'm now convinced that this game is notable enough, even if it is obscure. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it looks good now. I'm going to go ahead and close this one. Good work everyone! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Tickle
- Chris Tickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he had one more fight I would say let it go. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not about being a MMA fan. We should respect policies and guidelines whether we like them or not. --LlamaAl (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What LlamaAl said is right. I am an MMA fan, I dont believe Tickle is notable enough yet for his own wikipedia page. We dont need to have a bunch of pages for unnotable fighters on wikipedia. Plus you need to state a policy based reason to keep the article Willdawg111. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Being a former UFC fighter is not enough to make a fighter notable. The UFC is notable, all their fighters are not, because notability is not inherited. WP:MMANOT is a good guideline for establishing whether an individual fighter is notable or not, and Chris Tickle fails that guideline. CaSJer (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One UFC fight (and that was on TUF) does not meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:NMMA by having 4 notable fights and one of those was on a top-tier promotion (UFC). Mazter00 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Comment I find this to be an interesting issue. To my knowledge, the season of TUF that this fighter participated in is the only TUF season where the fights were live (all other seasons were tape-delayed and thus the fights were exhibitions). Therefore, for this season alone there may be argument that the TUF fights were professional UFC fights. Here, the fighter fought clearly once for the UFC in the Finale. The first round TUF loss is debatable as a UFC fight and the fight to 'get in the house' is debatable as a UFC fight (assuming both these fights were live and thus not exhibitions). A question is if these were 'professional' fights. While clearly these guys were paid, were they paid to fight and for each fight or were they paid for being on the show? To me it is the latter and therefore TUF participation (outside of the Finale show) should be considered more under Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). Further, while I am sure these guys are under some sort of contract, the UFC promotes this as the winner getting a 6-figure contract to fight in the UFC. Therefore, I question how much the UFC considers these fights professional UFC fights. Moreover, on the UFC website they only list Tickle as having one fight in the UFC (as opposed to 2 or 3) and his record is consistent with the fights not being counted - http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Chris-Tickle. In view of all this I think delete is appropriate, but I do think this raises a question that should be addressed for this season of TUF. -RonSigPi (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. This article has come a long way from the poor condition it was in when I nominated it, and it is now up to Wikipedia standards. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nộm
- Nộm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable salad. No sourcing to speak of. Fails WP:NOTABILITY Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sue, you need to check under the Southern Vietnamese spelling "goi" as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw Sue. The same problem with failing to make checks on name variants, diacritic/non-diacritic, could have avoided the similar discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Đặng Trần Côn tags on Hằng Phương etc. I don't mind helpful suggestions but if suggestions aren't going to be helpful then maybe times spent improving your own sourcing on Hugh R. Sharp Moulton-Udell High School Moravia High School etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more constructive if we concentrated on THIS ARTICLE. If you believe any of my own articles are deletable material, feel free to nominate them. Merry Christmas.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw Sue. The same problem with failing to make checks on name variants, diacritic/non-diacritic, could have avoided the similar discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Đặng Trần Côn tags on Hằng Phương etc. I don't mind helpful suggestions but if suggestions aren't going to be helpful then maybe times spent improving your own sourcing on Hugh R. Sharp Moulton-Udell High School Moravia High School etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - mentioned in sufficient depth in Into the Vietnamese Kitchen: Treasured Foodways, Modern Flavors by Andrea Nguyen, among many others. Sue, what permutations of the article title did you search for before determining that this subject was not notable? VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well-referenced article, notability is clearly established. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. How is a major food category in a cuisine eaten by around 100 million people not notable? Go after chicken and waffles instead. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, "no sourcing to speak of" - except the 6 sources in the article, one of which was in the article when this was nominated. I had half a mind to speedy close this considering the speed at which it was sent to AfD and the bogus nomination rationale. Sending good faith, sourced contributions to AfD straightaway is bad practice and demotivating to people who create content. - filelakeshoe 19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An early snow closure is probably reasonable in this case. VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will point out that at the time I nominated this article it only had a single, poor, source. I am happy that this AfD was able to motivate editors to improve it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chaitanya Giri
- Chaitanya Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of Notability. None of the four articles cited to the article include his name. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. References does not even mentioned Chaitanya Giri --Wakowako (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since there are no real references, and no contributors outside of User:Girichaitanya (except for people and bots doing tagging). The sole contributor appears to be violating WP:COI. Phuzion (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- graduate students need extraordinary notice for WP:PROF to apply, and I don't see that here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost an A7 speedy — the article does not say anything that looks like an assertion of significance for its subject. In any case there is no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unremarkable grad student. RayTalk 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:V right at the start. --Artene50 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as G11, author blanked ... discospinster talk 03:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Langford Islamic College
- Langford Islamic College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of Notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Now tagged for speedy deletion as G11. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assassin's Creed (book series). MBisanz talk 05:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin's Creed: Forsaken
- Assassin's Creed: Forsaken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a novel with no assertion of significance and no references. I was unable to find any sources other that one minor mention in foreign language publication. - MrX 03:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article is an apparently legitimate split from the very detailed article Assassin's Creed. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: While I haven't looked for sources yet, I notice that some of the other books in the series have an issue when it comes to having sources as well. It might be better to create a page for the books in the Assassin's Creed series and have them redirect there rather than having individual entries. If I can't find sources then I might make this my project for tonight to create a series entry for the books for this to redirect to.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Assassin's Creed (book series). This is a very quick and dirty article I threw together for the series as a whole and needs lots of TLC from the people more savvy with the game. The biggie about the individual novel entries is that there just isn't enough coverage to warrant individual entries for each book. There's enough to rationalize a series page, but not enough for individual entries.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's probably a good solution, provided that the series is notable, which it appears it is. - MrX 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: all five novels of the series to the series article, per Tokyogirl. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 06:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hamidian Boulevard
- Hamidian Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable street, lacking any references. - MrX 02:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Here is the street on Google Maps; there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about. It is a rather short street too. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero indication of any notability. --Kinu t/c 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's just one sentence without any remarkable facts! ●Mehran Debate● 13:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Not notable. No indication of notability through a basic Google search. This fulfills the criteria for speedy delete. No need to waste everyone's time with keeping this open. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Achyut Godbole
- Achyut Godbole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no reliable sources. The content and the notability of the subject, is highly questionable. Seems to be a fan page. Prashant Serai (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are many reliable sources on the net. I do agree that many of the sources are not cited but I was not able to do it due to lack of time. I would like to request if someone can give citations to the article. Thanks -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- It seems that some fan has added lot of unsourced material and I agree that it is looking like some kind of advertisement. I shall remove such material soon. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Didn't find evidence for whichever possibly noteworthy claims I checked. Please provide a sufficient case for notability with evidence. Prashant Serai (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC) In fact, if the crap is removed, and only the verifiable facts are retained, they would be barely meat enough for a mention on Wikipedia in a suitable article, definitely not a biographic article. Prashant Serai (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Mr. Godbole has done intensive work in the field of Information Technology, has worked as Head of leading companies and has written really good books. However, I agree that the page is really badly written. I will try to improve it as soon as I can. I can give citations, but it will take time. Please do not delete the page completely by then. Prathamesh Patki (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, belongs on LinkedIn--Nixie9 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Of the "leading companies" mentioned, L& T Infotech, Patni could definitely be counted as quite notable to head. However, in spite of them being such popular companies, how come nowhere other than his own writings and some unknown blogs, is there any mention about him having headed them? Most of the information on the page is blatantly copy pasted from "achyutgodbole.com", which does not count as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. I request you to at least establish his notability if the page has to be kept, after that you can build the article as slowly as you may like. Prashant Serai (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prashantserai, please do not vote multiple times. At Wikipedia we don't count votes. But please feel free to comment and say as you wish and as many times you wish. I have hence striked your Delete Votes but kept your comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Tata McGraw-Hill has published about him in the section "About Author" of their book "Operating System 3E". He has authored several books available under names Achut Godbole and Achut S Godbole. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
Dharmadhyaksha, your reference does establish notability, point accepted. And thanks for pointing out my errors on voting.
And Prathamesh and Abhijeet, please remove highly tricky statements such as "contributed to building of companies such as Patni (GM)...Syntel (Managing Director)...L&T Infotech (CEO)..." The positions written in the parentheses give an impression that he occupied those positions. If that is actually true, how come all you get is fan blogs and his own writings on google that mention these. There are various other fanboy-ish and ambiguous statements that give a wrong impression. In fact, to me, this kind of writing gives the impression that the guy is completely self proclaimed. Hope there is no need to flood the page with citation needed tags and other similar actions, and you shall rectify the same. Kindly acknowledge so that I know you have read this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantserai (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, more appropriate for LinkedIn--Nixie9 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 19. Snotbot t • c » 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to reiterate that most of the fat claims about this person are found to be supported only in his own writings, or blogs by his fans and possibly paid bloggers. I agree the introduction of his book, cited by Dharmadhyaksha is written in third person, but it is his book afterall, and the way in which the introduction mentions "He has traveled abroad on more than 150 occasions...to promote software business." makes it sound like a carelessly edited version of a draft supplied by the subject of the article. if he really is an IT Wizard, how come his website is in such a shabby state. If on whatever grounds, the decider deems the article provided by Dharmadhyaksha not sufficient, then the article should be moved to a special page where it may be developed before it can be included. If a decision is taken to not delete the article, I would vouch for a timeline at the end of which, fat claims that continue to be unsupported or inadequately supported, will be deleted from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantserai (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#A10 by Delldot (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How disability should be researched
- How disability should be researched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an essay that covers non-notable, non-neutral topics. TBrandley 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With a plow because WP:NOTJOURNAL. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTJOURNAL GregJackP Boomer! 03:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: essay, unencyclopedic. Hairhorn (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD A10, duplicates Disability studies and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've salvaged the references and pasted them at Talk:Disability studies, since most references were not duplicates and may be useful there. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Teva Lea Race
- Teva Lea Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable event. Does not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG – Richard BB 10:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable local event, apparently a kayak race? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete - Unique long running event of significance, adds value to other related pages Extreme Racing a developing ground for international athletes; longest running extreme race in Australia, of significance to Australian Canoeing, both local and international competitors, feeder event for Whitewater Grand Prix - ChrisFox (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Mediran talk to me! 11:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Australia's longest running extreme race" Fotaun (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
- Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
- Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (4th nomination)
- Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This may quite possibly be the most unencyclopedic entry in wikipedia. No notability established... the so-called review on New York Times site is really just a run-of-the-mill listing, and not a real review at all. Even if it were a review, notability requires multiple important reviews. Previous AFDs was closed with "keep" votes, but actual opinions swayed the other way. AfDs are not simple vote counts. At the absolute best they should have been a "no consensus" based upon the limited voting, or, if you look closely a consensual delete...and who would enter this into a search engine? Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't really seem to met WP:NF to me, and further, of the current references, one is broken, and two are only parts of larger articles that reference the length of the title of the movie, which doesn't seem notable in itself. Even then, the final link is simply a plot synopsis, and not a full review or article. Sodaant (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I thought I'd found some great sources, but everything that I'm finding out there tend to mention this as an aside due to its overly long title. I haven't found anything in-depth so far. I did find that it is mentioned in this textbook but I can't see the page to see how it was mentioned or in what context. There is also this NJ.com page, but it's more about the director and a potential film deal with Kevin Smith (that fell through, I guess) than the film itself. I'll keep searching, but there isn't much out there so far.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, I did look to see if there was an article such as Night of the Living Dead in popular culture, but no such article seems to exist. I'd recommend a redirect there, if such an article existed, but I don't really have the interest or the knowledge about the film series/movie to really want to create it. I know that there is a Living Dead series, so I'm not sure if it would follow along with NotLD or if the pop culture article would surround the series as a whole, which would probably be better. I could try, but it'd be better if someone more familiar with the movie and series created it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried seeing if there is enough out there to justify an article on the director, as I figured that if he passes notability guidelines then this could redirect to him. I did find a few sources, but I'm unsure if that's really enough. I've made a version in my userspace, but if anyone has anything they can add, feel free to poke around at it. (User:Tokyogirl79/James Riffel) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not enough significant coverage to pass the notability guideline for films. What sources are there don't seem significant enough to show the notability of this film. As an aside, if this article ends up being deleted, does anyone think that this title is DAFT-worthy? There's already a similar title there, so I think it might be. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahahahahaha. Yes, delete it and then WP:DAFT it. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Does it pass WP:NF? I don't think it does. It was screened at a film festival, but I'm not sure that fesitval is notable... Roodog2k (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Filmmaker AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Alternate title per article:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- & Short title per NYT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep Respecting the previous 3 keeps, we have suitable coverage and suitable sourcing for an article on a 20-year-old genre film. Even if seen as only just making the cut, this one meets WP:NFthrough just enough coverage and analysis in suitable genre sources,Hürriyet (Turkish) IBN Cineman (German) Atlanta Journal-Constitution (pay-per-view) La Voz de Asturias (Spanish) and others to remain and serve our readers... though with his subsequent films with equally silly and overlong titles it seems Riffle is bent on flogging more than just his horse. As this is this article's 4th nomination, it almost seems a matter of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. And I had to fix the Find sources template assigned by this AFD,[37] as "(4th nomination)" is not part of this film's title. Even if not the recipient of the same sort level of studio hyped coverage as is the Harry Potter or Star Wars films, in meeting WP:NF, we have this film having multiple festival screenings and repeated airings more than 5 years after original release, and we have it written of in books in a non-trivial fashion more than 5 years after original release. The article does provide sources where this film IS discussed, even if briefly, in a more-than-trivial fashion. Wedo not expect a topic that received coverage 20 years ago to remain in the headlines. WP:NF is met, even if just barely. And I will be happy to repeat myself at the 5th nomination in a few months. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would save that speech as a textfile somewhere, it's actually quite effective! I thought about withdrawing for a second, before the trance broke. That was seriously very charming! I do not think I have ever heard such a poetic and well-written explanation for a weak-keep! I'm getting you a barnstar. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks in turn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would save that speech as a textfile somewhere, it's actually quite effective! I thought about withdrawing for a second, before the trance broke. That was seriously very charming! I do not think I have ever heard such a poetic and well-written explanation for a weak-keep! I'm getting you a barnstar. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's sources and reasoning, and because I don't think that removing this verified and sourced information helps the reader, or the encyclopedia. (Compare the recent "keep" result for the man with the world's longest name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe+585, Senior (2nd nomination).) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember nominating THAT. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a LOL entry at first glance, may seem really silly, but it really is notable enough to stay. This serves the project and its readers well, and is well sourced. Notability is established and there's no reason not to KEEP. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: The nav box breaks the page. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability as there is no significant coverage beyond trivial inclusion in lists due to the long name. --Phazakerley (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems that this has significant coverage in addition to mulitple points of notability - just because this is a cult film/small scale doesn't mean it isn't notable. This seems like a good addition to wikipedia. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not incredibly significant coverage, but I think the article picks up enough sourcing to merit inclusion. More content and really reliable sources would be a plus, and I understand the nom's concerns, but I think this one should be kept. dci | TALK 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the sources are dead or only mention the title as long and do not discuss the film. I removed one user submitted reference. The rest do not meet enough reliable sources for WP:MOVIE. Mkdwtalk 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per MichaelQSchmidt. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In each case, the "source" is only giving the movie a nod because of the name. Is having a long ridiculous name all one needs to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article? I certainly hope not. There is absolutely no notability at all here other than "Har-Har, look at the name". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and if we ever recreate it we can use an abbreviated title. Typing this title to search would be a nightmare, and I'm sure literally nobody wants to do it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would also like to point out that almost all the sources are not about the film itself. The vast majority of them merely mention that the film has the longest title in movie history and nothing about the film itself. Mkdwtalk 23:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the sources in the article or here contain significant coverage, it's all about the title length. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khairul Izuan Rosli
- Khairul Izuan Rosli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid, since the claim that he has played in the Malaysian Super League and the Malaysian national team are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable coverage; has not played for the national team or played in a professional league (at least according to the [lack of] reliable sources). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Squoval
- Squoval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Word / neologism with two meanings, neither notable. The term is in use, but the concept of squoval has not been the subject of significant attention in reliable sources, juts passing mentions and basic definitions. Tagged for notability for more than three years. Fram (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Currently rounded rectangle redirects to squircle. Should this do the same, or is there another redirect target? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there isn't, there should be. There are plenty of serious sources that deal in the shapes of nails, that do indeed list this as one of the several possible shapes. Murray 2011, p. 168 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMurray2011 (help), and Nordmann 2007, p. 123 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNordmann2007 (help), for two examples. Following the lead of the world at large in how it documents this subject, we should do the same.
- Murray, Karen (2011). Milady's Standard Nail Technology: Australia New Zealand Edition. Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780170187671.
- Nordmann, Lorraine (2007). Beauty Basics: The Official Guide to Level 1. Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority series (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA. ISBN 9781844806942.
- Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there isn't, there should be. There are plenty of serious sources that deal in the shapes of nails, that do indeed list this as one of the several possible shapes. Murray 2011, p. 168 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMurray2011 (help), and Nordmann 2007, p. 123 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNordmann2007 (help), for two examples. Following the lead of the world at large in how it documents this subject, we should do the same.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is there anything to be said about 'squovals' beyond defining the word and listing things that have that shape? I'm having a hard time imagining what. But then again, I was somewhat surprised to learn that Squircle is apparently a term used in geometry. Cnilep (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What the above and many other sources discuss are the various nail shapes used by manicurists, of which a squoval is but one. As I've pointed out, the answer is thus to rename and expand the article, not delete it. Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a completely different name, and different content (not only expanding with many things, but also removing half of what is there now), then you are effectively deleting and if necessary and possible redirecting, not simply rewriting. If the target article for the potential redirect doesn't exist, then deletion is the obvious solution. Fram (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be different content. It would be more content. You know, the usual meaning of "expand" here at Wikipedia. Deletion is nowhere involved in renaming and expanding things, as you should well know by now. And deletion is certainly not the same as "removing half" of anything, not that removal of half of anything is even the case here. As someone who has the deletion tool you should know well know that by now, too. You're assuming the conclusion and bending the facts to fit it, rather than looking at an article and thinking "How can this be expanded and improved?" per deletion policy. Think like a writer, instead. If you did, and started researching sources and reading about the subject (starting with the things handed to you on a platter above), you'd be thinking of more than a fivefold expansion on nail shapes (including the "ski-jump" and the "hook", as well as the squoval, square, rounded, pointed, and so forth) and possibly a Did You Know. Uncle G (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to patronize people, at least make sure you are correct. Feel free to create any new article you want, and feel free to spin it anyway you like in self-justification, but don't expect me to take any notice of your remarks hereafter. I prefer to listen to well-reasoned arguments instead. Fram (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be different content. It would be more content. You know, the usual meaning of "expand" here at Wikipedia. Deletion is nowhere involved in renaming and expanding things, as you should well know by now. And deletion is certainly not the same as "removing half" of anything, not that removal of half of anything is even the case here. As someone who has the deletion tool you should know well know that by now, too. You're assuming the conclusion and bending the facts to fit it, rather than looking at an article and thinking "How can this be expanded and improved?" per deletion policy. Think like a writer, instead. If you did, and started researching sources and reading about the subject (starting with the things handed to you on a platter above), you'd be thinking of more than a fivefold expansion on nail shapes (including the "ski-jump" and the "hook", as well as the squoval, square, rounded, pointed, and so forth) and possibly a Did You Know. Uncle G (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If this content becomes part of a page on nail shapes, the page history needs to be kept. The other definition on the page, a trademarked description of a bicycle frame shape, might be merged to Cervélo (which currently does use the word). The page should then become a DAB. Cnilep (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a completely different name, and different content (not only expanding with many things, but also removing half of what is there now), then you are effectively deleting and if necessary and possible redirecting, not simply rewriting. If the target article for the potential redirect doesn't exist, then deletion is the obvious solution. Fram (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What the above and many other sources discuss are the various nail shapes used by manicurists, of which a squoval is but one. As I've pointed out, the answer is thus to rename and expand the article, not delete it. Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though needs expansion. Frequent usage in articles and books on the subject of manicure, as seen by following Google links above, one of which refers to it as 'the most popular nail shape in the business' [38]. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Synergium
- Synergium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Fails WP:CORP. References given demonstrate its existence and one appears to be a press release. Nothing of any weight or notability. Reads like an advertisement Velella Velella Talk 09:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. SMC (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of in-depth, reliable coverage. Sources provided are mostly trivial and prove only the existence of the subject. Bulk of the article is just a vague description of the translation process. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 20:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - found coverage from national dailies in Lithuania and Latvia in GNews archive (which isn't very easy to get at these days, unfortunately). National news coverage plus recent recognition in Deloitte Fast 500 qualifies them per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Altered Walter (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Altered Walter. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Altered Walter (t c) did a great job looking for sources, but two of the new sources read like press releases after translation, and the third just indicates they entered themselves in a contest for an award. Winning the award would help convey notability, entering does not. Also, not sure what Altered Walter is referring to by "recent recgnition" in the Fast 500, as they were not listed in the EMEA 2012 Fast 500 at all[39], and they were not in the top 10 any of the prior 5 years either[40]. —Darkwind (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing locations
- List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability, this fails WP:LISTN and looks to be All plot with WP:FANCRUFT, prodded in the past by another editor and prod removed. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails the general notability guideline, plot only coverage of fictional elements. --Claritas § 12:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Claritas. Purely in-universe without enough reliable coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability, there's no way this can meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Adams (physicist)
- Mark Adams (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF. His notability is not supported by any refs and the two refs in the article are unreliable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He is a middling co-author (or alphabetically first author in an alphabetized list) on some well-cited papers with huge numbers of co-authors ("The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC", "CMS physics technical design report, volume II: Physics performance", "Nuclear dependence of dimuon production at 800 GeV", "Proton and deuteron structure functions in muon scattering at 470 GeV", "Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson", "Nuclear dependence of the production of Υ resonances at 800 GeV", "Dimuon production in proton-copper collisions at √s=38.8 GeV", all with over 200 citations, and many more with over 100). If he were the primary author on a few of these papers then I think he would pass WP:PROF#C1, but he seems not to be, so I don't see any way to judge the significance of his work by this sort of measure. And I can't find evidence of passing any of the other criteria, such as being elected a fellow of a major society. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein. No evidence of passing PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While experimental particle physicists often get a raw deal on credit because of large alphabetical author lists, I agree with David Eppstein that there is little evidence for notability in the publication record. I think the The Journal of the Illinois Science Teachers Association publication is a valid first authorship, but perhaps the only one. I could not find any interviews with him or news stories about him. Mark viking (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He publishes under the name M R Adams. GS cites start at 1307, 629, 377, 355, 331, 326..... These are very large numbers but the number of co-authors is very large too. No evidence that he stands out from the crowd. This is a case where citation numbers have to be interpreted in context. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Spas
- Arctic Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the company has won some awards it is way below the level of what Wikipedia should have for companies. WP is not the business pages, it is not a business directory and we are giving the company unfair commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is your !vote based upon source searches? I found several simply by clicking on the Google News link above, some of which I've included in my !vote below. There are also many sources listed in the references section of the article; did you see those? Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw them of course. I am just not getting that "Notable" feeling. The articles read like filler. It's a good case for inclusion, but it just hasn't swayed me (yet). What has this company done to stand out from similar companies? A little newsfiller is nice, but I do not believe that the facts here indicate notability.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Might it be acceptable to merely edit/delete the awards list rather than deleting the entire article?Beequeenth (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This topic passes Wikipedia's notability test and WP:CORPDEPTH per:
- Dunshaughlin-based firm goes into liquidation
- Employers think outside the McBox to attract help
- How to get into hot water; Luxuries abound in today's hot tubs Tips for finding the right one for you (subscription required)
- Liquid MAAX spas
- Additional paywalled coverage: [41], [42], [43]
- —There are also many articles listed in the references section of the article, some of which are from reliable sources, such as those from Edmonton Sun, Edmonton Journal, Appliance Magazine and others.Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Northamerica Mediran talk to me! 08:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, plenty of business news coverage. We need to vote based on facts not feelings. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well referenced. Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interstate 8 (album)
- Interstate 8 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of full-length professional reviews. PROD removed without improvement. Redirect reverted without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Modest Mouse discography#EPs - Google News archives provided reviews here, here and here (brief review). These three were probably the best from all the results, several of them are minor mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Allmusic has a professional, in-depth review here, while Sputnikmusic also has a review (but this is just a user review, so non-reliable). I think with the coverage found by SwisterTwister we probably have just about enough to scrape the bar at WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism hey! 09:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sparklism. Weak notability exists, does not warrant a deletion under GNG. -T.I.M(Contact) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The Allmusic and Eugene Register-Guard reviews are just enough to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 18:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and redirect to discography/artists page per WP:NALBUMS although there is a critics reveiw (one reliable one, one user one), this is not enough information to produce an article that has subsequently more information than just a track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This can be expanded using the reviews that exist, and there will then be more content than can sensisbly be merged to the band or discography article. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 18:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K. Sedghi
- K. Sedghi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by article creator (see talk page); there is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep wouldn't being a fighter ace confer sufficient notability? There may be a bit of bias as there are not likely to be many English language sources. EricSerge (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is not only notability, it is also verifiability. GiantSnowman 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look here: [44]? Is that not a reliable source for verifiability? EricSerge (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sounds interesting, but passing mentions in one book is not sustained editorial discussion. Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have access to Farsi sources? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER #5: "Played an important role in a significant military event"; becoming an ace meets this, I believe, as does a four-kill mission, especially in the Jet Age. If there was an article about Operation Sultan Ten, I'd consider a redirect, but as there is not, an article on him is reasonable and logical. Passes WP:V (concern mentioned above), also WP:CSB/WP:BIAS kicks in. No article on an American fighter ace would be considered for deletion; nor a British one, or a German one. Notability is met through acehood; article is verifiable. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Respectfully, the Normandy Beach invasion and Pearl Harbor are examples of significant military events. Ongoing skirmishes and operations between fighter pilots clearly are not. If an operation were shown to be a turning point in a war, it could warrant an article, but I have not seen supporting references. Other flying aces have substantial references, such that they pass the general WP:GNG. If there are Farsi sources, google can do a rough translate, and I would become supportive.--Nixie9 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - why not redirect to Iranian aerial victories during the Iran-Iraq war or Flying ace instead, seeing as there is minimal verifiable info about this guy and he fails WP:GNG? As a sidepoint, Bushranger's accusations of cultural bias should be retracted. GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not 'accusations', but merely a simple statment of fact; if a case of a "western" ace's article having been deleted can be found, then I'll retract them, but I doubt any such case will be found. That said, though a merge to Flying ace#Iran-Iraq war until more information can be found could work. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Bushranger, an Ace pilot, particularly in the jet age, is almost certainly notable. To the extent that we lack sufficient sources to directly establish notability can be reasonably explained by our lack of easy access to foreign language sources. While the article could be merged, I see no reason why a merge is necessary, there is nothing wrong with leaving it a stub. Monty845 02:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, being a fighter ace, especially in this day and age, is a pretty impressive achievement. The paucity of sources in the English language is to be expected given his nationality, but there's enough to squeak it over the verifiability bar I think. That doesn't mean that the article wouldn't be improved by the addition of additional Persian language sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pretty clear that he does not meant the relevant notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Saunders
- Chris Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2 big fights plus 4(3 exhibition 1 pro) on Spike TV. Passes GNG. also passes point one of WP:ENT PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. Has had two fights for top tier organizations, which were losses. --LlamaAl (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not about being a MMA fan. We should respect policies and guidelines whether we like them or not. --LlamaAl (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MMANOT because he only has two fights for top tier organizations. Being a former UFC fighter doesn't make him notable, notability is not inherited. When/if he passes the MMANOT guidelines, the article can be recreated. CaSJer (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Being on TUF does not grant automatic notability. Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. But that in conjunction with his other Bellator fight and his TUF finale fight I'd say he easily passes wp:gng. and here is a source from USA Today to help establish his notabilityPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently fails WP:NMMA. If at some point in the future he gains prominence and/or passes WP:NMMA, I have no objection to recreation (if that was in doubt). --TreyGeek (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Treygreek: You're logic is flawed. If he were to not gain prominence yet still pass nmma you would nominate him? Why would you nominate something that isn't notable for an article on wikipedia? Seems like the only thing that really matters is his gaining prominence and that notable mma fights serves only to enhance, rather than guarantee notability and inclusion. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Exhibition or unofficial fights obviously don't satisfy the criteria, any more than the sparring partner of a champion boxer can claim he fought for the world title. Jakejr (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MMA should be changed to clarify TUF exhibition matches. It is sanction just another match, with a modified "match system". With that I mean after 2 rounds, if draw; then "sudden victory". The reason the community doesn't count them is because it isn't in their record. I remember Rashad Evans had a different record on UFC and say Sherdog. UFC counted TUF matches. Since those matches were victories, UFC made a point of it. Regarding this fighter, though, I count 2 notable matches on 2 notable events. If the magic number is 3, this fighter should be removed from Wikipedia. Mazter00 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. — ΛΧΣ21 06:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Comment I find this to be an interesting issue. To my knowledge, the season of TUF that this fighter participated in is the only TUF season where the fights were live (all other seasons were tape-delayed and thus the fights were exhibitions). Therefore, for this season alone there may be argument that the TUF fights were professional UFC fights. Here, the fighter fought clearly once for the UFC in the Finale and has one other notable fight. The first round TUF win and quarterfinal loss are debatable as UFC fights and the fight to 'get in the house' is debatable as a UFC fight (assuming all these fights were live and thus not exhibitions). A question is if these were 'professional' fights. While clearly these guys were paid, were they paid to fight and for each fight or were they paid for being on the show? To me it is the latter and therefore TUF participation (outside of the Finale show) should be considered more under Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). Further, while I am sure these guys are under some sort of contract, the UFC promotes this as the winner getting a 6-figure contract to fight in the UFC. Therefore, I question how much the UFC considers these fights professional UFC fights. Moreover, on the UFC website they only list Saunders as having one fight in the UFC and his record is consistent with the fights not being counted - http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Chris-Saunders. In view of all this I think delete is appropriate, but I do think this raises a question that should be addressed for the Live season of TUF. -RonSigPi (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Fact Check In fact the second season did count. Please see Jardine and Luke Cummo's respective records . http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/f/2A5F73D2555AC10E/Luke-Cummo/ http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/f/94393BD0291CC4D0/Keith-Jardine/ . I'm not sure what being paid or the fights being "professional" have to do with being on TV as per WP:ENT or has to do with anything related explicity to WP:GNG. I don't think what the UFC thinks would override what users think on Wikipedia either. Not saying people neccessarily support it, but I was just using the example for arguments sake. The people who write the articles about these fighters don't seem to take those into consideration either here, here, here or here That demonstrates 2 months of coverage. Please also read WP:TUF. Even the nutshell will do. Heck, I'll comp you the nutshell
"This is an essay that supports the inclusion of The Ultimate Fighter reality show exhibition bouts towards WP:NMMA top tier fight requirements for primarily the following reasons All TUF fights are televised on a major television network, and the fights are overseen by The Nevada State Athletic Commission. Even though exhibition bouts do not count toward a fighters professional record the bouts are still hard-fought and unscripted[1]. While the fights in question might not exist as part of a fighters official record, they do exist in notable publications as this essay will demonstrate. This essay would also like to point out TUF fighters meet additional notability requirements as per line 1 of WP:ENT" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the original discussion at the WP:MMANOT archives you'll see that consensus was that only the TUF finale counted towards notability. Jakejr (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if your comment was directed to my comment or not, but in case it was I wanted to point out that from what I saw the decision on TUF was before the season of TUF:Live (discussion was back in 2010). Therefore, I don't know if the original discussion addressed if things would be different if the season were live (as opposed to tape-delayed exhibitions). -RonSigPi (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the discussion on whether or not it's live is irrelevant. I used the watch the Grey Cup (CFL championship) on tape delay, but there's no doubt the game decided the CFL champion and was played live at one point. The original discussion still applies because TUF is still a tryout, just as it was back then. Jakejr (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if your comment was directed to my comment or not, but in case it was I wanted to point out that from what I saw the decision on TUF was before the season of TUF:Live (discussion was back in 2010). Therefore, I don't know if the original discussion addressed if things would be different if the season were live (as opposed to tape-delayed exhibitions). -RonSigPi (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the original discussion at the WP:MMANOT archives you'll see that consensus was that only the TUF finale counted towards notability. Jakejr (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 UDDI#White_Pages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White Pages (UDDI)
- White Pages (UDDI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has the same content as that of the UDDI Page section titled 'Structure' - This is an attempt to eliminate redundancy and do a redirect to the section instead of this page. Compfreak7 (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#White Pages, nearly identical, and not long enough to require splitting out yet. Altered Walter (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect per Altered Walter. No need whatsoever for a separate article. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I agree that the article needs some good clean up to make it sound not quite so promotional in tone. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Packshaw
- Justin Packshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Masses of claims for notability but no notability actually established. Not helped by a lack of in-line references. However the references quoted are much more a testimony to the business acumen of his wife in promoting their company and the willingness of the subject of the article to give promotional statements and interviews to whoever asks. That is certainly the impression given. One ref is a passing mention in somebody else's newspaper column (my good friend" Justin...", Another is an entry in a University alumni list, one is a dead link. A great exercise in self aggrandisement and promotion. I don't think Wikipedia deserves this Velella Velella Talk 14:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 December 2012 - This is an individual who has represented his country at Sailing, was involved in the first Gulf War as an Officer and now owns and runs his own business. Subsequently, he has led or been involved in expeditions to the Geographic and Magnetic North Pole, Climbed Mount Everest, sailed around the world and recently took three wounded British Soldiers to the Geographic South Pole celebrating the anniversary of Captain Scott's trip in 1912. Expeditions that he has been involved with have raised over £2.5 million pounds for charity. What a shame that you do not think that this warrants a place on Wikipedia - I know no one else to have done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.93.152 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Obvious vanity piece has just enough sustained editorial gunfire to cover this ex-soldier on his trip to Antartica. Passes WP:GNG. Could use some cleaning out of fluff for sure.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probable Keep - A couple of the references mention events in which he participated but do not mention him in any way, yet others provide significant coverage. The Sunday Times article has some significant biographical coverage, and he is covered in BBC and Vogue. The article needs cleaned up... the references need to be utilized inline to support the content (and the article may be significantly changed by having to adhere to these conventions). But, I think this is an editing issue rather than a notability one. As per the Nom and others, there appears to be a motivated editor who should be able to adhere to policies with some guidance.
174.24.205.18 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Celtechm (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yosuke Hayashi
- Yosuke Hayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not find significant coverage of this person in any reliable sources. He has done various interviews as the PR head for the team, but this does not make him in particular notable because any PR guy they had would have received the same interviews. No sources seem to actually talk about him directly. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There must be coverage independent of promotional activity; WP:NRVE. --phazakerley (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are hundreds of videos and interviews of this person.
- http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Yosuke+Hayashi&page=1
and so on, and so forth....... Do you see these videos with interviews? This article don't must delete. Keep per Robyc73 (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, no editorial discussion. youtube videos of this sort are not references.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - YouTube videos are rarely, if ever, reliable sources. Not enough independent coverage outside of the videos. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage or sourcing to verify notability and justify a biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With respect to the two "Keep" votes, the arguments made by the "Delete" votes are a lot stronger and the only ones with a basis in Wikipedia's policies. Happy to userify the article if anyone wants to make use of it elsewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Figure It Out episodes
- List of Figure It Out episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of episodes for a game show. The three sources present do not provide backup for the bulk of detail within the article. This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the contestant talents and panelists appearing on episodes of a television game show do not meet WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, though I don't think GNG is relevant or helpful here. More a case of WP:IINFO, because information on individual game show episodes is really subtrivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are, a distinction the nom is correct in making. Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a similar nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes, also a Nick gameshow that had the same problems as this article. Out of 250 episodes, not one cite can be found for this at all (three in article, but one is a cite for a YouTube video, and two are expirable PR announcements from the same site), Main panelists already appear in main show article, game show results are not extraordinary information in the least (either the panel figures it out or they get stumped), and the article creator has a history of adding content solely focused on overcrufting articles involving Nickelodeon. Perfect for Nickipedia or whatever they call the Nickelodeon Wikia, completely inane and unneeded here. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Just because it's a game show doesn't mean it's not important. It gives people the opportunity to see an episode's talents in case people missed the airing. Additionally, it even has information on the old Figure It Out, and I wouldn't have found out about it if it weren't for this article. - Amaury (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I definitely agree with Amaury here on this. Besides, it isn't always the best solution to just delete an article because it revolves around a specific topic.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Chris[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whetever else can be said about it, this just seems unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.