Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Axel Collett
- Axel Collett (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)
Unexplained contested PROD. PROD reasoning was: " Fails WP:GNG. Lack of coverage. Only potential notability is derived from the company, and can't be inherited." Ducknish (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Included in Merkantilt biografisk leksikon (encyclopedia). Msbmt (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that encyclopedia was a highly specific document relevant only to that time period. Is it, as a sole source, indicative of lasting notability? And within the encyclopedia, is it only referring to his importance with relation to his company? Ducknish (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki is not paper. Msbmt (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from that policy, "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.", meaning that the fact that it is electronic doesn't itself justify the inclusion of non-notable persons. Ducknish (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was one of the around 5 largest timber merchants and one of the largest private land owners in Norway in his lifetime. Msbmt (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His company "was and is one of the largest private land owners of Norway". His company "built Salsbruket Tresliperi, a sawmill, of which he served as director for some years". These are direct quotes, from the article, showing that all notable actions are those of his company, not of him personally. And it is not the notability of the company that is in dispute here, but his. Ducknish (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was one of the around 5 largest timber merchants and one of the largest private land owners in Norway in his lifetime. Msbmt (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from that policy, "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.", meaning that the fact that it is electronic doesn't itself justify the inclusion of non-notable persons. Ducknish (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki is not paper. Msbmt (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that encyclopedia was a highly specific document relevant only to that time period. Is it, as a sole source, indicative of lasting notability? And within the encyclopedia, is it only referring to his importance with relation to his company? Ducknish (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was a major person in Norway in his time period. He clearly was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no evidence proffered that the subject passes the GNG. As the Keep proponents above no doubt know (or SHOULD know), notability is not inherited, and you cannot just assert that someone was a "major person in Norway," you have to prove it. Where is that proof? We're not talking someone active four hundred years ago; this is a fellow who should have citations in modern media. Where are they? Ravenswing 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, and since all modern references are about the company, not him, it means that he's missing that coverage to show notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our notability guidelines have no bias towards modern sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they don't, but that's not the point. The point is that since there are so very many more modern sources available than for subjects of centuries ago, it's all the more damning when sources which satisfy the GNG don't turn up for such a subject. Ravenswing 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our notability guidelines have no bias towards modern sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this person deserves the benefit of the doubt since the debate shows it's obviously close one way or the other. Can't we keep the page in, then review it in a while?Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, possibly to be merged later. If this isn't kept as an article, it may at least be merged either to Collett family or the article on the company. --Hegvald (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted G1 by Jimfbleak (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buffalo Boy Man
- Buffalo Boy Man (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)
Autobiographical / hoax. Article author suggests it's some mythological creature but the Wiki article seems to be the only online reference. teratogen (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yes, this certainly seems to be someone's April Fools' joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
S Kumaahran
- S Kumaahran (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)
Very little context in the article, but appears to be a youth team player who once had a trial at Cruzeiro. A clear WP:NFOOTY failiure as there is no record that he has played a game in a fully professional league. The sources provided suggest over a year ago he had a trial with Cruzeiro, but there is no indication that he ever signed a contract. No real information on this player and a missing first name doesn't help. Almost certainly a WP:GNG failure too. Fenix down (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Fenix down (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ASAP - non-notable minor.Moxy (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has not received significant coverage and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRed Card - Not only does he fail WP:NFOOTBALL (due to not playing professionally or for his country), he also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Clear delete for player at least currently not meeting notability guidelines. Cheers, LindsayHello 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without prejudice. He's only 17, and if his career progresses and more sources show notability in the future, the article can be resurrected. TheBlueCanoe 23:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Mott (rhythm guitarist)
- John Mott (rhythm guitarist) (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 musician in a non-notable band Revolution1221 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Who, playing for what? Does this guy even exist? Ravenswing 03:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism hey! 07:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Dunn
- Tim Dunn (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-name person in the news for a little while several years ago when he made a failed attempt to get his party's nomination to run for US Congress. He wasn't even a candidate in the general election! Bigtime WP:POLITICIAN fail. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN resoundingly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wow, the previous discussion was sure an example of a headcount vs. a discussion of policy, eh? The closing admin seemed to credit such sterling reasons to keep as "It does no harm, "Being a lt. colonel is no small thing" and "major party nominee" (which, in fact, he never was). Sorry, no. Ravenswing 03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006#North Carolina, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; that being said the subject falls under WP:BLP1E as all of that significant coverage is regarding his candidacy in 2006 for a congressional seat, therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES the article should be directed to the article/section which I listed above. Additionally, although the subject has so far served honorably, the subject's military service isn't notable as defined by WP:SOLDIER. LtCol does not meet criteria #3 of SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006#North Carolina. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He lost the primary, he fails notability, at least for any political roles. The article also up until recently gave the misleading impression he was the Democrat nominee, which he was not. Even being a candidate for the US house is not deemed notable, although if people recive significant coverage as such in multiple reliable sources it can be the msot notable thing they have done. This guy is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006#North Carolina. WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that losing candidates for a national office, if they are not already notable, are merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls. WP:BLAR is generally a good rule of thumb for candidates who run for national office, since the page history is preserved in case notability is achieved. Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I really don't think the page should qualify.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Toll Bridge Authority
- Washington Toll Bridge Authority (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 sources, no references, no nothing, on the other hand it doesn't seem to hit any CSD Criteria and the notability is questionable in my head so it's not PROD worthy to me. Since CSD and PROD fail an AfD is the way to see it through. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious AfD in case anyone is still stuck in April Fools land. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important state agency that existed from 1937 to 1977, built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (twice!) and other bridges, and ran the Washington State Ferries. Given its years of existence, there is likely to be more material off-line, but GNews and GBooks do show some potentially useful sources. The existing text of the article appears to be a close copy of [1] and needs to be rewritten. Additional concise histories of the Authority can be found here: [2][3] [4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Arxiloxos explained so well, we have here a state agency that existed for 40 years, and completed major civil engineering projects. Reliable sources have been identified, and there is a strong presumption that many more exist offline. This is encyclopedic material, though the article does need work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per other voters. Yes, the article needs improving but that is not enough to delete it, or where would be be?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This ws a major state agency; these are almost always notable, and are usually covered extensively in sources. These would be offline sources, but online-ness is not required, and while the article does need work badly, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bluebird Tucana
- Bluebird Tucana (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 that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing AfD - The article IS notable & should never have been nominated, Apologies, Davey2010 Talk 22:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2013 (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) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no significant independent coverage of this bus and the article's only source is to the manufacturer's home page.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- We have articles on models of car, so why not of buses? This assumes that it is a model, not merely an adaption of some other vehicle: Ford Transit minibuses are an adaptation of vans, but there are so many that I expect an article is justified. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if Transport for London use it, then it's clearly notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to re-nomination; no valid reason for deletion supplied. If this business ever was an encyclopedia subject, it is until the end of time, and at least thirty minutes thereafter. As to whether this business is an encyclopedia subject, I have no current opinion. I did find at least one extended third party discussion of a limited aspect of the business.[6] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MPS Group
- MPS Group (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)
Company no longer exists as of 2010 Johnsantangelomps (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact the company no longer exists is not a valid deletion rationale. If the company satisfied WP:CORP, that notability would not expire. I see several hits in Google News archives, but I am undecided if there is sufficient depth of RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If Wikipedia has fewer than half a million articles for entities that no longer exist, I'd be astonished. Would the SPA nom like to try again? Ravenswing 03:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No need to drag this travesty out any longer. Shii (tock) 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pax Britannica
- Pax Britannica (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)
They used ground troops in their opium wars, and they lost thousands of soldiers fighting in the Crimean War among others listed. I see no evidence this is a real thing. Do any college level history books include this? Dream Focus 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See for example this discussion on the origin and usage of the term. Also a longer discussion in Rebecca Berens Matzke's "Deterrence Through Strength: British Naval Power and Foreign Policy Under Pax Britannica" (2011, ISBN 0803235143) and at least one book on the topic: Muriel Chamberlain's "Pax Britannica?: British Foreign Policy, 1789-1914" (1989, ISBN 0582494427). Given that this article has existed on Wikipedia for over 10 years with a wide variety of editors in that time and a number of discussions on its Talk page, might any concerns not have been better raised there first rather than bringing this straight to AfD on what looks like a query? AllyD (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of these books or their authors notable? The talk page has people bringing up at different times how ridiculous the article is. So no need to have the same discussion had multiple times there. AFD is the right place to bring this. Dream Focus 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these are notable books. Matzke's is based on her dissertation (meaning it was peer reviewed/scholarly written) and Muriel Chamberlain is a well respected historian of the time period, who is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and was formerly a Professor Emeritus of History, an the head of the History Department at the University of Wales, Swansea. Ravendrop 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of these books or their authors notable? The talk page has people bringing up at different times how ridiculous the article is. So no need to have the same discussion had multiple times there. AFD is the right place to bring this. Dream Focus 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) A search on Questia (subscription reqd) also shows that the Washington Times seems very partial to using the term: "China Reality Check" (2 May 2001: [7]), "Shouldering Empire's Burden" (25 April 2004: [8]), "Managing Decline; Pax Americana Is Winding Down" (1 November 2010: [9]), "Thanks to King George; America and Mother England, the Relationship That Matters" (4 July 2012: [10]). AllyD (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Washington Times writer says "Peace can be sustained, historically, either by a power willing and able to militarily dominate its world (Pax Romana,) or by a power that uses its relative advantage to subtly manage its world (Pax Britannica)." This is the only mention of it in the article, and that article is a ranting opinion piece. Dream Focus 20:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As H.W. Crocker III writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire, "When Britain could no longer maintain the Pax Britannica, it became the Pax Americana." One of the articles you link just quotes a book. None of these give any definition as to what it is or anything about it. Dream Focus 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) A search on Questia (subscription reqd) also shows that the Washington Times seems very partial to using the term: "China Reality Check" (2 May 2001: [7]), "Shouldering Empire's Burden" (25 April 2004: [8]), "Managing Decline; Pax Americana Is Winding Down" (1 November 2010: [9]), "Thanks to King George; America and Mother England, the Relationship That Matters" (4 July 2012: [10]). AllyD (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Very common term, widely used in Academia. I agree that the current article needs a lot of work, but the term it self is definitely notable. In addition to the books mentioned by AllyD, both of which are notable, see my note above, other notable scholarly works addressing the subject include two called "Pax Britannica" one by Fritz Voigt (1949) and another by B G de Montgomery (1928) - showing its not a new term, but one used widely in the past, "Economic elements in the Pax Britannica: studies in British foreign trade in the nineteenth century" by economist Albert Imlah and "Hegemonic peace and empire: the Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana" by Ali Parchami. The term also appears regularly in encyclopedias, such as the "International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences", the "Britannia Concise Encyclopedia", "Encyclopedia of Geography", "Encyclopedia of Power", etc. Whether it is an accurate term, or whether its use in certain circumstances is appropriate, are not reasons for deletion. Ravendrop 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close. Not only is the term included in books, journals and other reliable sources, it is the title of a well known (at least within the field) book and the series to which it belongs[11], as well a whole load of other products. To suggest it is not notable just sounds ignorant. Try doing some research before wasting people's time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Previous commentators have already established that the phrase is amply documented in WP:RS, so WP:GNG is easily met. The nom's opinion about the inappropriateness of the phrase in light of Britain's 19th century wars does not constitute a valid deletion argument per WP policy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unquestionably notable and not just a popular journalist's phrase. AllyD has pointed out that it goes back at least to Joseph Chamberlain. A list of books using it has been offered, including James (Jan) Morris's history of the British Empire (1968), where it is used as the title of the trilogy and its second volume as Wiki-Ed points out. Dream Focus wonders how the term can make sense when Britain was constantly fighting in different parts of the world; the derivation comes from Edward Gibbon's Pax Romana, very familiar to the classically educated elite of 19th century Britain. It was based on the theory that peace comes from eternal vigilance and a demonstrated willingness to intervene firmly and aggressively in response to any disruption to the established order. Think of it like 'zero tolerance' in policing. It also has parallels in UN peacekeeping policies, or those of the US State Department since WW2. That academics and journalists use a term without always bothering to explain it is often evidence of notability because it demonstrates that the writer assumes that readers will be familar with and understand the reference. If they are not, that is what WP is there for! --AJHingston (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the keepers. You'd have to be horribly ignorant to nominate this seriously, and Dream Focus definitely isn't. This is simply a late-in-the-day April Fools' joke. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually I was quite serious. I think whoever wrote the article was doing a joke though. It says that Pax Britannica is Latin for "the British Peace" and was the period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914). Where it says "the period of relative peace" it links to List of wars 1800–1899 which is quite a full list. It then states what major conflicts Britain was involved in during this time of British peace. Dream Focus 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 20-Mule-Team KEEP: Holy crap, it's not that we can find a zillion cites: it's that there are quite literally dozens of books with the damn phrase in the title [12]. This is one of the all-time "What the hell was the nom thinking?" AfDs, and I'm flabbergasted to the point of bewilderment at seeing this from Dream Focus, someone whose user page is well known for saying caustic things about knee-jerk deletionists. Ravenswing 03:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Toddst1. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriele Corno (author)
- Gabriele Corno (author) (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)
Has been speedy deleted and prodded under other titles. Creator (who seems to be subject) keeps re-creating it under different names; see User talk:Gacorno. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Author definitely isn't notable enough. All means of checking notability were exasperated; the only things found were profiles on websites such as LinkedIn. On a final note, seeing as articles indentically concerning this article were speedy deleted, shouldn't this article be treated as such, in the same manner of time? (Also, shouldn't the creator of all of this be punished, it's essentially edit warring, correct?) ChaseAm (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. ModelUN (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G11 or A7. Take your pick; this article has already been speedily deleted. Bobby Tables (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Project BLAST
- Project BLAST (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 can't find evidence that this graduate student project is notable. Google search does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is a relatively new project that began September 2012. We have only recently produced our first prototype and started testing. This is the first project of its type at the University of Southampton and as such we are trying to increase the profile and project achievements. This wikipedia page was hoped to be part of that effort. ... TDrinkwater 20:00, 1 April 2013 (GMT)
FYI - We had hoped to build a page something similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArduSat - The ArduSat page. Just a brief description of the project. ... TDrinkwater 20:03, 1 April 2013 (GMT)
- The ArduSat article includes links to independent sources that discuss the project. That's what's required for a Wikipedia article — WP:Notability. ... discospinster talk 19:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Balloon News article not sufficient? This was published by a source independent to the group. ... TDrinkwater 20:09, 1 April 2013 (GMT)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seeing as this is an autobiography of the group, and it's not notable enough. I noticed that TDrinkwater pointed out that Balloon News covered them. However, that's a Wordpress site. I'm not sure that would be considered a reliable source, and it could be your group for all we know. ChaseAm (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to point out that the independent Balloon News website has details of the owner/author. Potentially it could be my group undercover, but why would we bother? This isn't a master fraud, it's making a wikipedia page for a University Project. I would have hoped for more support from the community, i'd urge less scepticism and to put this debate into context. TDrinkwater 20:35, 1 April 2013 (GMT)
- I do understand your discouragement, however, it's not so much that we don't support you, it's that we have policies that we abide by. As of right now, your project just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps take it to an online forum community meant specifically for people with projects, or a community interested in balloons? I'd love to assist you with that, if you're interested. As far as that source you're referring to goes, take a look at WP:SPS. Please don't be discouraged ChaseAm (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NFT. Unfortunately for the project participants, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to commemorate that which the world has found notable, not to serve as an advertising platform. Our notion of "reliable sources" aren't Wordpress sites, but independent media outlets such as the Daily Echo and BBC South. Ravenswing 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Couldn't have said it better ChaseAm (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.
- Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C. (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)
The subject has very little claim to notability other than the fact that it's an embassy. This AFD stems directly from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Ottawa. The article fails WP:N/WP:ORG. Feedback ☎ 18:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not an org but a location, and building, see the gps. i see you are systematically deleting the embassy articles, why? are not geo-locations presumed notable? when you merge with "foreign relations" are you then incorporating the information or merely deleting? slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- police stations and parks are locations too, should we create WP articles for all? LibStar (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embassies are not inherently notable and not every location simply do to its existence is notable either. (I think thats what Slowking4 is suggesting, but I am not sure. Either way it would be far more likely to qualify under ORG than as a location). An embassy is not a town or a geographical feature, which are inherently notable. Additionally, an embassy is a "concept" not necessarily a physical location. They are not tied to a specific location, and regularly new ones open. (For example see Embassy of Canada, Washington, D.C. which covers all the various locations the embassy has been located). Considering the age of this building and that it has hosted several different diplomatic missions, there may be offline sources that I'm not finding, but I'm not going to go as far as assume they exist. Ravendrop 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Weak Keep Changing vote per doncram's thoughtful explanation on the likelihood of sources below. To be clear my vote change is purely because of the fact that s/he has given a convincing argument that offline sources likely exist and the building is likely notable (the point that a building's owner may veto historical listing status makes a heck of a lot of sense to me). I still stand by my previous belief that embassies by themselves are not inherently notable and must be proven based either on the notability of the building they occupy or other GNG coverage. I am qualifying my keep !vote with weak, merely because the title of the possible offline sources do not 100% guarantee coverage of this particular building, but do make it more likely than not that they do. Ravendrop 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i'm just asking the question; what is the criteria? since this deletion merge campaign is on. why the use of notability org, since this clearly does not apply? you have a couple of hundred of these, why not mass delete, or start a conversation at RfC? embassies tend to be in historic buildings, a nexus for political protest. people are adding consulate information to embassy articles, if not there, where should it go? slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- you could merge all the embassy articles into the list article, but then it would be too big. what is the criteria for split embassy articles, so that they will stand future challenges such as this? slowkingFarmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't criteria other than GNG. I was merely suggesting that ORG (as an embassy is a political body in way, which are sort of covered by ORG) was a better judgment than what I thought you were arguing that every building/location was notable due just to its existence. I'd argue just to stick to GNG though, and as others have convinced me below, I think this particular one meets that. Ravendrop 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- well, there is a broad consensus for keeping geo-locations. if an embassy chooses a property to represent their country, it implies a presumption that sources will exist, even if in the library special collections. some of the buildings are serial embassies for different countries i.e. Embassy of Uzbekistan, Washington, D.C. it would be encyclopedic to maintain a list of those locations, separate from the diplomatic services or foreign policy of those countries. maybe we need a written guideline for building notability other than GNG. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't criteria other than GNG. I was merely suggesting that ORG (as an embassy is a political body in way, which are sort of covered by ORG) was a better judgment than what I thought you were arguing that every building/location was notable due just to its existence. I'd argue just to stick to GNG though, and as others have convinced me below, I think this particular one meets that. Ravendrop 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While embassies aren't inherently notable, they probably get a lot more coverage than average buildings; I don't have any sources, so I won't say "keep" on this, but I'd strongly suspect that this building has sufficient coverage to make it notable. If we could find coverage for the building, we might as well cover the Ecuadorians as part of the building article. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but as you mention, the burden's on finding the sources first. I'm more than happy to change my vote if sources are found. Ravendrop 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source identifying noted architect George Oakley Totten, Jr. as the building's designer. He also designed NRHP-listed Hungarian embassy building next door. This building seems not to be NRHP-listed, but seems likely to be NRHP-eligible, being built in same era and by same tag team Mary Foote Henderson and Totten, who created multiple embassy and other buildings, as described in next door's NRHP nomination document. There are more sources mentioned in NRHP nomination document of nearby Sixteenth Street Historic District. I would like to see offline sources cited in the 2 NRHP docs, including:
- "Vertical Files on 16th Street and the Hendersons, located at the Columbia Historical Society and the Washingtoniana Room, Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, Washington, D.C."
- "The Columbia Historical Society. Files. (1307 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, B.C.)."
- "Henderson, Mary Foote. Remarks About the Management of Washlngton in General and 16th Street in Particular. Priuately published, Washington, D.C, 1927."
- "Caemmerer, H.P. Washington, The National Capital, Washington: 1932 (Government Printing Office)*"
- "Glassie, Robert. "Victorian Homes in Washington." The Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Vol. 63-65, p. 320."
- "Jacobsen, H.N. 9 ed. A Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. New York; Praeger, 1965."
I think it's quite reasonable to expect that there exists adequate offline coverage for quite a good article on this Ecuador embassy building. Development is furthered by Keeping the article; revisit in five years maybe. --doncram 11:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions for you as architecture isn't an area I'm hugely knowledgable on.
- 1. The sources you list seem to be all related to the next door building or very general, obviously with out being able to see them, do have any idea if they would have in-depth (like the info included on the pdf you linked to), or would it be just general passing mentions, with in depth coverage focused on the NRHP building because it was listed/considered a better example, etc.?
- 2. How common is it to list two buildings, that to me at least, seem to be very similar and that are side by side on the NRHP? Do they tend to only select "the best of the best" and not include other example? Ravendrop 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: To be clear I don't know what those off-line sources have to say, but i am making a semi-educated guess that they will have about as much coverage of this 2437 Fifteenth St. building as they do for the 2435 Fifteenth St. one that is already NRHP-listed. It's possible 2435 became listed already because it is a better example, but on the other hand NRHP listing is somewhat random, having to do with what the current owner prefers (current owner has to support listing, can veto a listing initiated by any outsider). It's possible that there were incompatible renovations of the 2437 property that make it less historically correct, less eligible for NRHP listing. Or it is possible that there is less documentation available; having intact documentation is key for getting listed. But the fact that 2435 got listed, and also Meridian Hall at 2501, also a Henderson-Totten work, mostly suggests that 2437 could be listed too. Abut your second question, it is very common for side-by-side buildings to become NRHP listed, individually or in a big listing together. If listed together, they would all be "contributing buildings" in a historic district, as was done for many nearby 16th Street properties. It is more work to list each one individually, obviously. There seems to be a number of buildings created by Mary Foote Henderson and Totten which all could possibly be listed in a future historic district collection (they don't have to be side-by-side, it can be a discontinous district) if someone wanted to run with that theme and to deal with all the owners. Again, i don't know the exact merits of this building so whether it could be NRHP-listed in the future or not, but my guess is yes. And, my stronger guess is that there exists documentation adequate for a pretty good Wikipedia article for it. Hope this helps. --doncram 22:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions for you as architecture isn't an area I'm hugely knowledgable on.
- Keep - Embassy buildings like this one tend to be local landmarks. As Doncram indicates, additional sourcing is likely to develop for the building. And as Nyttend says, we might as well cover the Ecuadorians, too. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this building is similar to Embassy Building No. 10 by same architect. would have to go to print source about architect to find references. the embassies have less incentive to list on NRHP. sovereignty issues? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. embassies should be notable. TheBlueCanoe 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Jansen
- Jordan Jansen (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)
Patently fails WP:BAND: hasn't had any big hits. Seems to be a promotion page by an image management company.(remove speculation) Slashme (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that I personally find your strikethrough comment very offensive. Even after having created so many pages on Wikiquote (see, for example: Florbela Espanca; Cryonics; James Rachels; William Nicholson; Shelly Kagan; Piano; Psy; Henri de Saint-Simon; Iron Maiden; T'ao Ch'ien; I Ching; Pope Francis; Seth MacFarlane; Catiline, etc.), this is indeed the very first time that someone has accused me of creating a "promotion page". I really hope you were joking. It is true that the Jordan Jansen was the first article that I started here on Wikipedia, but your "speculation" is hardly a good welcome.
- I should like to know how exactly a video with over 4,6 millions views on Youtube does not qualify as a "big hit". Besides, the article presents sources. I hope that other people will add their comments and insights, as I obviously do not think this article should be deleted, and I would certainly call Jordan Jansen "notable". Regards, DanielTom (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, please, do assume good faith on the part of the nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Daniel, thank you for the welcome message on my talk page. I didn't see your above comment when I submitted my vote so there must have been a cross edit. Regardless, my vote is based strictly on my interpretation and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As deletion discussions do not usually last more than a week from what I have seen, I would suggest taking the time to improve the article. One thing would be to remove some of the wording that would seem promotional to others reading it. As this is an encyclopedia, many people will tend to vote to delete an article based on promotional content. I would also suggest tracking down additional sources and adding them to the article. Sources should meet the Wikipedia guidelines which you can find at this link WP:RS. Voting "keep" along with your reasoning why goes further than assuming bad faith on the nominator. Just my two cents (which is probably only worth about half a penny). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did assume good faith, but I also assumed that I have the right to defend my reputation. I hope you agree. And trust me, my comment would have been different if I hadn't assumed good faith. Was it really necessary for the nomination to suggest that the article was "a promotion page by an image management company"? I don't think so myself and apparently the nominator agrees with me (given the strikethrough). Anyway, I don't have any problem apologizing (actually I do apologize) if my quick response sounded like I wasn't "assuming good faith"; I had, however, to clarify that I don't have an agenda, and that the strikethrough comment did bother me; indeed, right after I created that article, just a few seconds later, I was notified right away that someone had already proposed that it should be deleted, with very poor reasoning in my opinion (as I said, I think Jordan Jansen is clearly notable). In any case, I still have since then been adding a few more sources and info to the article (hopefully I have not been wasting my time). I apologize once again for my tone, but as you can imagine, after creating an article, receiving a notification like that can be distressing. Now I suggest we focus on the vote, and await for the results. Very truly yours, DanielTom (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you, DanielTom. I can say that there are many agendas with editors on Wikipedia and it is natural to say the first thing that comes to your mind when it appears that you see such. With that in mind, the purpose of "assuming good faith" is to simply assume, even though something may seem like an obvious agenda to you, that the editor who made the recommendation did so after careful consideration. There does not appear to be an agenda with Slashme as the nomination (although I disagree with it) is based on Wikipedia policy (notability - one of the most common themes for recommending deletion and rightfully so). I will not get into your right to defend yourself as Wikipedia is not a forum for that (nor is it a forum for agendas). I do not think anyone is accusing you of being anything; however, the point here is that you need to concentrate on finding additional sources and cleaning up the article. Slashme and myself are only two votes but there are many other editors who are going to come along in the next couple of days and weigh in with their opinions as well. The best way to get additional votes is to spend some time cleaning up the article and adding additional reliable sources. This will give editors a clearer view of the articles notability (or lack thereof). While everyone here has the right to cast their vote, it is important to give reasons for your vote. That is what you need to focus on here. Good luck. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much for your advice. Just a brief note to say that even ignoring the (in my opinion) clear notability of the subject, I still strongly believe that the article, as it stands, already has more than enough sources to guarantee that it can and should be kept. I am not saying that it doesn't need any more work: of course it does. I expect future editors will be able to build on it and improve it, unless we delete it now, that is. (And that's another obvious reason to oppose the deletion!) Best regards, DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- Comment - Thank you, DanielTom. I can say that there are many agendas with editors on Wikipedia and it is natural to say the first thing that comes to your mind when it appears that you see such. With that in mind, the purpose of "assuming good faith" is to simply assume, even though something may seem like an obvious agenda to you, that the editor who made the recommendation did so after careful consideration. There does not appear to be an agenda with Slashme as the nomination (although I disagree with it) is based on Wikipedia policy (notability - one of the most common themes for recommending deletion and rightfully so). I will not get into your right to defend yourself as Wikipedia is not a forum for that (nor is it a forum for agendas). I do not think anyone is accusing you of being anything; however, the point here is that you need to concentrate on finding additional sources and cleaning up the article. Slashme and myself are only two votes but there are many other editors who are going to come along in the next couple of days and weigh in with their opinions as well. The best way to get additional votes is to spend some time cleaning up the article and adding additional reliable sources. This will give editors a clearer view of the articles notability (or lack thereof). While everyone here has the right to cast their vote, it is important to give reasons for your vote. That is what you need to focus on here. Good luck. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did assume good faith, but I also assumed that I have the right to defend my reputation. I hope you agree. And trust me, my comment would have been different if I hadn't assumed good faith. Was it really necessary for the nomination to suggest that the article was "a promotion page by an image management company"? I don't think so myself and apparently the nominator agrees with me (given the strikethrough). Anyway, I don't have any problem apologizing (actually I do apologize) if my quick response sounded like I wasn't "assuming good faith"; I had, however, to clarify that I don't have an agenda, and that the strikethrough comment did bother me; indeed, right after I created that article, just a few seconds later, I was notified right away that someone had already proposed that it should be deleted, with very poor reasoning in my opinion (as I said, I think Jordan Jansen is clearly notable). In any case, I still have since then been adding a few more sources and info to the article (hopefully I have not been wasting my time). I apologize once again for my tone, but as you can imagine, after creating an article, receiving a notification like that can be distressing. Now I suggest we focus on the vote, and await for the results. Very truly yours, DanielTom (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, please, do assume good faith on the part of the nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that I read the article, had never heard of the artist, did a quick search and found very little that seemed to indicate serious notability beyond what I would expect from a typical music reality show contestant. I saw that the page had been deleted once before, so I assumed that this was just another starlet being puffed by a social media manager. After posting my comment, I checked your edit history, and realized that I was wrong, so I struck my comment out. The reason that the AFD came so quickly after the creation of the article was that I was doing new page patrolling. I didn't delete the comment, because I'd already posted it in my AFD nomination, and didn't want to look as if I was hiding anything. I'm sorry that you were offended by my incorrect assumption, and I'll be more careful in future. --Slashme (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your attention and explanation. I do appreciate it, and am sorry if I was too harsh. (Though I would suggest you watch this ... yep, now I'm just teasing you.) Anyway, no hard feelings from me. Yours truly, DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And none from me, of course! ;-] --Slashme (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - If you look at WP:BAND, having "any big hits" is not the only criteria. He would pass #1 simply on the fact that he is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." References including Courier Mail, Hollywood Life (snippet, but still all about him), and Dolly Magazine (appears on his website so I have not verified it) all appear to be the "multiple" needed. Finally, I am not sure what would qualify as "big hits" as he has released numerous songs, many of which are listed in sources such as Reverb Nation and other music sites. I would suggest toning down the promotion a little, but the article would qualify. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't like this kind of music and am extremely adverse to Justin Bieber, but it looks like Jordan makes the grade. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your vote, much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria #1. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks for your vote. (Is it time to close this AfD?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ipazke Julith
- Ipazke Julith (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)
Unable to find reliable third-party references which provide in-depth coverage of this leading hypnotherapist and psychiatrist. j⚛e deckertalk 16:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nor have I found any. The article makes claims which saved it from a CSD A7, but they are unreferenced and apparently unverifiable to WP:RS. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources whatever, and none found using Gnews link. Strangely, Gscholar has chosen not to index this renowned scholar. RayTalk 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this isn't a hoax, it's completely unverifiable through reliable sources. Webs.com as a reference? My searches only found a profile at Linkedin. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find any (reliable) sources through all known mediums. Certainly not notable enough. Endofskull (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. According to her website, she graduated from the "University of Standford", obtained a "PhD on Psychiatry" and is "writing a new expected to be an award winning paper for APA and the Psychology Insitituions". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nom The use of stock photos (note [http://tineye.com/search/a7bc9db2ce5629eba7dd762dc108ba72d067edc5/ ) on the twitter and webs accounts adds additional support for this as a hoax, although I'm starting to think it's pretty obvious. "University of Standford", LOL. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability and unable to verify information by reliable sources. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete this really looks like a hoax. There is a slight, but unlikely possibility that this is a pseudonym, but there is no realiable sources for the claims in the article. It is also unclear that even if the claims were true that the person would pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsensical, a clear hoax. Did you check out the person's supposed website? It says "Welcome to my website, I am a renowned psychologist (well, that settles it; we have her own word for it that she's notable!) working on hypnosis and psychiatric therapy at Mui Corporation {which somehow never heard of her [13]). I have writtent (sic) many papers on research in this fielf (sic) and I hope you find my site both informative and enjoyable, please have fun looking around! You can book my services in the Tickets and Reservations!" Not to mention the comment/endorsement from "Doc Tor Pakunwanichphd". Not written on April 1, but should have been. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I suppose it would be redundant to point out that Google Scholar never heard of her either. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UUA (disambiguation)
- UUA (disambiguation) (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)
Disambig with two entries. UUA redirects to Unitarian Universalist Association which has a hatnote for Bugulma Airport. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for others and found one (now added). Not sure that it's notable enough to keep listed (keep now that >2 if so, delete per nom if not)--was a "shake all the bushes and see what falls out" not "I strongly support keeping this". DMacks (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as expanded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added the pilot code to the hatnote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid that and added two more entries to the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the current contents are sufficient for a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contact (word game)
- Contact (word game) (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)
After 7 years, still WP:NOTABILITY is not even asserted. Prod was contested. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wholly unsourced from the first "How To Guide" iteration to the last "Stubbed Beyond Recognition" version. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added as amny sources for the article as could be found. I think that either notability should be established or the article should be merged. See more on the talk page.Eatmark (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]
- Delete and salt per nom and Carrite. This article has been prodded twice (once by me) and deleted once already. Neither forums nor Google are WP:VRS-compliant. As far as I can tell, it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think you are right and that the article is not notable enough at this time although it may be more so in the future in the event that it does become more notable I am sure that someone would take the time to undelete it. If you want an example look at The Game (mind game).Eatmark (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Vectis route 1
- Southern Vectis route 1 (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 bus route, The article is sourced to a number of of sources which are either primary or tangential to the route as a whole neither of which establish notability per the General notability guidleines which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any key information can be inserted into the Southern Vectis article but doesn't need its own sprawling article with an unsourced/unsourceable history. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I have been voting to delete lists of bus routes. I hardly believed that we would get a whole article on a single route. If there are more, please to a multiple nomination for them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All of the supplied refs either make just passing mention of the route or are routine notices such as timetables, demonstrating it is non-notable. I haven't looked through all the articles on Southern Vectis routes, but I suspect all the routes are similarly non-notable. I think a multiple nomination of all these articles is warranted — I hope someone knows how to do this.—A bit iffy (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unless there is something notable about the route itself, other than being a route (if that makes sense?). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple nominations aren't a problem, and I did consider it but a test case (i.e; this nomination) ensures that there is a general consensus for or against these specific articles. If this closes on Delete I'll assess and list all similar vectis routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable—A bit iffy (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A few tourist bus routes may be notable but this is not one of them.--Charles (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aliyev Hasay
- Aliyev Hasay (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 academic. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hasay Aliyev is very famous in Russia. To search yielded results better typing its name in Russian. Aliyevs books in the National Librarye. Senatw (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited the article, and also add books Aliyev. Senatw (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searching in Gscholar under the Russian named turned up an unremarkable citation rate, failing WP:PROF#C1 (fortunately, Russia has a well-integrated first tier scientific community, so it is not necessary to discuss the usual globalization issues). No evidence presented to indicate he passes WP:AUTHOR, either. RayTalk 14:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My search in the same search engine produces results.
"Aliyev Hasay" - news , books, scholar, free images
Conclusion: Hasay Aliyev is the significant person. I think the article must leave Monofont (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Skoyles
- Jan Skoyles (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 person whose article doesn't fulfil WP:GNG. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recently graduated business journalist. Quotations unremarkable, lack of significant coverage of subject in reliable independent sources. RayTalk 14:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the reasons already given by others - sorrySophiahounslow (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- REdirect to The Real Asset Co for whom she works. That article is tagged as promotional, but not for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) - MrX 20:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oredog
- Oredog (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 subject and possibly a hoax. Unable to find any reliable sources. - MrX 14:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - With a self-inflicted trout for not waiting a little longer for the article to be developed. The COI external link, the state of the article when I nominated it and the fact that it's April Fool's day seemed to add up to a hoax. This is evidently not the case. - MrX 20:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic appears notable as a specialization of working dog. The cited references appear valid (although my Finnish is a bit rusty). The article is a mess, and needs cleanup. And the conflict of interest of the author should be noted, but I think there is salvageable content here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a real thing. Would it be called an oredog or an ore dog in the English language though? I did some minor work on the article. Trying to delete something a just minutes after it is created, is always a bad idea. The article's creator went on to make a lot of additions after the nomination. If historical documents in the article show this is true, then its encyclopedic enough to be in the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ewald series
- Ewald series (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 books lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - self-published (lulu.com), no independent references, completely fails WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Ewaldlover223 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC) The wikipedia page was accurate and was deleted for terrible reasons. Although it is a not so well known book series, The Ewald Series, had a wikipedia article that was informative with up to date details. There are plenty of online websites, pictures, official FaceBook pages, and other sources that can be used to validate the information on the wikipedia article and add to the content to strengthen the article that was written about the Ewald Series. Also Lulu Publishing is a certified publishing house that has connections with notable isbn agencies and ibookstore, nook. Making it trusted as an actual publishing house.[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above, fails WP:Notability (books); I can't find any coverage in independent sources at all. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The SPA notwithstanding, there's no evidence that anyone's heard of this vanity publication, however much the producers are diligent with their self-promotion. Beyond that, the article is a coatrack for the authors. Ravenswing 04:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are plenty of WP:PRIMARY and otherwise unusable sources out there to show that this book series exists, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) We need coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't exist. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have my doubts about the sources linked in the debate, but no consensus either way. Secret account 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany Alvord
- Tiffany Alvord (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'm not convinced enough has changed since deleted in 2011 AfD, but am taking it to AfD rather than speedy in case I'm missing something significant Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC. Sourcing is sketchy at best, mostly WP:PRIMARY, with insufficient WP:RS to establish notability. The article has been deleted twice before, and keeps getting recreated by aggressive spammers in violation of WP:PROMO. Could use a good salting.Qworty (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Qworty. We never just delete for failing wp:nmusic. Are you suggesting it also fails gng?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly an "aggressive spammer" ; rather, I created the article after being satisfied that she met WP:NMUSIC. See the sources found in the first page of a Google News search [14]; for example [15] or [16] (just from the last few days). And what about the Billboard coverage [17] or her winning an ArtistSignal competition [18] or her appearing in a YouTube-based concert [19]? This is just the start; I have to dash right now, but am happy to continue the discussion later...the sources I cited are just the first ones that I saw...more to come later. Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Are you !voting keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article (re)creator, I'd rather not place a vote. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is considered wholly appropriate for the article (re)creator to !vote. Not a conflict of interest in the least.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, then... per my comments and those below. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is considered wholly appropriate for the article (re)creator to !vote. Not a conflict of interest in the least.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article (re)creator, I'd rather not place a vote. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete please. Per Qworty's reasoning. Icarus of old (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many video views on YouTube and over million subscribers, but they are not reasons to keep. But she has also won ArtistSignal competition and Nivea competition[20]. Also tours in many countries[21]. --Stryn (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Somewhat surprised to see, that it is said, the article is failing in WP:NMUSIC - in what exactly? According Qworty in RS of the references chosen. There are 5 references of which 3 seems be just enough for notability (if 1st point of NMUSIC is considered) .. or could you justify the statement that their reliability (in WP:RS) is lacking? Is there whitelist or blacklist of reliable sources regarding music? (Moreover: In my opinion the NMUSIC criteria is good piece of thinking and work - there are possibly different criteria except multiple RS to justify notability of musician, yet 1000000 youtube (- or any other channel) subscribers is not one of them .. maybe this is input for debate and change - 1 000 000 of listeners make a quite a awareness .. that is quite a recognition of an artist!) --Reo + 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't really know what to make of Billboard's "Social / Streaming" chart but I suppose a chart is a chart. Seems to have scraped past WP:GNG via interviews and mentions. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitely keep. Ms. Alvord is certainly both notable and well-known/famous. If the article has issues, then they can be addressed in the future, but it should not be deleted. See my link in the meta-wiki. I don't know what WP:NMUSIC is, but it's a good idea to avoid weird acronyms and tech jargon, so please speak in English. But deleting the article, which other people (including me) can improve, will definitely leave a bad taste in the mouth, and will make those who wish or can contribute unhappy. Always remember the Stone Soup parable. Shlomif (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply click through any blue link, if you are not familiar with the term or acronym. See WP:NMUSIC, which was blue-linked above. The same as you are inviting others to do, when you blue-link Stone Soup.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tip. I guess it was "pot - meet kettle" (The pot calling the kettle black, where a disqualifier is guilty of the thing he disqualifies). OK, it seems that Ms. Alvord passes enough of the music notability guidelines and wikipedia people should understand that guidelines are just that - guidelines and that you always have to default on reason. For a fun way to understand it, see the this episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine titled "Body Parts", where Quark learns that the Rules of Acquisition were actually just the Guidelines of Acquisition. Shlomif (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was about to add the same as Epeefleche - I had to click on link and read info to understand fully your comment (and felt my time was wasted a bit). WP:NMUSIC is what anyone commenting here really needs to read, because that is what informs us over whether this meets notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... along with WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources insufficient to sustain a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was : Speedily redirected to Shanghai Metals Market; feel free to nominate the latter article for deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metal.com
- Metal.com (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 was unable to find enough reliable coverage for either this website or for the Shanghai Metals Market. Article is unreferenced and is written like an advertisement. Feel free to tag as G11 if possible. Possible COI as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7- no claim of significance for the website itself. I believe this has been speedy deleted once before already. Ducknish (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chaotic (TV series). J04n(talk page) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Shadow Warriors
- Chaotic Shadow Warriors (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)
Considering the Plot, Gameplay and Reception have nothing except for 'expansion' in them and i'm not sure if GameFAQs is an allowed source I think it's worth sending to AfD. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:17, 25 March 2013 (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) 02:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNGchanged to Merge and redirect to Chaotic (TV series). The game has received full-length feature reviews at IGN, Worth Playing, Cheat Code Central and a Giant Bomb review (though I think the last one is not by editorial staff). I've added them to the article. Diego (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - The GiantBomb source presented is a random user-generated one, not part of their editorial staff, and is thus not a reliable, third party source. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain Cheat Code Central isn't considered reliable either. (Also, to answer the nominator's question, no, Gamefaqs isn't useable, because anyone can submit information with no real editorial oversight.) Sergecross73 [User talk:Sergecross73|msg me]] 14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks Serge. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- You're right, only the IGN article comes from a reliable source. The content and the reference could be put as a section at the TV series, though. Diego (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An easy way to identify a Giant Bomb user review is to look at the URL and author. User reviews have "user-reviews" in the URL and the author is identified by username rather than real name. Reach Out to the Truth 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The GiantBomb source presented is a random user-generated one, not part of their editorial staff, and is thus not a reliable, third party source. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain Cheat Code Central isn't considered reliable either. (Also, to answer the nominator's question, no, Gamefaqs isn't useable, because anyone can submit information with no real editorial oversight.) Sergecross73 [User talk:Sergecross73|msg me]] 14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this article is not notable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / Redirect - Finally had the chance to do some research, and found that:
- Worthplaying is also currently deemed "Not Reliable" per discussions at WP:VG/S.
- Apparently, Xbox Magazine reviewed it too.
- That leaves us with only 2 real sources that aren't database entries or press releases. Usually 4-5 are needed to warrant a "Keep" stance.
- It does seem like a viable search topic, and certainly relevant to the related animation's article, which seems notable. So I favor it being redirected back to the animation, merging anything of use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chad Robichaux
- Chad Robichaux (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)
MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights. He may be retired since he hasn't fought in almost a year. The sources I saw were just routine sports coverage so I don't believe he meets WP:GNG either.Mdtemp (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See commments below re "routine sports coverage."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NMMA, and since his career may be over, it's unlikely he'll meet it anytime soon. Ducknish (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He appears to have robust coverage. If he meets GNG, which a cursory look suggests he does, it is irrelevant whether he meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See commments in this afd re "GNG."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. As an aside, he had two sockpuppets which have been uncovered, who echoed his !votes at AfDs. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either take this to WP:SPI or quit making this comment. You're making a blanket accusation of anyone who's voted at MMA AFDs.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its an appropriate comment for this AfD, under the circumstances. And it's not the first indef block we've had I now see of sockpuppets and sockmasters who !vote at these particular AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If Epeefleche and I are going to agree on something, then it will be the issue of sockpuppets in AfD discussions. It's very common for noted sock puppets to have their arguments struck from the discussion, or in the least, noted for the reviewing closer, as a means of identifying someone who has tried to game the system. Mkdwtalk 21:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its an appropriate comment for this AfD, under the circumstances. And it's not the first indef block we've had I now see of sockpuppets and sockmasters who !vote at these particular AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either take this to WP:SPI or quit making this comment. You're making a blanket accusation of anyone who's voted at MMA AFDs.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. As an aside, he had two sockpuppets which have been uncovered, who echoed his !votes at AfDs. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can not find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which isn't enough to qualify for notability.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look even at the sources I just added to the article. They go far beyond what we discount as routine coverage. Routine coverage refers to matters such as "team x beat team y 1-0". Non-routine coverage includes things such as articles devoted to the subject. I've now reflected a number of those in the article itself. Perhaps you will take a look and reconsider.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I certainly understand User:Epeefleche's argument about a lot of coverage, but it's all focused in the first sentence of the article which means the sources mostly confirm the same thing that he's a special ops MMA fighter. This, for me, falls under WP:BOMBARDMENT. I think the issue here is that he doesn't have robust coverage about his actual career which does not meet WP:NMMA. If we're looking at WP:ANYBIO, it's not great. Mkdwtalk 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't bombardment just an essay -- which may be the opinion of only one or more editors? Also, of course (though some editors seem not to realize it) there is no requirement that he meet NMMA; though if he were to meet it, that would be sufficient. GNG is always sufficient, even in the absence of meeting NMMA.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of essays are largely cited in AfD discussions. Most notably that you would recognize that editors weight in heavily would be WP:OUTCOMES. Keep in mind that essays are merely extensions of arguments and that the arguments are the primary basis of AfD. The guidelines I have cited as grounds for deletion are WP:NMMA and WP:ANYBIO, while WP:BOMBARDMENT is my address to your argument that the article has multiple independent and reliable sources BUT when
79 of the 11 sources are in the first sentence, it as stated in BOMBARDMENT, reflects very poorly that the article itself and subject lack general assertion of notability because 90% of the article remains unsourced other than the fact that we've heavily shown he's an MMA fight, but not a notable one. Mkdwtalk 19:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- That's purely a form issue. At AfD, what is important is whether RSs exist, such as would satisfy GNG. They of course needn't even be in the article itself. That they are in the first sentence, therefore, obviously is not an AfD issue. It would suffice for them to not be in the article but merely cited at the AfD discussion, or just alluded to there and discoverable. Completely irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a bombardment issue not a form issue. I've been very clear about that. If you don't see what's wrong with: "Chad "Robo" Robichaux (born August 18, 1975) is an American professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter and former Special Operations Force Recon, United States Marine.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" in relationship to WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:OVERCITE as a means of masking notability through run-of-the-mill and routine coverage for his events, then I cannot make myself anymore clear and will simply leave this to the general consensus which appears to be largely in favour of delete. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG directly states: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." which has been the basis of your argument -- but it appears you have not formally positioned yourself in the keep camp by !voting keep. Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Obviously you don't have to, but seems contradictory to your time and investment to the discussion not to let your formal position be openly regarded outside replies. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an essay. The view of one or more editors. In this case, as cited, I think a simply absurd view. The refs -- even if they are not in the article -- if they meet GNG are sufficient. The fact that they are in the article is not a negative in the least. Pure common sense issue. As to my !vote, I haven't placed one, as it is not yet clear to me whether it meets GNG. But it is clear to me that the refs go toward GNG, and do not detract from it -- any suggestion otherwise is counter-intuitive. I do see that assertion, as well as they "routine coverage" assertion, to be less than firmly based, however. My interest in even looking at these AfDs is that a sockmaster !voted at them, and even aside from him MMA articles appear to have attracted an unusual degree of socking (as to why I have not myself prompted a sock investigation again, as I just did today elsewhere, I haven't yet developed a firm view, but there are others who are better at this than I am admittedly). If I develop a firm opinion either way on a !vote here, my opinion will stand as to what "routine coverage" means and as to the silliness of that/those individual(s) view as to cites in an article detracting somehow. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a bombardment issue not a form issue. I've been very clear about that. If you don't see what's wrong with: "Chad "Robo" Robichaux (born August 18, 1975) is an American professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter and former Special Operations Force Recon, United States Marine.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" in relationship to WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:OVERCITE as a means of masking notability through run-of-the-mill and routine coverage for his events, then I cannot make myself anymore clear and will simply leave this to the general consensus which appears to be largely in favour of delete. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG directly states: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." which has been the basis of your argument -- but it appears you have not formally positioned yourself in the keep camp by !voting keep. Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Obviously you don't have to, but seems contradictory to your time and investment to the discussion not to let your formal position be openly regarded outside replies. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's purely a form issue. At AfD, what is important is whether RSs exist, such as would satisfy GNG. They of course needn't even be in the article itself. That they are in the first sentence, therefore, obviously is not an AfD issue. It would suffice for them to not be in the article but merely cited at the AfD discussion, or just alluded to there and discoverable. Completely irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of essays are largely cited in AfD discussions. Most notably that you would recognize that editors weight in heavily would be WP:OUTCOMES. Keep in mind that essays are merely extensions of arguments and that the arguments are the primary basis of AfD. The guidelines I have cited as grounds for deletion are WP:NMMA and WP:ANYBIO, while WP:BOMBARDMENT is my address to your argument that the article has multiple independent and reliable sources BUT when
- Isn't bombardment just an essay -- which may be the opinion of only one or more editors? Also, of course (though some editors seem not to realize it) there is no requirement that he meet NMMA; though if he were to meet it, that would be sufficient. GNG is always sufficient, even in the absence of meeting NMMA.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. No, actually was not familiar with that, thanks. Helps explain the phenomenon.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User withdrew nomination (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Core Contents Media discography
- Core Contents Media discography (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 list that should stay on the record company's website. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Slashme (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why it's indiscriminate to list the notable albums released by a notable record label? There appear to be quite a lot of them in Category:Record label discographies, plus we also have Category:Albums by record label and Category:Artists by record label, which suggests per WP:CLN that a corresponding system of lists is also appropriate. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This looks like a proper split of their publication discography, just needs polish. It doesn't seem indiscriminate to me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator: <grumble>I honestly didn't realize we kept stuff like that on Wikipedia. How many releases has EMI Records had, and why aren't they in the list? Who's going to add Deutsche Grammophon's over 3000 discs? Isn't this something that would rather fit with Wikidata? </grumble>--Slashme (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ( blanked or requested by creator) by Luk (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Disc Year-End Chart
- Creative Disc Year-End Chart (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 chart. The article fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:V. I The are no much sources when I'd searched it on Google. I'm thinking if this article will be deleted or redirected to Creative Disc. But the Creative Disc doesn't have any sources other than its website and notability is likely challenged. Mediran (t • c) 09:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete Creative Disc because I still update it, but if you want to delete Creative Disc Year-End Chart maybe just redirected it to Creative Disc. And yes, the sources exist in Indonesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggdlmnt (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sources may exist in Indonesian, which most users won't be able to search in or understand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Disc Year-End Chart now deleted by myself, and please don't delete Creative Disc too.Ggdlmnt (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JAK3 (musician)
- JAK3 (musician) (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 can't find a single item in WP:BAND that JAK3 passes. A google search finds a computer game and a protein kinase before him - he first appears on page 4 of a google search for me, and it's his Facebook page. I can't find anything that isn't self-published. Slashme (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He's done nothing. Probably speediable, unless recording music in your basement and putting it up online counts as an indication of importance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, only five relevant results found on Google, all of which were mostly social networking sites. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 11:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has released a single on iTunes, Google Play, and Spotify in 2012 with a second single to be released on the same platforms on April 2nd, 2013. Has worked for musician Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.50.93 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - JAK3 is well-known in the Prince community as a new associated artist. Prince publication "Beautiful Nights" will be publishing an interview with JAK3 this week. There are plenty of non self-published references to JAK3 if you take the time to add the word "producer" or "music" after "JAK3" in a google search. The video game and the protein kinase showing up in searches are more due to an unfortunate name than non-relevance. Thevoid1843 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just googled for "JAK3 music" and found self-published sites (e.g. his twitter feed and his own website) and music for the computer game. To establish notability according to the General Notability Guideline, please point us at multiple independent reliable sources that discuss him: that is, that mention him more than just naming him as a supporting act or as an item in a list. For example, this is not a reliable 3rd party source, as it's a press release. --Slashme (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for another example, the entry at PrinceVault.com is on a fan website, and refers to Jak3 as a fan, not an associated act, of Prince's. --Slashme (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khairul Fahmi Mat Som
- Khairul Fahmi Mat Som (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)
Beat-up article based on a single, non-notable matter attributed to a non-notable person, fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Khairul Fahmi is a great community leader. He is the young gun of the Pan Islamic Malaysia Party. He is notable. I hope that the page will not be deleted. Senget segala (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Senget segala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the individual seems notable only for his tweet (whose negative nature would be a BLP issue) and not for his contributions or political career. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like politico spam. Icarus of old (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - When has tweeting something controversial ever been a claim to notability? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Albanian rock bands
- List of Albanian rock bands (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)
At this point, we have a "list of Albanian rock bands". However, all of the names on the list are not actually links to bands, but to an indiscriminate list of subjects, including burn, clown, germs, hard, etc. In essence, this list of Albanian rock bands, that has not asserted significance or importance or established notability. In general, when a person, group, or organization is added to a list, we need to show a pre-existing article to establish notability. There are several red links to non-notable entities, followed by citations to outside sources. PROD removed. Cindy(need help?) 06:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see the problem with the current state: many redlink names, plus bluelink names that do not lead to articles about the bands but to other topics, but isn't this one for (vigorous) pruning so that it adheres to WP:LISTPEOPLE rather than outright deletion? AllyD (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC) As an example/start, I've applied this to letters A to C on the list. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any real listing of notable bands can be covered in Albanian rock. I just don't think we have enough contributors to merit a separate article here (that complies with policies) that is worth keeping and maintaining.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is more an editing question than a notability question. There is indeed a long (overlong) "List of Albanian Rock Bands" at the end of Albanian rock. Best to lose that, make conspicuous note of this page there, and to work hard to improve and source out the current list. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Carrite. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough accurate blue links to warrant its own article, too long a list to stick somewhere else neatly. I removed a couple of blue links that linked to something unrelated by mistake. Dream Focus 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but certainly tidy up and raise to standard per nominator's points. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete far, far too many red links. I suggest a partial merge which would included adding the more notable bands in this article to a section of the article Albanian music.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SYNTH. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka
- Persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka (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)
The article is original research, in particular synthesis. None of the given sources, not even the US State Department's report on religious freedom in Sri Lanka, state there is persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka, and a few unrelated incidents are woven together by the author. There are also neutrality concerns when a blog is used to label as "militant" what the BBC calls a "new hardline Sinhalese Buddhist group". No reliable source links that group to militancy or violence, though "hardline" is certainly an apt description. Huon (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just look at the pictures in this Facebook page and you will see the truth in this http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.540051396020136.125225.263220480369897&type=1 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.122.49 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article highlights some of the key issues that have been further covered by the senior journalist Charles Harviland in this article published through the BBC titled "The hardline Buddhists targeting Sri Lanka's Muslims" published on 25th March 2013 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600 This article exposes the growing hatred been ignited against the Muslim minority in Sri Lanka, and signals the begining of serious persecution. Shiranya101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see why there needs to be an explicit 'admission' anywhere that Muslims are (or aren't) persecuted in Sri Lanka. The content of the article just needs to conform to the subject of the article as defined in the title and be backed up by sources - and I can see this being the case here. The article strings together several notable events where Muslims have been discriminated, specifically targeted or 'singled out' as the phrase goes. We do have many religious/ethnic persecution articles on Wikipedia and this is one of those. The article subject is notable and encyclopedic enough, IMHO, to have an article. The issues pointed out in the nom. are things that could be done by working on the article, really. I don't see how deletion is a solution here. Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the contention is that some of the content of the article does not fit well with what the title of the article is, then perhaps we could have a go at renaming the article. Something like Discrimination and persecution against Muslims in Sri Lanka might sound accurate, as discrimination and persecution are both different things, and not everything currently in the article is necessarily 'persecution' - there are some things that may just be called discrimination. Mar4d (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources do not show any persecution. The halal meat boycott is being used as an example of "persecution" by Buddhist group Bodu Bola Sena, but when you look at what actually happened, the Buddhists just objected to having the government pay Muslim religious authorities to certify meat at public expense, and to being forced to buy food with Muslim religious symbols on the packages. Nobody's businesses are going to be effected, they're just going to stop putting the labels on the food. Sure, there are groups screaming that this is "anti-Muslim", but I don't think you will find any WP:RS reliable sources that say this.115.67.39.165 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be original research --PHEONIXTER 16:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Muslims in Sri Lanka faced massacres and ethnic cleansing by Tamil Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Buddhist hardline Bodu Bala Sena is trageting Muslim for Halal meat. Delljvc (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Muslim genocide were carried out several times by LTTE. Some are presented here[22]. Mrwikidor ←track 05:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at their disclaimer. This can't be used as a reliable source.115.84.77.188 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research.Nishadhi (talk)
09:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is currently a growing racial hatred and intolerance against the Muslims in post-war Sri Lanka. Land grabbing by Military which had been restricted to only Tamils previously has now been extended to Muslim lands as well. The latest in the news is the razing down of a Muslim property in the heart of the capital^. This article in fact requires a greater expansion and a dedicated timeline that covers what happened to the Muslims in the pre-war times, the LTTE era and the post-war present day persecution that is being meted out.--CuCl2 10:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 06:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot predict future ethnic violence, no matter how persuasive the facts on the ground seem to other !voters here. As of right now this is an article about 1990 + halal meat which is far from satisfying. Shii (tock) 06:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:SYNTH of several not very connected incidents widely separated in time. Also, the title is an WP:NPOV violation with connotations of systematic and organized persecution, possibly government backed, which is not borne out either by the article or the sources. The article seems unable to distinguish between persecution and discrimination and I agree that the halal boycott is actually neither of those things. I don't want to eat ceremoniously killed animals either. SpinningSpark 15:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I like the idea of combining synopses of LTTE violence under the excellent introduction. The third incident, a Buddhist meat boycott, strikes me as lacking the same sort of close relationship which is needed to avoid a coatrack situation. I think the issue here is one of editing rather than notability — that the third incident should be split out and the title changed to something like Tamil Tiger violence against Muslims in Sri Lanka. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but turn into a disambiguation page. Then create another article for Campaign against Halal Food. On the disambiguation page we could have the current lead and then links to the different cases. Revolution1221 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Delljvc above (sourced in the article). Miniapolis 21:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, most arguments for keep here are very unconvincing. Kattankudy mosque massacre and Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE already have their own pages and the halal meat section screams of WP:NOTNEWS. We have three separate issues here that are being WP:SYNTH'd into one page. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of a significant organised or ground-swell cause joining individual acts of persecution, or anything unusual going on. It is always possible to find evidence of the persecution of any group in any given territory, but that does not make it Notable or Encyclopedic. Or even real, rather than a series of unrelated acts of normal human (inhuman?) activity. The very creation of such an article seems to be a POV.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The page is an original research collection of separate issues under the heading of persecution. The Campaign against Halal food noted in the article is not to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate Muslims in Sri Lanka. Rather, it is an animal rights reaction to the Halal slaughtering of animals for meat. The other two events occured in August 1990 and October 1990 were by one group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). That does not show persistence required by persecution or establish that Sri Lanka government had anything to do with the events. In fact, LTTE was defeated by the Sri Lankan Military in 2009. Delete. Redirect to Persecution of Muslims#Sri Lanka if needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elk Grove, California#History. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous Tribes to the Elk Grove Region
- Indigenous Tribes to the Elk Grove Region (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)
It seems to me that the materials here are not deserving of their own article, but best served in the respective articles about the city and/or region as well as the articles about the tribes. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having a 4% Native population would be significant enough for me to think an article would be appropriate; however, Elk Grove appears to be only .6% native per Elk Grove, California#Demographics. Ryan Vesey 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Elk Grove, California#History. Currently there is nothing in the history section about the indigenous peoples, but there should be a paragraph there, as there is in most California city articles.
There could also be a mention of Elk Grove in the articles about the three tribes.(Per Cullen below, the tribe articles should refer to the broader area - for example "the Sacramento area", not "Elk Grove".) Anything more is not warranted - certainly not a separate article. The references provided do not justify a separate article, and Category:Native American tribes in California shows only one other such article here, which covers a much broader geographic area. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Merge & Redirect to Elk Grove, California#History as suggested by MelanieN. First let me say that the article that is the subject of this AfD is largely subject to WP:BURDEN. As for the notability of this list, the subject of this list does not appear to have received significant coverage, as seen from this search of news articles, and this search of books. That being said what can be verified falls under the scope of the history section of the Elk Grove article. Therefore, a merger and a redirect to the section is a way to preserve the search term, and to keep what verified content there is in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with no need for a redirect. This is not a plausible search term. I know the area well and there is nothing about what we call "Elk Grove" today that would have distinguished it in pre-modern times it from what we call "Sacramento" today. Southern Sacramento is indistinguishable from northern Elk Grove. I am all in favor of improving our coverage of the Native American peoples of California, and have tried to make some small contributions toward that goal, but this sort of material as a separate article belongs in discussion of the tribal groups of natural geographic regions, not artificial modern city boundaries. This "topic" doesn't exist as a discrete topic, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge to Elk Grove, California#History. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches
- List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches (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 was forked out of the Casio F91W article in January 2010, following discussions related to it being WP:COATRACK material and giving undue weight to this particular topic (several editors raised these concerns on the talk page between 2006 and 2009, but Geo Swan (talk · contribs) defended starting the article and adding this material on the grounds that it illustrated problems with the US government's Guantanamo Bay-related policies - I don't know if this is still his or her view). The article is sourced almost exclusively to primary sources (two of the secondary news sources which are still 'live' refer only to a single detainee, and the others only note the watch aspect in passing when discussing individuals rather than linking the various people together), and an attempt by Fladrif (talk · contribs) to address BLP concerns in 2011 was promptly reverted. As such, I think that this article should be deleted as it is clearly surplus to the description of the issue at Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism, was initially started as a WP:COATRACK, is not a notable way to group these individuals and constructing an article largely around primary sources in this way violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:COATRACK per nomination. Unnecessary article about a collection of largely non-notable individuals, started with the stated intention of making some sort of political point. What little relevant information there is has already been included in other articles and is therefore appropriately covered. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those individuals have been noted by reliable sources. What is this political point you refer to, and where else is this information? Diego (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess would be that the political point this article is trying to make is something like "the U.S. government, in a desperate attempt to justify the continued detention at Guantanamo of various people, has resorted to considering ownership of a certain model of watch to be a sign of terrorist affiliation, even though that model of watch is extremely common and used even by American military personnel". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those individuals have been noted by reliable sources. What is this political point you refer to, and where else is this information? Diego (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Seton Hall reports per WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:LISTPURP as an informative list, and the second selection criterion for lists - although these individuals are not notable, their detention at Guantanamo is. The topic is a legitimate one, as the references in section Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism show; moving the content and sources to the Denbeaux study article will provide enough context to better understand the list in an encyclopedic way. Diego (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Anotherclown's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Unnecessary list spinout; they may have blue links, so they may be notable in some capacity, but not for this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unnecessary" is not a good argument. Also note that COATRACK is an essay, while per WP:Preserve (which is policy), well-sourced facts that would belong in a finished article must be kept. So I say these are needed facts, and the various news articles reporting on it seem to agree with this. Diego (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but Coatrack is based off of WP:NPOV, a very important policy. Also, the "unnecessary" comment is because it strikes me as somewhat of a WP:CONTENTFORK, a relevant guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it non-neutral or against CONTENTFORK, instead of just a natural content split? I don't see it any different than the lists at Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism, Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or any one at Category:Lists of Guantanamo Bay detainees; and the rationale given by the nominator is mostly based on behavior by the creator, which is not a valid reason for deletion. It's true that this was undue weight for the Casio watch article, but that doesn't apply to a stand-alone list or a merge with Seton Hall reports. So what's special about this particular list? Diego (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but Coatrack is based off of WP:NPOV, a very important policy. Also, the "unnecessary" comment is because it strikes me as somewhat of a WP:CONTENTFORK, a relevant guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unnecessary" is not a good argument. Also note that COATRACK is an essay, while per WP:Preserve (which is policy), well-sourced facts that would belong in a finished article must be kept. So I say these are needed facts, and the various news articles reporting on it seem to agree with this. Diego (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This "article" consists almost entirely of original research, relying upon primary sources, to wit: court/tribunal documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I removed them two years ago, but one of the editors who made these articles on Casio watches and Guantanamo detainees a pet project put them back in. Fladrif (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary sources have all been removed, everything that remains is now referenced to reliable sources. Diego (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, listcruft. This is pretty much as bad as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to many people with disabilities. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So many !votes, so few arguments. Is there a reason why people doesn't like this article? Is it because it deals with prisoners at Guantanamo? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't delete topics covered by reliable sources just because they're controversial. Diego (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single argument contains any sort of variant of "I don't like it" or "We should censor this", so I think you're really grasping with comments like this... Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are plenty of "not encyclopedic", "it doesn't belong" and WP:VAGUEWAVEs, which are functionally identical to "the topic should be removed because I say so" when devoid of arguments. The only valid argument was that of being based on primary sources, but there aren't any in the current version - all remaining references come from professional newspapers. Diego (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not encyclopedic" means "this isn't something an encyclopedia covers". Notability is not, and has never been, the sole reason for getting rid of an article; one of the major ones has always been "This isn't the kind of subject that belongs". Encyclopedias don't pay attention to who owns what kind of watch, regardless of the sourcing, just like they don't pay attention to trivial signs on walls or fictional characters with fingerless gloves, regardless of the sourcing. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. When The Guardian, Associated Press, the BBC, Le Monde etc. all agree that "who owns what kind of watch" is relevant because the watch has been used to make bombs, and people has been sent to detention camps for owning it, then the topic is notable and there's no reason why we can't have an article about it or keep the content as part of a larger article. And no, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC has never been a valid argument either, as it's circular reasoning. Diego (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not encyclopedic" means "this isn't something an encyclopedia covers". Notability is not, and has never been, the sole reason for getting rid of an article; one of the major ones has always been "This isn't the kind of subject that belongs". Encyclopedias don't pay attention to who owns what kind of watch, regardless of the sourcing, just like they don't pay attention to trivial signs on walls or fictional characters with fingerless gloves, regardless of the sourcing. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are plenty of "not encyclopedic", "it doesn't belong" and WP:VAGUEWAVEs, which are functionally identical to "the topic should be removed because I say so" when devoid of arguments. The only valid argument was that of being based on primary sources, but there aren't any in the current version - all remaining references come from professional newspapers. Diego (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single argument contains any sort of variant of "I don't like it" or "We should censor this", so I think you're really grasping with comments like this... Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So many !votes, so few arguments. Is there a reason why people doesn't like this article? Is it because it deals with prisoners at Guantanamo? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't delete topics covered by reliable sources just because they're controversial. Diego (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, looking at the article Casio F91W, there was no reason to create a sub-article as the article never came close to reaching the article size described in WP:TOOLONG. Therefore, it clearly appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. A cursory search for sources shows that the subject of the list has received passing mentions in multiple reliable sources but none that I would consider significant coverage in those sources to suggest to me that the subject of the list is notable as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With that argument, I assume you wouldn't oppose a merge? (Also, this one is definitely not a passing mention). Diego (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Fladrif. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Anotherclown. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Agree it's an unnecessary list of non-notable individuals. Josophie (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism. The fact that ownership of this watch has been purportedly associated with terrorism may be notable. The identities of the particular individuals who were accused of terrorist associations on that ground are not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of 10th Legion Championship Fighting events
- List of 10th Legion Championship Fighting events (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)
Unsourced list of events for a non-notable organization. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 10th Legion Championship Fighting reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia article. A list of results, where none of the competitors is notable is a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does not appear the individual promotions or even a list of promotions from this company would be notable enough for a standalone list; WP:LISTN. Lastly, the organization seems borderline to begin with considering the number of dead links and not as many secondary sources as it should. Mkdwtalk 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no indication these events, individually or collectively, are notable. I think a good case could be made that the entire organization is non-notable.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-Notable organization fails WP:GNG. Entity of the Void (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also G11 spam Secret account 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kinetic Band
- Kinetic Band (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 is blatantly promotional, and filled with original research. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 04:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sign of WP:NOTABILITY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz Robotic Head
- Fritz Robotic Head (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. I am unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim nor sign of notability. Apparent promotional article for a Kickstarter campaign to turn this into a product. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Illogistical Resource Dept. - Catharsis
- Illogistical Resource Dept. - Catharsis (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 references, band article has no references either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Article has been updated with References. Soundtweaker —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2013 (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) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of significant coverage, even with the sources added. Not really enough to establish even the band's notability, and certainly not enough to show the album as independently notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep The EB precedent seems conclusive. Warden (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimatum
- Ultimatum (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 wrote much of the current text in 2006, but under our current standards it's a no-go: it's unsourced except for a 1911 EB link, and it's pretty much only a WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to oppose this as the word "ultimatum" must be a plausible redirect to something. That said, I think that this expression may have a technical meaning in diplomacy and international law ("a final demand as an alternative to war"). That is the sort of thing that I found when I typed "an ultimatum is" and "an ultimatum means" into Google Books. See, for example, Grimal, Threats of Force: International Law and Strategy, Routledge, 2012, p 103, who offers two technical definitions given by other authors and specifically applies it to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. James500 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Having looked further, I think that it is very clear that "ultimatum" (aka "ultimata") is a highly notable technical term of art in international law. See, for example:[reply]
- Strong keep and expand.James500 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry in the Eleventh Edition of Encylopedia Britannica contains a great deal more than a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Participants in this AfD may like to note that the nominator removed much of the article during the week or so before he nominated it. This is the article just before he started doing so. Not that much better, but not quite so much of a DICDEF. Of course, the real question in an AfD like this is not so much whether an article is currently a DICDEF or not notable for some other reason, but whether it can be improved to avoid these problems. My feeling is that it can be, but I must admit that corresponding articles on other Wikipedia are a long way from showing this. PWilkinson (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, can easily be expanded upon with reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In particular, diplomatic usage with regard to unfriendly acts etc. is a notable topic. The article should probaly also link to Coercive diplomacy but the topic seems to be notable in its own right. --Boson (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this page and the ersion of it pointed out above are purely WP:DICDEF, don't see how any editing of it can be anything but a definition of the word. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure if we have a policy stating this exactly, but any topic that has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica should be considered notable. Ryan Vesey 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles in standard encyclopedias asre excellent tertiary sources, and that they cover a topic in a separate article is a proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's a notable concept, and there are sources in every book on diplomacy , not to mention anything covering the history of the 20th century. Several editors have been adding them since the AfD started, and anyone who has voted delete previously should take a look at them. The real problem here is that the use of the old EB as the primary source for a article should no longer be tolerated. I think those here when the decision was made to rely on it made the wrong decision, and what we need to do is rewrite every such article. (That said, the material in here from the EB wasn't actually all that bad as a preliminary outline, but article should never be left at that point --and, by current rules on plagiarism, the exact material from the EB needs to be indicated--a general statement that some or all of the article is \vcopied from it or based on it is not sufficient--just as it would not be sufficient for any other source. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Akiko Omae
- Akiko Omae (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)
The just created article does not meet any criteria for notablity. No wins in a $35,000+ ITF tournament, No main draws on the WTA tour, No jr. Slam champion, etc... So unless I missed something this one is just one of countless thousands of ITF tennis players with no notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for this note. Last time I checked, a criteria for notability was that the player in question had been ranked in the Top 200. However, as this is no longer relevant, Akiko Omae does seem suitable for deletion. To avoid confusion which may occur around contributions in the future, I will be sure to refresh myself on the notability criteria immediately before creating any new articles. Pbr123 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbr123 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- One that often slips through our eyes is Fed Cup or Davis Cup participation. Those count too and often a low ranked player will make say... the Antarctic Fed Cup team. After posting this I went and double checked and Omae wasn't on the Japanese team. If you feel it's likely she could be soon, then save this article in your user space before it gets deleted, and bring it back if she becomes wiki-notable. Since I notice that this page was already deleted once before it should be speedily deleted this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (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) 01:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As others have said, the article can be saved in a userbox for if and when she becomes notable. The notability criteria haven't changed since this article was last deleted. Spiderone 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the opinions are fairly evenly divided, the policy based opinions favor deletion. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonchester Bridge television relay station
- Bonchester Bridge television relay station (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 are no sources given that suggest any kind of notability of this generic relay station. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (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) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not see how a relay station can be notable except as a structure, and there's no information here about that. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I suspect that there are a lot of such articles. The relay station will often be a landmark and thus worth an article. Or is this a sample nom, to be followed by a wholesale deletion nom? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt a structure with a height of 17 meters qualifies as a landmark. Most trees are higher than that. We have articles about some, but not many relay stations (try the search function if you're curious), and few of them bother to explain what makes them so important. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For whatever reason, there's a whole template of TV Transmitters in the UK, and most of the transmitters on the template have articles. It seems that it would need to be there for the sake of completeness. Listmeister (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguements above are moot and not policy based (not to mention many of these articles are of dubious notability). Secret account 05:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tattaglia family. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rico Tattaglia
- Rico Tattaglia (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 fails to meet WP:GNG. Web search provides links to pictures & quotes from the film but no scholarly results. Better suited for inclusion in a List of characters from The Godfather series article. AldezD (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tattaglia family. Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 18:01, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holton Rower
- Holton Rower (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 created by a gallery owner, featuring lots of buzzwords (such as "featured") but little substance. There is next to nothing in terms of coverage--a few mentions on some art websites and his name is dropped in the NYT once or twice, and a Dutch paper opines in four sentences that his "pour paintings" might make a fun family activity. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertisement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 17:54, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This does seem to read a bit like an advertisement, I think.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Maddie Fitzpatrick . J04n(talk page) 00:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maddie Fitzpatrick
- Maddie Fitzpatrick (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 this article is fascinating its subject is not a very notable character. Furthermore its only source violates WP:WPNOTRS. Wlmg (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge or redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or Ashley Tisdale would be more sensible than deletion: regular character in the former, important role for the latter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems appropriate, a short paragraph in the show article while the expanded description is broken out into a character article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Maddie Fitzpatrick without prejudice to future re-creation. The subject is a major character on the show, but this article consists almost entirely of trivia with only one source cited and that being an episode of the show. No secondary sources have been provided at all. The article is unsatisfactory as it stands from the point of view of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the show's main article. There's no need for this one character to have their own article, when the main article is doing a fine job. Ducknish (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the other main characters get their own page, so why not her? I have undone the edit of the person who redirected the article, because I do not think this discussion is over. Arilicious (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not counting J04n's opinion, as I'm unable to understand what argument they intend to make. Sandstein 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White Hat Rally
- White Hat Rally (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 charitable organization. See WP:NOBLECAUSE. Only "press" has been in computer magazines, which does not meet the cross-spectrum requirement to establish notability. As beneficial as this event might be, it's not encyclopedic at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As original creator of the page I had waited until I thought the event / organisation had gained enough notability. I notice that others have contributed to the content, and I'm sure it will be expanded further. The references given are largely from the computer press as that's where my knowledge is, and it is the sector targeted given the origins of WHR. Within the Information Security sector WHR is widely known in the UK, and I've seen online references as far away as Australia. There are 40+ pages of search results on google, and, while not recognised, many press interviews on youtube. Much of the coverage is electronic, and therefore transient. There have been articles in printed press (outside the IT industry), such as the Rutland Mercury and other local newspapers, council publications, and several times in Business Link Magazine. WHR is part of a larger organisation, White Hat Events, that have combined coverage that hasn't been referenced as citations used were about the rally specifically. WHE includes a ball for almost 1000 people each year in London, a London marathon team, and other events. We receive a lot of media attention due to our supporters, such as BT, KPMG, Deloitte, IBM, NCC Group plc, LLoyds, and others. Hopefully others more familiar with daily papers will come forward with evidence to allow this page to be retained. Much of the media coverage is not online, so not readily verified. If the articles where scanned and placed online (recognising the copyright owners) for the purpose of this discussion, would that help? Let's see what the community think. Ml-crest (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to demonstrate some of the harder to find media articles I've added some links to the Rutland Times article from 2012 (I was the interviewee), and from 2011 an interview on Isle of Wight Radio with member of the Mini Medics team.Gambler2073 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I located this article from the Rutland and Stamford Mercury local newspaper Rutland news Ml-crest (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio interview - Isle of Wight Radio interview Ml-crest (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has coverage in both local and tech news, as well as overseas. – SJ + 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There are sources, but most are just passing mentions. Not fully convinced this is notable enough for inclusion. It is telling that an editor has to upload a local article to drop box to claim its notable. SalHamton (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have deleted the link to the Rutland Mercury article both here and in the article because it is a copyvio and links to copyright violations are not allowed an Wikipedia. It is acceptable to reference the article, and I would have left the reference in the article, if only some usable details had been given such as date and page number. References do not have to be online, if they can be viewed in a library or accessible archive that is good enough. Same goes for the IoW Radio interview. SpinningSpark 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator's claim that "cross-spectrum" coverage is not supported by our WP:GNG so I see no reason to discout those sources. J04n(talk page) 10:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I think what BWilkins means is that the sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject (i.e., corporate or industry). Industry publications are known for their lack of editorial oversight. What I don't see in this article's sources are links to mainstream media. Miniapolis 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LiMax Coal Process
- LiMax Coal Process (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)
LiMax Coal Process does not appear to be notable. The article fails to cite any reliable sources. I have not found any sources that indicate notability. Way2veers 10:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article appears to have been written from a promotional point of view. If this is a notable topic, the article can be re-created using a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shouldn't have never been relisted with a strong deletion nomination like that and no keep comments Secret account 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Rocco
- Leonardo Rocco (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 hairdresser to celebs that, in keeping with earlier creations by User:Misty2010 and User:Misty2011 (see also the current AfD/Kike San Martín [2nd nom]) bulges grotesquely with promotional flatus. Sample: Rocco recognizes that his passion, enthusiasm, energy, commitment and strong work ethic have allowed him to capture the attention of perfectionists and this is reflected in his celebrity clientele. His clients seek him when making a change to their image and the driven stylist that attains his inspiration from film, people on the street, shows, and other professionals, manages to consistently satisfy the exquisite tastes of those that request his services. Conceivably, Rocco merits an article. (The sources adduced are in Spanish and PR-aromatic English. I don't pretend to understand the former [or trust Google Translate], but take a dim view of the latter, one of which reads in its entirety: The eighth annual Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 By Rocco Donna event showcased the latest hairstyles, makeup looks, and clothing designs with a celebrity fashion show and VIP party at the spa at Viceroy on November 8, 2012.) Let's suppose for a moment that Rocco does merit an article. Then the current article is not at all promising as a starting point. It would be less work to start afresh than to start with this -- if there's something that merits writing up, of course. Hoary (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is doubtful but this article is so full of peacock terms and advertising, that it is better to apply some TNT The Banner talk 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
View from nowhere
- View from nowhere (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)
Blog-specific term co-opted from one otherwise-nonnoteworthy academic term. Used plenty on blogs, but not much exists to support it as an actual article worthy of inclusion.
- The term did not originate on blogs. It started with a 1989 book my Thomas Nagel which I have added to a new "Further reading" section. I wonder if there should be one article for both the book and the term, or if The View from Nowhere should be a different article on the book. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - View from nowhere#References includes articles from Margaret Sullivan (journalist) (the New York Times Public Editor, writing as such), Jay Rosen (frequently syndicated NYU journalism professor), Glenn Greenwald (a "top 10" opinion journalist per Newsweek writing in The Guardian), Mathew Ingram (GigaOm), Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic), Susan Madrak (Crooks and Liars), and other nationally known journalists. Plus there are at least 60 Google News items. Therefore I believe the term is notable. EllenCT (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those article are about the term? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [23], [24], and [25] mention it in their titles. [26] mentions it in a heading. [27] cites the Nagel book and quotes a paragraph by Rosen near the top. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 is a blog from the guy who came up with the term. 2 and 3 are blogs. 4 is not about the view from nowhere, but rather a basic media criticism. 5 is also sourced directly to the guy who came up with the term. The book in question is a philosophy book, not a book on the media. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [23], [24], and [25] mention it in their titles. [26] mentions it in a heading. [27] cites the Nagel book and quotes a paragraph by Rosen near the top. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those article are about the term? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but... - The article as it stands is rather unsatisfactory. It gives very little context, covering only the recent use of the concept in relation to journalism and not its longer, and probably rather more notable, academic use. Also, it was created completely unreferenced, with the creator only coming back months later to provide references which are still not properly integrated into the article. However, enough of the references (the Greenwald article in The Guardian, the Friedersdorf one in The Atlantic and the Sullivan one in the NYT, at least) are reliable enough to show notability, and the Jay Rosen ones quite likely would be if they weren't primary as regards journalistic discussion of the concept (or at least the term). However, having said that, Sullivan, while referring to Rosen, actually talks about the topic as false balance, and in journalistic arguments, the two concepts do appear to be almost identical. The only reason I am not suggesting a merger is the prior use of the concept in academic discussion - see the GBooks link for several hundred examples. It should be perfectly possible to rewrite the article to be properly sourced and to cover both the original academic concept and its journalistic development. PWilkinson (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 02:00, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a mildly interesting rehtorical device, and a useful summary of something a lot of people in journalism need to think about. Too useful to delete--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the independent sources about it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. Ask the authors. I am a satisfied user.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the independent sources about it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ballads 'n' Bullets
- Ballads 'n' Bullets (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 album, fails WP:GNG (referenced only to sources associated with the band), and therefore fails WP:NALBUMS. Referenced content may be mergeto the article on the band In Legend. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. I do not see any inherent notablity. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holistic Management International
- Holistic Management International (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, especially as to coverage by unrelated parties that is actually substantial. This article's existence can be explained by blatant WP:COI editing (see history). JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as it was me who added the 'notability' clean-up tag way back when. There was little subsequent improvement and I can't see any independent coverage i.e. not a press release, a HMI publication or something directly related to Allan Savory. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as the person who dug a little deeper into Savory and the related company articles, as another BLPer eloquently put it "a walled garden of spam", a lot of COI editing and, basically, no particular notability for these organizations. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lets actually do some research into this. First four secondary sources I found mentioning the HMI and their work NRCS, Seed of Texas Magazine, Otago Daily Times, Albuquerque Business First and plenty more considering that institute is 28 years old[28]. So easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --Salix (talk): 21:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's actually check those sources. NRCS is the awarding body reporting on its own grant, not third party coverage, but WP:PRIMARY. Seed of Texas Magazine does not mention HMI. Otago Daily Times likewise does not mention HMI. Albuquerque Business First represents some coverage. It reads like a press release on the grant, but does something for WP:CORPDEPTH, though not enough in my estimation. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Otago Daily Times, he's a certified holistic management educator, guess who did the certification? Training trainers is one of the primary activities of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salix alba (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2013
- Comment in its 28 years its been renamed twice so we also need to consider sources for its previous names and is dependant organisation
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (a subsidiary org from 1992 to 2010)
- --Salix (talk): 07:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving us pieces like Lewiston Morning Tribune, 1995 showing a close link with Washington State University and a $1.1 million grant for holistic management.--Salix (talk): 08:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A good non trivial source is Fears, Robert (February 1, 2012). "A Whole View". The Cattleman. You need a HighBeam Research account to read it. It give a potted history of the group, its methods and a case study.--Salix (talk): 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable source indicates the name changes? That alone would show quite a bit of corpdepth. If the renaming does not appear in third party sources, we might as well ignore the notion. This AfD is about HMI. JFHJr (㊟) 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cattleman article shows change for 1st to 3rd name. 2nd name comes from examining the run of newsletters and other documents published.--Salix (talk): 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also point out that your own comments at the talk page belie your apparent lack of confidence as to how these entities are related. Your comment seems to be the product of speculation, WP:OR, or some kind of WP:SYNTH of primary sources. Notability isn't aggregated among orgs by a shoestring. It's all centered around Allan Savory anyway. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically I'm trying to find out as this progresses. There is a lot of literature about this topic which needs dissecting. What is now true is that Savory is no longer part of HMI with his own institute. Any source about HMI after 2009 has nothing to do with Savory.--Salix (talk): 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a influential and is gaining momentum. One would wonder why the all of Savories work is suddenly under attack? Because of the Ted Talk? Because of the successes of people like Joel Salatin? Because of the seminars by the USDA in Texas? The Universities all over the world starting to teach HM principles? [29] Why would controversy somehow make this less relevant? However, if it doesn't reach Wiki's notability requirements, then at least merge with HM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.189.106 (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — 68.12.189.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- I wanted to add this ref to the above paragraph I wrote but somehow I was unable. [30] and this [31] Sorry I am new at this.68.12.189.106 (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — 68.12.189.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It is not an attack. It's a lack of notability through coverage of Holistic Management International. The learningstore PDF link you provided does not even mention HMI. The press release by the usda has been discussed above: it is coverage by an associated organization, which gives the HMI grants. It is not third party coverage. Please see WP:IRS. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I am not following a procedure you wanted. I chose the learningstore link to show the influence of the WORK on the mainstream educational system. If you scroll down you will find a book by Savory on holistic resource management in the suggested further reading section. Anyone researching grazing systems will inevitably run across Savory's work eventually. I realize the work is not the same as the organization promoting the work. But they are related and wiki just took down the page for the actual management system. (Which I am now attempting to rewrite in accordance to wiki guidelines). But I am a new at this. So please allow some leeway for me to learn the ropes. Oh and BTW I posted the USDA link because you said the reuters news release of the same event was not sufficient. So I posted the source of the same event released by USDA and not any organization related to HMI. I see now that Salix beat me to it!Redddbaron (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit cynical of you to delete a (USDA) non-primary source while the AfD is in progress. Why not wait to see whether anyone can find suitable coverage? Sionk (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an attack. It's a lack of notability through coverage of Holistic Management International. The learningstore PDF link you provided does not even mention HMI. The press release by the usda has been discussed above: it is coverage by an associated organization, which gives the HMI grants. It is not third party coverage. Please see WP:IRS. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this, and all alternative or early names, to the article on allan Savory where they are sufficiently discussed. It's reasonable that somebody might know the name of the organization and nothing more, and this will provide the information. as the reasonable solution. I think there's a certain prejudice here regarding names that include the word "holistic"--I sympathize entirely, but there are steps sort of outright deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep this page. It's a real non profit organization that's been around for over 25 years. Here are several articles from non-HMI publications... [32] [33] [34] [35] [36][37][38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgl11453 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Sgl11453 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wrong. HMI runs holisticmanagement.org. That's about half of the sources you've offered. The Press Releases are not coverage by unrelated parties, but an agency tooting its own horn. the Heritageradionetwork.com episode doesn't even mention HMI at all (WP:FAKE is a theme here!). Barkingcatfarm is likewise not reliable coverage: it's the blog of a group reporting on itself being selected by HMI. Not coverage of HMI! Countryworldnews does give some passing mention of the company, but it does not come close to WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 15:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Please re-list this debate for a more thorough consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided I'm searching for sources at the moment, and have found a few which might be good. I'll add them to the article, but I just wanted to add a note here in case someone comes along and closes the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I found a few more references which I think are just enough to meet the GNG. It's not possible to access all of them in full, but I think that these are sufficient to show that HMI is notable and is distinct from Savory. The $4.8m grant in 2010 also demonstrates some importance. That there were COI problems with the article in the past is not a reason to delete it. Salix alba is also right to point out that the organisation has been known by several other names in the past, and there may well be other sources that I haven't found. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Redddbaron has !voted on the talk page. I'll take the liberty to copy their keep rationale here. SmartSE (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [ I've taken the liberty of removing it. Pasting other peoples' comments here will be confusing for us and them too. Redbarron has already participated in this discussion so evidently knows where to come if they want to participate further ] Sionk (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: At least for now. I just rewrote the Holistic management page to meet wiki standards. It took me a week but a lot of the research is overlapping. I agree the article doesn't meet wiki standards, but I will try to clean it up and see what people think. The reason I posted that in the talk page instead of here is that I have voted a weak keep here already (before I had my own wiki account) and already entered the discussion as redddbaron the same day I opened my account but was working on the other page first. Notability of an organization requires that their WORK be considered first, then if that WORK is notable, AND the organization can be sourced properly, then it deserves a place in wiki on its own page IMHO. The USDA link establishes at least enough notability to keep it up for now. If not, then I agree it could be merged as a small paragraph on BOTH the Savory (co-founder) and the Holistic management pages. But from the organizational standpoint, it would seem to me a stand alone article (rewritten to wiki's high standards) would be preferred over writing things twice (or more). So give me a few days please. I have a good weather day and might not get much done today, but more rain is coming, and that will give me time to do a rewrite, or at least try.Redddbaron (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- OK I added several links. Here is some more. http://hi.wiser.org/organization/view/1ee053013be43654dd575ee1a7ff9803/section/main http://www.sustainable-properties-forsale.com/sp_hm.html This says Africa Centre of Holistic Management is a regional office of HMI. http://www.ecoagriculture.org/case_study.php?id=75 but when I google ACHM I get Savory Institute instead? I think they possibly could still be linked somehow? Plenty of notability in the other links I already added to the page, but if Savory Institute is still linked somehow that would nail it...as the Buckminster Fuller award....Or maybe that is just before the split?Redddbaron (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I don't know what's going on, I made the changes and added plenty of links, yet someone else crossed my keep out. Well my vote is still vote is still keep. Just because it wasn't perfect originally doesn't mean it isn't plenty good enough now to keep. It still probably isn't perfect. All wiki pages get edited and change over time, hopefully for the better. It is certainly good enough now to keep.Redddbaron (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once and as you say you previously voted as an IP it counts twice. Probably the thing to do is strike out the IP vote with <s>...</s> so only one vote is counted.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for describing the proper procedure to me.Redddbaron (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once and as you say you previously voted as an IP it counts twice. Probably the thing to do is strike out the IP vote with <s>...</s> so only one vote is counted.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Allan Savory. This page is really straddling the border of notability. I think the best bet is to add a section into Savory’s page and keep a close eye out for COI edits. In the future if it receives more coverage it can be split off. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem of that is Savory and HMI have parted company and are now quite separate.--Salix (talk): 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then only merge the first 3 sentences in the 'About' section. J04n(talk page) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coolligraphy
- Coolligraphy (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'm not sure if this is promoting a new artform, or simply about it. Either way, neither this nor its creator (who appears to be the article's author) appear to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:03, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability by our criteria. 09:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
- Delete: Only one passing mention in the news, a 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer mention. Nothing suggesting notability. Article creator is also Coolligraphy creator, created in good faith, I am sure, but simply not aware of Wikipedia policies.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Coolligraphy" often misspelled as "cooligraphy." Please see: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cooligraphy&oq=cooligraphy&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i30.1521.3690.0.4274.11.8.0.3.3.0.129.813.5j3.8.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.TNBp--uyKYo&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1284&bih=806&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindalyc (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Please alse look at google image under cooligraph : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=cooligr&cp=11&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=cooligraphy&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ&biw=1284&bih=805&wrapid=tljp1365207205930020&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=nmhfUY-KEce64APc9YDQCQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindalyc (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Reference: http://connection.membershipsoftware.org/article.asp?article=324049&paper=67&cat=226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.86.162 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above... Mediran (t • c) 05:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl Wezy
- Darryl Wezy (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)
Also nominated, article on the subject's album:
No indication that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Neither of the sources in the article are independent (the author of ref 1 is the co-founder of the subject's record label [39]) and searching is not bringing up any coverage in reliable sources. January (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (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) 01:14, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as non-notable. Neither article makes any claim that would qualify the album or the artist under WP:MUSIC, the sources would not qualify either as notable, and despite all the efforts being made by the articles' creator, no arguments for keeping have even been attempted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for Maze of Fears I'm not in a position to judge this guy's place in the Indonesian music scene. However, based entirely on the album cover, I think Mayumi Haryoto ought to get his own article. The artwork on that cover is amazing. I wanted to keep the album article just to it up there, and this article is Haryoto's only mention in Wikipedia. Listmeister (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nexersys
- Nexersys (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)
Reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion. bender235 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (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) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (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) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete References are to company PR or to general studies not about the firm/product. I can find indication of product placements (for example into A.N.T. Farm, again PR based) but this appears to be insufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the only refs are PR, then it's a safe bet that this isn't notable - yet. That might change in the future, of course. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I kept hearing the phrase "Now how much would you pay?" as I was reading the article. Listmeister (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect into Combat Zone (studio). Looks like this is a consensus solution: nobody insists that the article should be deleted (rather than merged), and the arguments that no notability according to WP:CORP and WP:GNG has been demonstrated, was not counteracted convincingly. The info would be kept, and the redirect would make the info functional.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Filly Films
- Filly Films (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)
Minor porn company, of fairly recent establishment. Appears to fail WP:ORG guideline, lacking of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, received recognition with nominations as candidates for multiple different awards. — Cirt (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule in our guidelines saying that a company that received some award nominations is inherenty notable. The only relevant guidelines here are WP:CORP and WP:GNG, and pornographic companies are not exempt from them just because American adult industry is used to have awards with dozens of categories and hundreds of nominations. Cavarrone (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a merge with the apparent parent company Combat Zone (studio) instead of just deleting all the info from this page? Just a suggestion... Guy1890 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those industry award nominations aren't really examples of outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All these nominations show is that the company has taken out ads with the "awardgiving" organization. The only "article" cited about the company is a press release. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with Guy1890 (talk · contribs), above. If the information from this page is to be lost, please Merge with page Combat Zone (studio) and retain this page as a Redirect. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against a merging, but it is acceptable only if the link with Combat Zone (studio) is clarified. The "apparent parent company" connection needs to be documented. Cavarrone (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The two companies (Filly Films & Combat Zone (studio)) were started and are owned by the same guy (Dion Giarrusso). All of the films generated by Filly Films are distributed exclusively by Combat Films [40]. The two companies in question are even located at the exact same address in Chatsworth, CA (porn valley) [41]. I don't see what the issue would be here with a potential merge. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant recognition. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this opinion does not address the concerns. A company is defined as notable by our guidelines only if it received significant, non routine coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I've found only several press release, if you want this article kept please provide us such coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom - check of news source indicate that there is no independent sources with sufficient neutral information to expand this article per WP:V. What little info there is - is puffery (i.e. opinion) and not facts BO | Talk 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Combat Zone (studio), agree that the page doesn't meet stand alone notability but can preserve the info in the page of the parent company. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Declarative Language
- Simple Declarative Language (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 through extensive coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. A Google Scholar search for 'sdl "simple declarative language"' returns about a dozen hits, but most of these seem to be for other languages of the same name, and those that are for this particular SDL merely cite it rather than discuss it in detail. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the other Talk page (I really don't understand how these weird "discussion" pages on Wikipedia are supposed to work), SDL can hardly be considered non-notable considering that it's used by such high-profile companies/projects as Oracle, Bank of America, JTest Framework, and Swing. Remember that buzz (and especially searching exclusively in "Scholar" circles for buzz) is not the same thing as notability. Nitrode (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles on software packages on the basis of their buzz and popularity, nor on whether or not large companies use them; all that matters is establishing notability, as we define it, through evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources. If you are aware of such sources for this software, please list them here or add them to the article. We don't maintain articles which can't be sourced in this manner. Psychonaut (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any secondary sources for this topic. There are two articles on SDL at TechHui, but these are blogs by an author associated with the company that sponsors this data serialization format. There is a mention at O'Reiily, but this was just a short paragraph and not in depth. There are several language bindings/libraries for the format for Ruby, .Net and Java/Swing, but these are all sponsored by the company that sponsors this data format. That SDL exists and that the format is as the article claims is verifiable in the primary sources, but the topic does not meet notability standards either for general notability WP:GNG or software notability WP:NSOFT. SDL is worth a mention at Serialization#Serialization formats, per WP:PRESERVE. But unless secondary sources are found, the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There really is no solid information out there for SDL; the only thing you can find is mostly buzz. I was only able to find a few (3 or 4) books specifically on the subject and not just referenced as part of a known programming language (C++, .NET, etc.). I am with Mark on this one, this does not meet notability standards to remain. --Karverstudio (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, did you say you were able to find three or four books specifically on SDL? If so, then it should easily pass our notability requirements. Could you list the books here or in the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will happily change my recommendation if there are such sources. We need to be a little careful, however, because SDL is an overloaded acronym. There is a much more popular SDL in the form of Simple DirectMedia Layer and there are books written on this, e.g., the list at the SDL wiki. But I haven't seen any books for the simple declarative language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appium
- Appium (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)
Cannot find reliable sources to support notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources that may support notability: [A blog post from a company that hosts Appium as a cloud service] [News coverage mentioning another company hosting Appium as a cloud service] [A presentation featuring Appium at PyCon] [Another blog post about Appium (not by an Appium creator)] [A presentation on Appium (also not by an Appium creator)] Sahazel (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references - blogs and presentations do not establish notability, and 'cloud-computing-today.com' is a blog, not 'news coverage'; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Same story in Dr. Dobbs], in case that counts as an RS reference. 70.36.236.168 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this is just too new. I like the idea, but it needs to establish a bit more. Once that's done, we can bring this back, yesno? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the possibility of userfication for the purposes of a merge. SpinningSpark 00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard Sundberg
- Gerard Sundberg (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 reliable sources, and fails WP:MUSIC. Declined PROD pbp 00:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like doing this part, but I gotta go delete on this one. Closest I can see is WP:MUSIC #5, but CD Baby is not one such indy label - and beyond this, there's nothing else to work with that I can find. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis - I found an album Sundberg has on the Telarc label, hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - I cannot find sufficient reliable sources about him -- Foetusized (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment - I wish people would not nominate pages like this one. It was factually accurate, hurt nothing by existing, and was valid encyclopedic content. Once challenged at AfD, it becomes a search for multiple substantial independently published sources — which will end in GNG failure, deletion, and loss of nomination about this music professor and recording artist. No one here, least of all the nominator, should be proud of themselves over this outcome, which is a failure of the AfD system. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination? You mean information? The information in the article should be removed, because it's not reliably sourced and this is a BLP. pbp 21:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Some articles start small with limited information. Let's give it some time for other people to find the article and contribute what they know about Sundberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs) — 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is best left in the hands of the article creators. Frankly, if you don't fix it, who will? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I found a lot of local press stories announcing concerts with him, but little to no in-depth coverage (such as reviews of those concerts) that would pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am the article's creator. I have met Sundberg personally and he is definitely a notable musician and academic. At present, I am having difficulty locating sources in digital form (though I have some in print - newspaper clippings and so forth). I would appreciate some more time to conduct my research. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erru il 1988 (talk • contribs)
- Erru il 1988, this needs to be proven per our guidelines. Also, you have a week from the start of the AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you should read this. It's not a policy, more a true guideline, but this will tell you how to deal with this particular issue. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. SalHamton (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain I think this is borderline. Wheaton is a very respectable school, and if they made him a full professor I would trust their judgement. But Erru, there is no need at all for sources to be online; the article says he was a soloist in some performances that might have been reviewed, and it's those reviews that would make the case for notability . ( unsigned: DGG)
- Trust Wheaton's judgment on what? Are they in the business of writing encyclopedia articles on their faculty? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG means trust their judgment on notability and productivity. We do this all the time: we trust Pulitzer Prize boards, Major paper's obits, etc. to have a grasp of the notability of the subjects. We trust the judgment of majors schools (and Wheaton is one when it comes to music) in awarding tenure and especially the full professorship to notable researchers, performers, etc. Sometimes they get things wrong, so we never completely defer, but the bar (at least for me) is lower at that point. It is why we defer completely in the case of named chairs, distinguished professors, etc. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure Wheaton judged him based on his professional accomplishments. You're supposed to judge him based on his notability. 66.108.176.187 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG means trust their judgment on notability and productivity. We do this all the time: we trust Pulitzer Prize boards, Major paper's obits, etc. to have a grasp of the notability of the subjects. We trust the judgment of majors schools (and Wheaton is one when it comes to music) in awarding tenure and especially the full professorship to notable researchers, performers, etc. Sometimes they get things wrong, so we never completely defer, but the bar (at least for me) is lower at that point. It is why we defer completely in the case of named chairs, distinguished professors, etc. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust Wheaton's judgment on what? Are they in the business of writing encyclopedia articles on their faculty? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no real claim of notability and the article is not supported by a single WP:RS, but rather only personal webpages and websites selling recordings. Agricola44 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, or at least Relist Notability is impossible to prove or even define, but it seems clear that he was significant in the history of the Wheaton College Men's Glee Club. To be fair, that august Club's article is also dinged for questionable notability, but in my opinion any organization that lasts for 100 years is notable enough for a wikipedia article. I say, give Erru more time to prove significance. Listmeister (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are well-established conventions for assessing notability, one of the most important of which is that the subject must have been "noted" by reliable sources, like citations to their work, secondary articles about them, etc. Being associated with a club is not notable per se, nor is notability associated with being in existence for a certain length of time. Sources are what are needed – many eyes have looked, but none have found. Agricola44 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Neutral, leaning Weak Delete by both WP:PROF and CREATIVE. A full professor of voice at a strong college music program is usually enough for a Keep (as the "Uncertain" voter (DGG) notes), but I could not find sufficient documentation of a performing or recording career -- the Telac recording (a major label) would be enough if he were a soloist or part of a smaller group, but one of 10 or more singers on a 3 minute piece is not enough. The other two recordings, where he is the main or featured performer are not of sufficient notability to affect the outcome. Given the academic position, it wouldn't take much more to be found to push him to the Keep camp, but I just don't see it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Wheaton College Men's Glee Club, seems a shame to lose the information on the page. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The delete opinions are clearly more convincing, particularly in light of WP:BLP - poorly sourced articles about living people are to be avoided. Can be userfied or incubated at will. Sandstein 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gina Bramhill
- Gina Bramhill (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 person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). I've found mostly passing mention. Nor does she pass under WP:NACTOR on the basis of her minor appearances: 6 of 37 episodes of Being Human, and 6 of 8040 of Coronation Street. Her appearances in other contexts are decidedly insignificant. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Bit-parts in 14 episodes of 4 soaps does not constitute notability, not (apparently) minor parts in films. Being an actor is not sufficient to make a person notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actress meets WP:ENT. She appeared in six of the eight episodes of the Being Human season she was signed up for and was a major focus of the story arc of that season. I hardly consider that a 'bit-part.' Silver Buizel (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I'm not entirely sure that eight episodes of an established show is enough, if she only appeared in it and wasn't a billed star. She seems pretty new. If Frontier gets past pilot, then I'd say keep, for sure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (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)
- Comment: This new article is only two weeks old, and is almost worth keeping per WP:HOTTIE. It is rare that any artricle starts out perfect, and in fact perfection is not required. In building an encyclopedia we are allowed (even encouraged) to have start and stub class articles that may be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. What we have here is an actress only recently joining the club, and as stubby as the article is, we can verify her significant-to-plot-and-story roles as Araminty Finch in Mid Life Christmas (2009), as Venus in Propane (2009), as Judi Cale in Red Lights, as Gemma in 3 episodes of Without You, as Jodie Woodward in 4 episopes of Coronation Street, as Emily in The Frontier (2012), as Bella in Lotus Eaters, as in 6 episode of Being Human, and others seen in the article, and verifiable. Note: That some of her projects do not (yet) have articles is not a cause for deletion, nor an indicator of non-notability. More a reason to create new articles on those topics. While Bramhill is beginning to push at the intent of WP:ENT, she has so-far managed to keep a low media profile (bless her). As she is now gaining attention, perhaps best we either incubate this or userfy it (without prejudice) to its author for continued work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She's 23, and her career is gaining momentum. We'd probably have to create an article about her soon anyway, and once deleted, it's fairly difficult to resurrect. If she goes nowhere, re-nominate for deletion. Listmeister (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you're admitting it's WP:TOOSOON. Your comment also sounds like WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and maybe WP:PLEASEDONT. Do you have a notability-based or policy-based reason for keeping? JFHJr (㊟) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading my statement, I think I misrepresented my position. My intent was not WP:CRYSTAL. I'm saying it's a borderline call on the "Notable enough" question, so, I'm saying let her potential push the decision in her favor.Listmeister (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate WP:TOOSOON at this point. J04n(talk page) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - speedy deleted by Drmies. (Non-admin close) Stalwart111 05:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Force Start Comedy
- Force Start Comedy (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)
The subject seems to fail WP:ENT - very new group without significant coverage in 3rd party sources; haven't played to large crowds or demonstrated a significant following. Slashme (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article states that they are new and amateurs and do local shows. Checked their links, announcements for local shows. Per WP:BASIC. --Ben Ben (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They're not notable at this point and there's nothing to say they are. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - A7, as tagged. ukexpat (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.