Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28
![]() |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Masters Football. This decision does not imply that Masters Football is notable. J04n(talk page) 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008 National Masters (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 article with very little interest value. The Masters tournaments are a novelty event shown on Sky Sports so people can see their clubs' former players attempt to extend their careers, not anything serious. – PeeJay 00:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- 2009 National Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2010 National Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 National Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and I've not been able to find any coverage, anywhere, so it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect all to Masters Football or similar. GiantSnowman 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same argument for Masters Football, now you mention it: that doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, either. Dricherby (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's broadcast on national TV, I would say it meets GNG! GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE: routine coverage of sports events does not establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire tournament is shown on TV. How is that "routine" coverage?! GiantSnowman 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ROUTINE before asking how something is or is not routine. It specifically states that "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The coverage you're talking about is planned and the matches are pre-scheduled. Dricherby (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I completely forgot about all the spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV, thanks for point that out to me... GiantSnowman 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think I'm misunderstanding or misapplying WP:ROUTINE, it would be helpful if you'd explain what you think it actually means in this context. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A five-line match report on the BBC website = ROUTINE. An entire tournament being broadcast on national TV = not ROUTINE. GiantSnowman 09:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is routine in the sense of "We always broadcast an hour of six-a-side football on Wednesday evenings" (or how ever long it is, on whatever day), i.e., "It is our habit or routine to broadcast [...]" Compare the broadcase of football matches (these ones or even the Premier League) with nightly news bulletins. With football, the timing and content is decided in advance (as you say, there are no spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV); with news, the broadcaster has a routine of showing half an hour of news at 6pm every day but the actual content of the news bulletins is not decided in advance (e.g., spontaneously and largely out-of-the-blue, Margaret Thatcher died). Furthermore, notability generally requires multiple secondary sources. Even if consensus accepts the TV broadcasts as a source, that's only one source and it's primary. In either case, we need more sources and I, for one, have not been able to find them. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of Masters Football is not actually under discussion here; if you doubt it, you may wish to open an AfD. GiantSnowman 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any argument about the non-notability of Masters Football in general applies a fortiori to the specific cases of the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons of Masters Football, the articles under discussion at this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of Masters Football is not actually under discussion here; if you doubt it, you may wish to open an AfD. GiantSnowman 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is routine in the sense of "We always broadcast an hour of six-a-side football on Wednesday evenings" (or how ever long it is, on whatever day), i.e., "It is our habit or routine to broadcast [...]" Compare the broadcase of football matches (these ones or even the Premier League) with nightly news bulletins. With football, the timing and content is decided in advance (as you say, there are no spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV); with news, the broadcaster has a routine of showing half an hour of news at 6pm every day but the actual content of the news bulletins is not decided in advance (e.g., spontaneously and largely out-of-the-blue, Margaret Thatcher died). Furthermore, notability generally requires multiple secondary sources. Even if consensus accepts the TV broadcasts as a source, that's only one source and it's primary. In either case, we need more sources and I, for one, have not been able to find them. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A five-line match report on the BBC website = ROUTINE. An entire tournament being broadcast on national TV = not ROUTINE. GiantSnowman 09:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think I'm misunderstanding or misapplying WP:ROUTINE, it would be helpful if you'd explain what you think it actually means in this context. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I completely forgot about all the spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV, thanks for point that out to me... GiantSnowman 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ROUTINE before asking how something is or is not routine. It specifically states that "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The coverage you're talking about is planned and the matches are pre-scheduled. Dricherby (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire tournament is shown on TV. How is that "routine" coverage?! GiantSnowman 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE: routine coverage of sports events does not establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's broadcast on national TV, I would say it meets GNG! GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same argument for Masters Football, now you mention it: that doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, either. Dricherby (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If X (for example, Masters Football) is not notable, then "X in 2009" is certainly not notable (the a fortiori argument above). You're addressing the opposite case which is that if X is notable, then "X in 2009" is, as you say, not necessarily notable. Dricherby (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But Masters Football is notable. What are you even trying to argue here? GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not productive to go round this circle yet again. Dricherby (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But Masters Football is notable. What are you even trying to argue here? GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all and also Masters Football. This appears to be about a six-a-side competition for superannuated professional footballers (over 35). Since (with a few exceptions) footballers have retired from the professional game by that age, it is strictly an amateur competition, probably devised to fill up space on a satellite channel. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to be professional without being in one of the main leagues: if the footballers are paid for their time, it's not amateur. But I agree with the rest of your analysis. Dricherby (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to the parent article, Masters Football. I don't think that articles should be added to a deletion-discussion halfway through the discussion, so if anyone wants to delete Masters Football, that should be discussed in a separate AfD after this one is closed. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Masters Football. Only the finals results I think would be needed to say about each season. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 5 May 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linda Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a competent, but ordinary curator. Has "too many" occupations in first line, suggesting editor is stretching to make a case for notability. Being a Native American tribal member is not notable in itself. Nor is being an author, historian or artist, taken alone. A person must be more noted than most people in one of those fields. The article seems to say she is notable because she presents Native American material, but doesn't claim to be "one of the best" in that field either. Note that this does not claim to be a stub. It may be the maximum article that can ever be written about this person. Recommend deletion. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First draft was admittedly poorly resourced. Coombs is well-known among museum officials, educators, and professors of Native American Studies in the New England area. Hopefully the added references help indicate that she is *the* go-to person on Wampanoag history and culture.Ssenier (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see coverage in CNN, the Boston Globe, the Boca Raton News, the Providence Journal, ABC News, the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Herald and the Morning Call. She is mentioned 14 times in a book called The Wampanoag Tribe of Martha's Vineyard: Colonization to Recognition. A book called Squanto's Journey: The Story of the First Thanksgiving describes her as a "prominent Wampanoag scholar and defender of their nation's traditions". Many other books quote her and cite her work. She passes the general notability guideline, in my judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "A person must be more noted than most people in one of those fields...." This is absolutely false. If that were the case, then we would only be able to keep a few articles on musicians, a few on doctors and professors, and a few for all other fields of work. I do not want to be around to watch you try to sort our which authors you believe should be kept and which ones you believe should be deleted. While the article needs some major clean up, that doesn't mean it needs deleted. Based on the sources show above by Cullen328, there is more than enough to meet WP:GNG. The rest is all formatting and re-wording the article according to the available references. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has not received Wikipedia:Significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability has been established by multiple published, secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- Keep - Doesn't seem deletable, has too many sources establishing notability. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- She seems to have some academic prominence, but not an enormous body of work. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 2 May 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) 11:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohit Sukhija (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)
Having spent some time cleaning up this article, it now appears to me that this is an amateur actor. His one supposed film appearance is not referenced in the wikipedia article on the film in question. Deb (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will reference the articles Please don't delete. I will reference that film Station tomorrow and i will add more reference tomorrow. I request you not to delete that article.Dr Adil (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This subject, as an amateur actor, seems to fail all three criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. Of the given sources, one is a university website's main page, one is a blog, and at least three others which I spot checked don't even mention the subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. He has worked in film Dil Kya Kare and he is not an amateur actor any more, i will provide you with the citations today latter in evening. — comment added by Candicell (talk •
- You already asked to wait; Candicell and Dr Adil are the same user. You didn't need to post that again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - I replied to your comment MezzoMezzo. I will add links to night.Dr Adil (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article's creator has now added a link to the article on Dil Kya Kare, adding Mohit Sukhija to the cast list, but without any reference and there is no evidence that he was in the film. My guess is that he was just an extra.Deb (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was also seven years old, and in a non-pivotal role. I haven't seen the film; it may not have even been a speaking role. Regardless, I still lean toward delete but I would like to see feedback from more than just the three of us. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 22 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, J04n(talk page) 22:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Not notable person. Wekipedia is not the stage for self-promotion. This article should be deleted quickly.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliables sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:27, 30 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 g11 (ad for selfpublished book), a7 (author nonnotable), WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Outlander: I (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 novel by non-notable author. (See here for more on author and novel.) —teb728 t c 22:08, 28 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) 12:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ana Malit (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) Municipality in Montenegro. To whatever it refers, Ana Malit is not the name in Montenegrin/Serbian and the settlements are a hoax too. All given in Albanian making it hard to find actual sources as those would not be their official names and above that, Montenegro is a very small country with probably less than 30 settlements with town status. Those "towns" are not real. I know every inch of Montenegro. Zetatrans (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Municipalities_of_Montenegro.svg/300px-Municipalities_of_Montenegro.svg.png)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 21:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The region is described in this 1858 book. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 22:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again: Ana Malit (spelled Anamalit) is also mentioned in many sources as a historical region of Albania ceded (?) to Montenegro as a result of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.[1][2] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hasirpad, I need to extend on what I was trying to say. First it was my mistake to say "mountain", the claim on the article is that it is a municipality (opština in Montenegrin+Serbian) which it is not (see Municipalities of Montenegro). In addition, the country is mostly one municipality per town and the settlements within are villages, if not a village itself being the seat. Also, Ulcinj is a municipality of its own, there is no "inner municipality" as claimed on the article, and even then how could it come to have those towns listed inside it? Since they are written in Albanian you cannot verify what their true Montenegrin counterpart would be but it should be known that all toponyms on the territory of Montenegro have in English their names according to the local official language, not minority languages. I say it is easier to delete the page than to tidy it up according to what we can find about the geographical features. Sorry I never said this in my lead. Zetatrans (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
- Weak keep: A verifiable geographic region, though apparently not a "municipality". (Note: the spelling "Ana e Malit" appears in many sources. Which is correct?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zetatrans: I don't know what to make of your claims. You are right that there is no formal "municipality" called "Ana Malit", but that can be corrected; virtually every other claim you make can be easily disproved: Are the settlements hoaxes? All 12 place names mentioned in the article are the well-established Albanian names (some slightly misspelled) of settlements in Ulqin, and are listed alongside their Montenegrin equivalents in that article. The fact that this article calls them towns only shows that the author was unfamiliar with the formal names of Montenegrin subdivisions.
Name in article Ana Malit: | Katërkolla (Vladimir) | Krytha | Kllezna | Milla | Shasi | Amulli | Dragina | Brajsha | Sukubina | Selita | Shtodra | Rashtisha |
Albanian name in article Ulcinj: | Katërkollë | Krythë | Këllezna (1 of 2) | Millë | Shas | Amull | Draginë | Brajshë | Sukubinë | Selitë | Shtodër | Rashtishë |
Montenegrin name in article Ulcinj: | Vladimir[3] | Krute[4] | Klezna (1 of 2)[5] | Mide[6] | Šas[7] | Ambula | Draginje | Brajše | Sukobin[8] | Selita | Štodra[9] | Rastiš |
- The correspondence is quite clear. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The settlement names written in Ana Malit are in the definite noun form in Albanian. Wikipedia has an established rule when it comes to definite and indefinite noun forms of Albanian placenames, and as far as I know, dictate that they should be written in the indefinite noun form, with the exception of Tirana. The indefinite noun forms of these settlement names are found within the Ulcinj article and are, therefore, technically speaking, more correct in usage. --Prevalis (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The correspondence is quite clear. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have various maps of Montenegro which list Ana Malit as a geographic region within the municipality of Ulcinj in Montenegro. הסרפד (or Hasirpad, regardless) made a comment that the territory is a historically Albanian territory ceded to Montenegro. Not entirely sure when this event occurred but it definitely occurred sometime between 1878 and ca. 1912. 1919 seems a bit far-fetched given the territorial expansions of Montenegro at the time, which was an integral part of the Royal Yugoslavia by then. Ana Malit is in fact part of a much larger region known collectively as Ana e Malit. Albanian Ana e Malit lies adjacent to Ana Malit at the Montenegrin-Albanian border. There are other articles on Wikipedia regarding Montenegrin geographic regions, namely those near Ana Malit, which are: Mrkojevići, Krajina, Montenegro (albeit needing a revamp and major cleanup), Crmnica, etc. --Prevalis (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the exact territorial history of the area either, as I only have Google Books 'snippets' to go by. All I know is that Anamalit and Kraja were discussed or considered by the Paris Peace Conference of 1919; the rest is my guesswork. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and copy-edit as a verified geographic location. It does not appear to be a municipality in and of itself, hence the copy-edit portion of my !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all right, looks like consensus is to rewrite the article about what Ana Malit actually is. I'd say it's more an Albanian subject than Montenegrin as it stretches into Montenegro from Albania. Zetatrans (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Elvidge (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)
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Page heavily edited by banned spammer WP:RS - Lacks reliable sources WP:GNG - Lacks notability PeterWesco (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG more generally. I see maybe one reliable source discussing this individual. One point of clarification: the editor in question has been indef-blocked for promotion, but as far as I can tell has not been formally banned. Therefore his contributions are not subject to a revert-on-sight policy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the updated page Jim_Elvidge, I added many more references that confirms the notability of Jim Elvidge. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, US Patent Office, etc.) GuillermoAyala (talk) 2:22, 30 April 2013 (CST)
Regarding "Page heavily edited by banned spammer" I don't know who are you talking about, I am not a banned spammer, Jim_Elvidge Page is my first crontribution to Wikipedia. GuillermoAyala (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (CST)
- I was referring to Voidz. PeterWesco (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I heard Jim Elvidge on Coast to Coast AM years ago and his ideas blew me away. He has been on many other talk radio shows also. His book seems to be pretty popular among people who like different views on science and philosophy. He has many articles on his website and his blogs are really interesting too. He deserves a Wikipedia page for his unique theories of reality. Lewisfred78 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA LewisFred78 appears to be an SPA used to link to Jim Elvidge's site dating back to 2008 here: 1 2 3 PeterWesco (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not here to promote people. Voidz is here to promote. Spam by Voidz has no place here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not discussing at this place Voidz spamming practices or his/her Moral qualities, we are discussing Jim_Elvidge Page and it was not created by Voidz. GuillermoAyala (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (CST)
I created the page Jim_Elvidge, I have no idea why Voidz edited it. GuillermoAyala (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2013 (CST)
I consider that a person who holds 4 patents, has a published paper by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has a published book with a great following is notable enough to have his Wikipedia Page. GuillermoAyala (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.248.190 (talk)
- Comment: I think this really boils down to NOTE, I suggest ignoring other potential problems. So let's look at some issues there...
- I do not consider patents, alone, to be NOTEworthy, especially when one considers this. If the person in question had the most patents, or the newest, or something else notable, then that would be notable. But in this case it's simply "has patents" and no assertion is being made that those patents are in any way notable, or make this person notable. So, those are out, IMHO.
- So then we move onto the IEEE article. Again, I can't see this as evidence for NOTE - is he the first person to publish an IEEE article? The last? The most frequent? None of those appear to be the case, and again, the article doesn't seem to claim that this publication is evidence of NOTEworthness.
- And that brings us, finally, to theuniversesolved, and the various links that are basically discussions of it. If there's going to be NOTE then this appears to be the only evidence for it. So, to the author, can you show us how this book is NOTEworthy? Perhaps it is a best seller? Widely quoted? Etc?
- Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maury puts it quite well. Patents are not indicators of notability (honestly they're meaningless even in the patent field unless you can successfully defend against infringement). An article and a book likewise don't help things; they aren't independent coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NPROF. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:16, 3 May 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. --BDD (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- America: Land of the Free, Home of the Genetically Altered (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 book, no 3rd party sources that I can find. Actually there are is some news covering it. (St. Joseph Catholic School students write book and High school students publish novel, very similar articles, containing many identical parts) but according to that news, the book hasn't even been released for sale yet. So this is not appropriate per WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements". Author Cheyer2 (talk · contribs) declined proposed deletion without comment.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
per WP:CRYSTAL but good luck to them, hope to see it garner notability once published.As the book has now been published, CRYSTAL does not apply. But it is still WP:TOOSOON at the moment. Keri (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Keep The novel has been published as of last Friday, April 26, 2013 here and the publishing company affirmed that it will be available through Amazon and Barnes and Noble within the next few weeks. There have been a couple news articles on it, and several more are set to come out in the next month (printed and televised). The project has been gaining interest for several reasons: the students who wrote it are fairly young (around 16); the school which they attend is closing at the end of the year; and they are the only teenagers in their area of Arkansas to publish a novel together. There are reporters and many people in the area who have been asking me for information because it is difficult to find or the news agencies haven't released it yet, so I created this article. I've never edited on wiki before, much less created a page, but I would like to propose that you at least leave the page up for a month and re-evaluate the situation then. As per Wiki's request to identify my interest in the article, I am the teacher who oversaw the project. Cheyer2 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Cheyer2[reply]
- From your comments ("many people in the area who have been asking me for information") it appears that you are personally connected with this book. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Your book is not notable yet. If it becomes notable in the future then it may get an article. Feel free to create a userspace draft if you really feel that notability is imminent and do not want to lose your work.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read through that article before I created the page and adhered to its contents. I think you'll find that the contents on the page are purely objective. Because 'notable' is so arbitrary, can you offer some concrete advice?Cheyer2 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Cheyer2[reply]
- I've replied on your talk page with some pointers. Keri (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I commend you for seeking out and reading that guide. However, I don't see any indication that you really followed the advice: namely, making a userspace draft, making a request at WP:RA, and formally declaring your conflict of interest. The book sounds interesting and I hope you find success with it, but unfortunately not every good book/movie/video game/person/whatever can merit a Wikipedia article. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read through that article before I created the page and adhered to its contents. I think you'll find that the contents on the page are purely objective. Because 'notable' is so arbitrary, can you offer some concrete advice?Cheyer2 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Cheyer2[reply]
- From your comments ("many people in the area who have been asking me for information") it appears that you are personally connected with this book. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Your book is not notable yet. If it becomes notable in the future then it may get an article. Feel free to create a userspace draft if you really feel that notability is imminent and do not want to lose your work.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Good luck with the book, but some local coverage is insufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This book not meet any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for books at WP:Notability (books) (the relevant notability criteria for this AfD). Specifically:
- - It has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."
- - It has not "won a major literary award."
- - It has not "been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."
- - It is not "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country."
- - Unfortunately the book's authors are not yet "so historically significant that any of [their] written works may be considered notable."
- Don't worry, this isn't a big deal. None of the books I wrote are on Wikipedia either. Best of luck with your book! - tucoxn\talk 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This self-published book was only released just over a week ago. Amazon.com is offering the book for sale but has not even established a sales rank for it yet. There has been some limited local coverage of the authors' achievement in publishing the book, but not enough to establish notability yet. Alternatively, userfy the article so that the article creator can continue to work on it and add the future news coverage of the book if indeed it receives such coverage. The article could be moved back to the mainspace at a later date if notability were clearly established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 5 May 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. --BDD (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jafilia (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 does not assert its subject (a Joomla plugin)'s notability in the slightest, and I cannot tell from the article what exactly it does. The creator of and primary contributor to the (poorly-written) article, Yosu2010, has stated that he has a conflict of interest, as he is the administrator of the subject. — TORTOISEWRATH 21:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Jafilia is a non notable module / extension for Joomla and VirtueMart; should be delete for lacks of primary and secondary source (see [10]) and per WP:COI — Toffanin (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails all notability aspects. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:04, 5 May 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Singing Adams (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)
Band with tenuous notability, record label is redlinked, most of the references are product entries.Clyde Crashcup (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized this was previously deleted, threw a G4 tag on there for good measure. Clyde Crashcup (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, it was created through WP:AFC, still think it fails WP:MUSIC. Clyde Crashcup (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There appear to be more sources than were available at the previous AfD. There are two reviews with The Guardian (including this one that isn't in the current article), a review on the BBC's website, and an interview in Bearded. While I agree the depth of coverage is poor, I think they just scrape by WP:GNG. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Use Google, at least. These came up in the first few pages of results: BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, The Guardian, The Independent, CLASH, BBC, The Guardian. Also recorded a session for BBC radio, features members of other notable bands, etc, etc. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - Upon reviewing the sources provided by User:Michig above, this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism hey! 07:46, 1 May 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. --BDD (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Los Teke Teke (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 establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article Osplace 20:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak delete Agree with Qworty. It is a mess. No evidence of notability. No WP:RS. I have no idea what the author intends. This was subject to WP:PROD and the putative "author" did nothing to improve the article. Even if they did, this is not remotely encyclopedic, notable, or comprehensible. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments hereafter, there is some coverage. Of course, none of it is in this article yet. The article is an advertisement and promo, and is still a mess. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no idea if it's notable or not, but if the tentative consensus above changes and the article gets kept, it needs to be completely rewritten. It's almost incomprehensible as it is. LadyofShalott 20:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is an advert for a non-notable musical product. A search on Google yields lots of YouTube, file-sharing and MP3 links. I did not find newspaper or magazine links.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: Wikipedia is not MySpace, which is the usual venue for promotional content such as this. While the usual response to that is WP:SOFIXIT, my understanding of the Spanish language is insufficient to work with the sources I have found on the web, let alone comment on the notability of this ensemble. I will say, however, there does appear to be some coverage out there. Whether it's significant or reliable, I do not know. [11], [12]. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - No significant coverage, available sources insufficient to meet WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps the sources posted by Mendaliv may help, but if they don't, delete. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: created by a block-evading alternate account, no substantial contributions by anyone else, so it's technically covered by WP:CSD#G5. Amalthea 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think generally when we're at AfD already, G5 is precluded. But the fact that an indeffed user created the article while circumventing his block is persuasive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A quick search on Allmusic didn't bring up any results nor any charts from Billboard. Erick (talk) 05:11, 3 May 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 existing redirect and replace it with the new article. This could have been done with {{db-move}} and did not need an AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Largo Public Library (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)
Why the page should be deleted Alyssa editor (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Largo Public Library I need help with this.... The reason why I want to delete the "Largo Public Library" redirect page is because it is not a full article for the library, but a brief paragraph redirected under "Largo, Florida". However, I have created a page entitled "Largo Library" on more information on the library in a full article. I am not sure how to delete the redirect, and then replace it with my existing article "Largo Library", but rename this article to "Largo Public Library". This will then delete the redirect all together and have the article come up when searching "Largo Public Library".[reply]
Thanks for your help and consideration!
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 20:23, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile High Sounds (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 recording studio that also happens to train users of studio software. No references that support any amount of notability. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing independent or indeed reliable that would suffice WP:GNG - most, if not all links lead to social networking sites. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 01:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks notability and seems very promotional to me. Eeekster (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 01:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article for organization that fails GNG. Andrew327 03:56, 5 May 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. --BDD (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huzzah That Car!(car 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)
Non-notable game. Search fails to find any mention of this game. No speedy criteria can be found, so here we are. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. And if someone can actually find some legit notability, at least rename it since it's a typo. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to find sufficient secondary coverage to meet the requirements of GNG. Andrew327 03:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whatever else this article is, it certainly isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 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. A10 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Man vs. Computer (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 viral video, utterly fails WP:N Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 19:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This video is uploaded in eBaums World. TWongNew (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 3,700 hits says it all; nowhere near viral in any way, and it took me three tries to find the right combo to Google it. It should be visible in one search. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A10: duplicate of Bad Day (viral video). Via search hits, not actually known by "Man vs. Computer" and not worthy of redirect. czar · · 22:12, 28 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Live in the Studio 1979 (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)
wasn't able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable outside of an AllMusic article. Lachlan Foley 03:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not sure why we'd single out Bauhaus album articles for deletion. Bauhaus is clearly a Notable band. Isn't it standard practice to give all of a Notable band's albums their own article? What am I missing? Listmeister (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: After I wrote the above, I saw the WP:NALBUM policy, which says "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." So, I was wrong about this and the other three Bauhaus recordings AfD'ed today. Still think we should keep the articles though, for the sake of consistency. Listmeister (talk) 17:54, 9 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, MBisanz talk 21:43, 13 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:23, 20 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:32, 28 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 Power hour. The keep arguments were particularly weak. If anyone wants to merge any of it the history will remain. J04n(talk page) 13:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Centurion (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)
identical game to Power hour. Proposed for merger with it since February. References are only used to synthesize article, otherwise, the article is original research and violating WP:NOT Curb Chain (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like OR and there isn't even anything of substance which could be merged. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The author(s) of this article certainly didn't invent it, this has been around since forever and there are plenty of resources on this across the internet (and in printed material, I've seen it discussed in my local student association magazine before). Mathmo Talk 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be merged then, and the name retained. The concept of the game is identical, and the current article has nothing salvageable for a stand alone article.Curb Chain (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources do you have to verify this?Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 04:18, 20 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has draw someinterest in gaming circles.Nofatlandshark (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a pretty vague argument. Do you have any sources do you have to verify this?Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Power Hour. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:50, 3 May 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) 13:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sebastian Bonnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails PORNBIO, all significant noms are scene-related. No nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits (but several other people with same name. Book mentioned in article text is merely a collection of porn images compiled by a porn video studio, not significant or an RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 19:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has even less to commend it in terms of reliable sources or notability than its predecessor deleted article. It might well qualify as a recreated article that had previously been deleted with no new material. WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails PORNBIO and GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for many reasons, most notably PORNBIO, BIO, and GNG. Andrew327 04:34, 5 May 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) 11:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Northey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Reads like an advertisement with little supporting articles from third party sources that are not press release or non notable and blog like in nature. Fivestarfluff (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to provide a reason for deletion? hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason for deletion.Withdrawn --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 20. Snotbot t • c » 16:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Internet presence / popularity doesn't render anyone notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - I would say the fact that FORBES has listed her as one of the most influential/powerful in her field, lends credibility and inclusion. Jackryan733 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:This is creator. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:11, 5 May 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) 19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source I could find was this which is not enough for WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:11, 5 May 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) 09:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Demetrice Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. No sign of meeting WP:NACTOR. Credits appear to be bit parts and extra work. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While playing walkers on The Walking Dead is definitely cool, I see only bit parts and uncredited roles, and thus nothing to suggest notability at this time.HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HillbillyGoat (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this might be a truly marginal case, a charcter actor with lots of small parts, but those roles are in cult films and TV. No sure whether we should keep or delete. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 22 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, J04n(talk page) 19:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Neither the quality nor the quantity of his roles come close. Zero media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 28 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. WP:CSD#G7 author blanked page. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin Mulholland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails all aspects of WP:BASEBALL/N. Never played a game in the Major Leagues, nor does he meet any other notability requirement. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article created by an account that has edited no other page, making it appear possible that this is an autobiography. Aside from that, there is no notability here. I see no sources online that discuss the subject, and don't imagine there are sufficient print sources to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, things like "Bergen Record All-Century Team" and "Kevin was called up to the Cincinnati Reds in the Major Leagues in 1980" are totally unverified. The first should show up somewhere reliable, and the second appears to be totally false. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a member of an ASA National Championship team, he has competed at the highest level for his sport of softball. In the future, please include softball players on their project's AfD page. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no specific notability guideline applicable to softball players under WP:NSPORTS, and, as such, any subject claimed to be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia for a stand-alone article must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Never played in a major league professional baseball game, and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. There is insufficient in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... the article contains no sources to verify most of it's claims and he does not seem to have any claim to notability. Can also not verify Kinston Eagle's claim that the ASA National Championship team would be the highest level for softball... can not even verify that he was on the team with the sources provided. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 29 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. Courcelles 07:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gabrielle Bennett (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 actor does not appear to meet WP:ENT. Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, however none of these sources give in-depth significant coverage to the subject of this AfD; therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO, let a lone WP:ENT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ENT. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ENT. No significant roles, large fanbase or significant contribution that I could find. Transcendence (talk) 21:07, 5 May 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. Courcelles 07:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Chrome OS version history (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 a change log of software version changes and thus falls afoul of Wikipedia policy prohibiting articles that are software version change logs. Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike others (such as the iTunes version history page), this doesn't really have anything of particularly notability other than a change log. As such, I support deletion. drewmunn talk 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: NOTCHANGELOG has been repeatedly violated with version history articles, as shown here. So there's a case for keeping this one, per WP:IGNORE. But indeed, this one is only a change log covering activity in 2011. Unless we think someone is going to take the time to expand it, the topic is better served with a qualitative description of version changes on the main page. Barte (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This page is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy Bigjust (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG Transcendence (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it obviously violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Major release should have prose descriptions in the Chrome OS article. Steven Walling • talk 23:37, 5 May 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. Courcelles 07:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carlos Saliadarre (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 footballer - fails WP:NSPORTS not having played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. All his appearances for Wanderes have been on the substitutes bench, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nomination, doesn't meet the policy criteria cited in WP:NFOOTBALL. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 08:52, 4 May 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 (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep. I'll ask Ajsmith141 to improve the article. Withdrawn by nominator. EditorE (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Living in the Plastic Age (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 may be necessary to delete, like the articles Elstree (song) and Clean, Clean I had previously nominated. Despite some chart performance in the UK, along with in the Netherlands and Bangladesh that isn't even included here, a music video of song, and a cover of this song by a less-famous metal band, it's still not enough to have it's own article, because there's no critical reviews and in-depth info on this song I could find. Another problem is that there's more info on the music video than there is on other info of the song. EditorE (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are several possible outcomes here, and others should be considered before deletion. There isn't much here that's sourced but this was a #16 hit in the UK and would have received print reviews in the music mags of the era. Please consider alternatives such as merging before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be true. However, the only review I was able to find was on Fine Print Magazine, and I was unable to find any facts or articles on the making of this song. According to Wikipedia's song notability guidelines, a song may have it's own article if it "has been the subject of [multiple], non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." EditorE (talk) 20:10, 28 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. LFaraone 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zip codes of Suffolk County, New York (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)
Reopening deletion discussion. These zip codes are not notable. A directory of zip codes is not Wikipedia's purpose. This is along the same line as telephone exchanges, the middle three numbers in a 10 digit phone number, we list cities/states and area codes - not exchanges. I believe that List_of_ZIP_code_prefixes is sufficient detail. Ggpur (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the result of the previous AfD. As determined there, individual zip codes are not notable for being zip codes. However lists of zip codes are pefectly acceptable - as noted in the standards for lists, it's perfectly alright for the contents of a list not to be individually notable, as long as they're part of a notable group - which these are. And (also as per the previous AfD), while lists of zip codes at the state level would be encyclopedic (per the Five Pillars establishing Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer, the same as for populated places), most states would be highly unwieldy in size if the whole state was included in a single article - thus, a by-county breakout is appropriate, and, therefore, this list is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. The argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a weak one; just because we don't do articles on X doesn't mean we can't do articles on Y. (And the case could be made that lists of exchanges might well be notable enough for inclusion anyway, but that's another tin of brined hagfish.) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The gazetteer function is already fulfilled because the zip codes are included in the infoboxes of the relevant towns. Dricherby (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with fire, like the last AFD, consensus never discussed whether list of zip codes belongs in the encyclopedia or not. It was simply a misplaced article added on to my original nomination later. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Secret account 23:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per "not a directory" The USPS already has this one covered. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this is exactly what WP:NOTDIR is about. Unless there are sources out there that discuss these zip codes qua zip codes (for example, if they were allocated in some unusual way), then the topic just isn't notable. Dricherby (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO; this page is an "excessive listing of statistics", and duplicates the ZIP-code lookup feature at usps.com. Miniapolis 13:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 6 May 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobby (Actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Eamin Haque, Eamin Haque Bobby, Bobby (Bangladeshi actress) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not an encyclopedic article, description is too weak to tell, lacks in references and suitable links Md31sabbir (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:GNG, references added here. --Zayeem (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unenthusiastic keep; I tweaked it to some semblance of professionalism, but it's kind of meagre. If it is deleted, please also delete the Eamin Haque and Eamin Haque Bobby redirects and the Bobby (Bangladeshi actress) page, the last being the new page name. Quis separabit? 15:38, 1 May 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. LFaraone 15:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rome, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A spurious town that apparently was born out of misunderstanding of sources. There apparently was a man named Francis Pope who was granted a tract in or near the current DC boundaries, but the location is ambiguous and no source identifies it as anything like a town. A more extensive discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Hoax article?. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge into Tiber Creek.The wikipedia article does not claim it to be a "town" so that seems like a strawman argument. But it is certainly a notable part of DC history that I found is easy to get lots of info on outside of wikipedia. So why should it be impossible to get info about on wikipedia? Because someone apparently "doesn't like it", as usual. The description of this estate as a "community" may or may not be too generous, it is technically a "community" by definition, but I would have called it an estate or property. But certainly notable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Update: I am now persuaded this farm is no more notable than expanding the existing brief mention at Tiber Creek, maybe moving it out of the footnote and into the body of the text. It seems verified that the first English owner of this tract was a man named Francis Pope who thought it would be funny to have a farm called Rome on the Tiber, but what is the "fringe conspiracy" theory? That it was really a town or settlement? That this somehow foreshadowed future events or the name of the current Pope? That his ghost is now walking around the US capital and directing traffic? I don't really get what the "fringe conspiracy" accusations are about, because I haven't actually seen anyone making any such claims about this farm. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The fringe conspiracy theory is that the Jesuits were somehow behind the founding of the United States (and now secretly run the government from behind the scenes)... the theorists claim that the "fact" that US Capitol Building was placed on land that was once called "Rome" in some way "proves" this theory. It is similar to the theory that you can "prove" that the Freemasons are up to no good by looking for Masonic symbols in the street plan of Washington DC. I find it all rather silly, but then I find most conspiracy theories rather silly. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Community" is certainly too generous a way to refer to a trivial name someone gave their farm. That there was a plot of land that someone chose to call Rome that later became part of DC may merit inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but it still has to be notable as a property in order to merit its own page. I don't see how one cited reference makes it so. Further, that the man who drew a square on a map that included this farm happened to be the brother of a famous person is hardly relevant to the history of this particular farm at all. I just don't see the self-evident notability here that you do. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "But it is certainly a notable part of DC history that I found is easy to get lots of info on outside of wikipedia."[citation needed] IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Concern - While the idea that there might have been a farm/settlement/town/whatever called "Rome" in Maryland during the 1600s certainly seems plausible (given that Maryland was a Catholic colony)... I think we need more than just plausibility to keep an article. I am concerned about the fact that the only sources that seem to verify the historical existence of this farm/settlement/town/whatever are very dubious - they seem to be unreliable anti-Masonic, anti-Catholic diatribes that quote what is claimed to be the original deed. However, as far as I know, the existence of this document is not corroborated by any reliable history of Washington DC. I am concerned that the "deed" is an invention. Without more reliable sources to support the actual existence of the farm/settlement/town/whatever, I would have to say this article should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Tiber Creek cites a source to mention the existence of Mr. Pope's property "Rome", but unfortunately it doesn't link this orphan article. Does that prove to you that this actually existed and is not a made-up fantasy or lie? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Til... that source does help corroborate that there was a historical farmstead called "Rome" in the area that is now Washington, DC ... however... the source opens new concerns.
- It seems to disprove most of what is stated in the Rome, Maryland article. Especially the idea that "Rome" was located on Capital Hill (which is one of the primary reasons for saying that the "Rome" farmstead is notable)... Capital Hill is apparently on the tract of land once known as "New Troy" (the "Rome" farmstead was on a neighboring property). In short, I am not convinced that the farm called "Rome" rates an article. Certainly not one that is entitled in a way that makes the reader think it was an actual town. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, having gone through the sources I find that they are not especially consistent and that the precise location of Pope's property is on the debatable side. It seems to be just one of several properties which came to comprise the current territory of the district, or maybe not. The fishing expeditions in the archives are instructive if only because they appear to be necessary. In any case it's not clear why one particular tract of land, once the misrepresentation of it as a predecessor town to Washington be corrected, is notable here. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did stumble across one more source, that's not a fringe source but a serious history of Washington, that claims Capitol Hill itself once used to be known as "Room", and then "Rome". I don't know if anyone here noticed, but I added it to the article talkpage, Talk:Rome, Maryland, a couple days ago. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, having gone through the sources I find that they are not especially consistent and that the precise location of Pope's property is on the debatable side. It seems to be just one of several properties which came to comprise the current territory of the district, or maybe not. The fishing expeditions in the archives are instructive if only because they appear to be necessary. In any case it's not clear why one particular tract of land, once the misrepresentation of it as a predecessor town to Washington be corrected, is notable here. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Tiber Creek cites a source to mention the existence of Mr. Pope's property "Rome", but unfortunately it doesn't link this orphan article. Does that prove to you that this actually existed and is not a made-up fantasy or lie? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to a page about the history of DC. While there may be a place in Wikipedia for the fact that someone's farm named Rome ended up as part of the capitol, it is too much a stretch of WP:INHERITED to argue that every property that would later form a part of a notable city is itself notable. As it currently stands, the only information specifically about Rome could be written in a single sentence, and thus does not justify a stand-alone page. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of correcting the information in the article (see this diff), so it better matches what is said in Til's reliable source. It's a bit more than one sentence... but not much more. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Setting aside characterizations of the other tract and creek: "Rome was the name of a property granted to Francis Pope in 1668 on the western bank of Tiber Creek adjacent to the "New Troy" tract in Prince George's County, Maryland, a part of what would eventually become Washington, District of Columbia." One (albeit long) sentence. It would not be out of place to mention these farms in an article or section on the creation of the District, but we needn't have articles on each farm unless they have received significant coverage of the sort described in the WP:GNG. Just receiving passing notice is not sufficient. If one can't write more than a stub without fluffing it out with material of peripheral relevance, then it can be presumed not to be WP:NOTABLE and is better covered in a more general article. That would appear to be the case here. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of correcting the information in the article (see this diff), so it better matches what is said in Til's reliable source. It's a bit more than one sentence... but not much more. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. All we can say about the farm can be sumarized in a sentence or two, and that material is of trivial significance. Nor does it inherit much significance from the fact that the farm is now part of Washington, DC. Not convinced that it's significant enough to be mentioned in any other article, and it would be far too trivial to mention in any of the articles on Washington, DC. I don't see a viable merge target at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... I could see having a brief mention of the farm in the Tiber Creek article... it would fit in the context of explaining "how the creak got its name" (something along the lines of "Originally called 'Goose Creek', it was renamed by settler Francis Pope. Pope owned a farmstead along the banks of the creak which he named "Rome", and he renamed the creak in honor of the river which flows through that city.") Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge isn't necessary. If it's well sourced, you can just simply add a brief mention to that article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what I was suggesting. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge isn't necessary. If it's well sourced, you can just simply add a brief mention to that article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... I could see having a brief mention of the farm in the Tiber Creek article... it would fit in the context of explaining "how the creak got its name" (something along the lines of "Originally called 'Goose Creek', it was renamed by settler Francis Pope. Pope owned a farmstead along the banks of the creak which he named "Rome", and he renamed the creak in honor of the river which flows through that city.") Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:GEOLAND seems to be the most relevant guideline here. It states "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Reliable sources that document and verify governmental recognition of a place, such as a national census, are usually adequate to establish notability." However, the place was not a legally recognized as an incorporated or unincorporated entity, but rather as the name of the farm. Furthermore, the farm clearly fails WP:GNG since it seems to receive little more than a trivial mention in the sources. All useful information from this article seems to already exist in the article on Tiber Creek. I also don't think it's terribly redirect-worthy given that it's not actually a town. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article has been orphaned for five years. If it were notable, it would have been linked from Tiber Creek in that time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 6 May 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. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 07:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Campagna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. All sources are direct from user. Fivestarfluff (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - If you had actually bothered to check the sources before nominating, you'd see that there's third party references instead of entirely first party references. My theory is this man has pissed you off somehow and you're here to kill his article. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Withdrawn GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 20. Snotbot t • c » 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry new around here not sure I did this correctly but which sources were not first party? I only saw dead links that didnt seem notable in the first place, 1st party and a small local newspaper. Certainly nothing in WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO in my opinion from either though. Fivestarfluff (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's an entire article about him on Reuters Canada, so he meets notability. The entry needs to be updated and cleaned up, though, and the dead links need to be replaced with live ones.HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Is an important in his region, has a large number of productions.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be the case but i dont see it listed in the sources anywhere. As mentioned only a local paper, 1 source from reuters and some dead links. There is no update of productions since 2008 either. Again nothing that shows anything supporting WP:FILMMAKER Fivestarfluff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 28 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, czar · · 08:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Searching Google News Archive found the following sources covering him and his work. I haven't been able to find anymore, so I'm not inclined to firmly support keeping this article, but there might be more reliable sources out there.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vemix (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 neologism from non-notable person - has been PRODded, de-PRODded by original creator, re-PRODded by a second editor (against rules, probably didn't notice first PROD) with reason "non notable neologism closely related to spammyness/promotion for PDRPRTS", so bringing it here for a decision. PamD 07:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as the mistaken reprodder. Very annoying the creator abuses process to avoid or rather postpone the imo inevitable, the deletion of this article, which makes me further suspect promotional motivations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- annoying to me is the 1984 attitude when it is clear this comes from a space of love. your reason for deletion is that im "not notable", in you own words.. i honestly thought this kind of limited perspective was the reason why the wikipedia was founded, to go beyond it? what u r saying is that one that isnt in the system has no space here even if the proposal is coherent and sound, well put? this would mean for instance that the wikipedia wouldnt put up information on the earth being round, cause no one believed it for a long time. or about the wright brothers and their plane like most people until 5 years later, when people started believing. this is no different.. this is a vision up for recognition of those that can see it works regardless of the notability of the proponent. it's a new style. judge my vision and fail it if u cant understand it, or accept it if u can. but dont judge me, thats what is annoying.. i deleted ur markup cause it said that my proposal was rejected because i was of no proven notability.. honestly i believe im doing a service to the vision of wikipedia.. if u cant take an honest idea with practical examples, wanting to inspire other creators and myself for free without any intention other than sharing a vision in art, just because im not known in ur world, then what to do.. it is ur prerogative to see in which side truth stands here. that i can accept.. but dont think that u r not going against what the wikipedia will stand for throughout the ages, the new world. i will not rest and go through all the means possible to make sure the wikipedia removes the non-notable notice in the name of heart. evaluate ideas, dont evaluate people, that, dear wikipedia guardians, is not something humanity should be spending any time on.. this is what is inevitable for me. thank you for your consideration. love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Sontarieh, glad to see you are engaging in discussion rather than reverting. Let me go by your points one by one:
No, the reason deletion is proposed is that vemixing doesn't meet our notability guidelines, found at WP:N. Weather they represent your definition of notability somebody elses, or nobodies doesn't really matter - they are still the criteria for inclusion, weather we call it 'notability', 'occurrence of multiple independent reliable sources which give significant coverage to the subject' (which I myself find somewhat unwieldy in conversation), or anything else. Also note that I'm not saying you don't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion (I haven't looked in to that), but at the very least that vemixing doesn't.your reason for deletion is that im "not notable", in you own words
It does indeed also mean that if there are no independent reliable sources that earth is round, we don't report it is round. Fortunately, there are plenty of those (when I'm not nitpicking with ridiculous words like ellipsoid).
I'm not judging your vision, I'm saying it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. I am judging you, as your behaviour here has been - and still is - aimed only on inclusion of vemix, and be willing to disrupt the encyclopedia all the while. Deleting stuff from Wikipedia is a grave matter, which is why we have lots of red tape around it. You rejected the lighter proposed deletion process. You didn't ask anyone to explain what was happening, you just pushed your own point of view. This article in my opinion has no chance in being kept in a fully fledged deletion discussion like this, yet you still force the discussion. From that I get the feeling you are not trying to build an encyclopedia here, but push your point of view, which is due to it being your 'brain child' is pretty much guaranteed to be non-neutral. This leads - probably not intentionally - to wasting pretty much everyones time involved in this, just for you to have gain all you can gain from Wikipedia. And you still defend that. Quoting you
meaning, I will continue to absorb every ones time and effort here to present my own pet project, yes, I do judge that, and I ask you sincerely to abstain from that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]i will not rest and go through all the means possible to make sure the Wikipedia removes the non-notable notice in the name of heart
- Hi Sontarieh, glad to see you are engaging in discussion rather than reverting. Let me go by your points one by one:
- Delete as non-notable neologism, and unless I'm misinterpreting "it's a new style." Wikipedia is not the place to seek promotion. ALH (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, no reliable sources, neologism that hasn't taken off and is unlikely to. Also, the idea of remixing a music video is hardly as new and special as the article writer seems to think: RockAmerica was doing exactly that 30 years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not the same thing.. it is using colors and light as an instrument! it is not just remixing images, it is vemixing them into the sound. this conversation wil go down in history, trust me. u r just like the decca exacutive that told the beatles to go back to liverpool cause 4member music bands were out. check out the work itself if u think it is not new.. check it out with ur hearts rather than judging without seeing. im not asking u if u like it, just check if u really ever saw anything like it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Ok, you lost any remaining sliver of credibility you might have had when you started comparing yourself to the Beatles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- =)) im not comparing myself to the beatles mr blind to the stars, im comparing u to the decca executive that didnt even listen to their music! ok for real, i will quit this (for now) if u honestly say that uv seen work like im proposing.. im not asking that u like it, cause it is intense and over ranges that we r not used to perceiving, but just please consider it! if uv never seen anything like it, and it is coherent, than the only remaming issue is whether or not im notable.. my whole discussion here is exactly because i believe that in the wikipedia of all places, a human being should be notable just because he is born. in any case thank u for laughing, i was begining to think i was talking to robots! love
- LOL. Ok, you lost any remaining sliver of credibility you might have had when you started comparing yourself to the Beatles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not the same thing.. it is using colors and light as an instrument! it is not just remixing images, it is vemixing them into the sound. this conversation wil go down in history, trust me. u r just like the decca exacutive that told the beatles to go back to liverpool cause 4member music bands were out. check out the work itself if u think it is not new.. check it out with ur hearts rather than judging without seeing. im not asking u if u like it, just check if u really ever saw anything like it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the editor that erroneously tagged it for CSD (after the article was de-proded by the author - didn't check for that). According to google it is either a stock market index, a web site development company or a brand name for reasonably priced ladies wear. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.--Ben Ben (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mixing colors, lights and videos with the sound is a very well known technique used in Generative art since the '80. The topic lacks media coverage from primary / secondary sources; the only source is Pedro Prates citing him-self, which is against WP policies and not enought to support notability of the topic. Toffanin (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1000101110111101110 11011100010 11000101 0110011 1001 110000 10101 1001 001010 1001111010101 010101110 1010 11101010 101001 01 it is - not - generative art. ask someone that u consider an authority in generative art, and she will tell u if it is the same thing. it is the same thing in the sense that beatles and metallica play instruments and sound comes out of it. please do not dismiss something u clearly do not understand in the artistic sense just because im not famous to u.. i am notable just because i am. the non-notable reference simply has to disappear from a free wikipedia, evaluate proposals not if someone is worthy of presenting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't write that Pedro Prates is using Generative Art in his (your?) works, but that the idea of remixing colours, lights, sounds of a video (vemixing) is a very well known technique in the Generative Art since the '80, and even before was pioneered by the VJing#Antecedents movement (with the most notable case of Andy Warhol in pop art). Pedro's works / ideas are not prior art, nor is the vemix neologism. The problem here is very simple: the article about vemix is suggesting a concept similar to Remix and Dubstep but applied to video instead of music, so far so good, but that article is lacking verifiability, which is the point that you are constantly ignoring. You need to provide reliable sources about the existence / usage of the vemix neologism, instead to publish your original research (which is against the rules and the main reason of the proposed deletion) or making personal attacks. Content must be verifiable before you can add it to Wikipedia, but as you said, you are not notable, you can not be a reliable source. In light of the debacle of your so-called artistic knowledge, it's hard to assume good faith. Toffanin (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good point that we should evaluate proposals not if someone is worthy of presenting them, and that's already an important policy with regard to contributors, see WP:NPA which reads in part Comment on content, not on the contributor. But with regard to sources, assessing the assessor is central to our mission here. That's one reason that WP:COI is important, to make it possible to distinguish between evaluating a source (which is valid and important) and assessing a fellow contributor (which is in most cases contrary to policy, and often also an ad hominem logical fallacy).
- And note that there are limitations to WP:NPA. It's not a personal attack to call attention to a contributor's failure to abide by policies and guidelines. And limitations on these limitations, notably WP:AGF. There's a lot going on. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1000101110111101110 11011100010 11000101 0110011 1001 110000 10101 1001 001010 1001111010101 010101110 1010 11101010 101001 01 it is - not - generative art. ask someone that u consider an authority in generative art, and she will tell u if it is the same thing. it is the same thing in the sense that beatles and metallica play instruments and sound comes out of it. please do not dismiss something u clearly do not understand in the artistic sense just because im not famous to u.. i am notable just because i am. the non-notable reference simply has to disappear from a free wikipedia, evaluate proposals not if someone is worthy of presenting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There has been quite enough opportunity to provide sources, I've had a quick look myself quick google second try Google books actually suggests other meanings of vemix are more common , and at the risk of argument from silence, there seem to be none. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello there. thank you for finally recognizing that what im proposing is new, "similar to remix and dubstep concepts, but applied to video." that is true, but it is actually much more than that if u r sensitive to color movements with sound and vice versa, many echos spawn in boths aspects - a third aspect is actually spawning to sound and light, and this is what is very new in recognition, it feels organic. yes many movements like the vjs and even itunes and media player visualizers, and lava lamp slides have done before, and those are inevitably an inspiration in this case, but not more than houses were a precursor to skyscrapers.. the multi-dimensionality of this work is simply not comparable. there are other uses of the word vemix, thank you, but those r referring to simple remixes put out with video in all the examples u provide. meaning monodimensional remixed audio published with video. this is not what im presenting. you ask for sources. can you help me understand what you mean, for i fail to see how i could present any other. i can talk about what is done here and explain, but is what u r saying that until another publication publishes what im saying, the wikipedia cant? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontarieh (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Wikipedia does not publish original research. If it hasn't appeared in other publications, and particularly in secondary sources, then Wikipedia is not the place for it. And you seem to be confirming that this is exactly the case. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, thank you for clarifying, that is the case. it will be a pleasure to be back then if things go as i expect, thank you all for your time and peace. love and luck
- You should read this Wiki's section Wikipedia:NEO#NEO too. Toffanin (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A neologism unsupported by reliable sources. Jschnur (talk) 07:26, 29 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. --BDD (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fleeman structure (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)
Original Research, COI Bhny (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable gobbledygook per WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fringe babble. Not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Only occurrence of the term is in non-peer-reviewed self-publication by Fleeman. Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources. Jschnur (talk) 07:32, 29 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine Lyons (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 sportsperson. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:NGYMNASTICS. The infobox claimed that she won the all-around gold medal at the 2012 British Championships, which would qualify under point 5 if a senior medal. However, I believe that claim is incorrect and I have removed it. Looking at the results pages for that event, the senior women's all-around champion was Rebecca Tunney [13]. Lyons competes in the Espoir category and came 8th in Floor [14] and second in Beam [15]. There appears to be no Espoir All-Around competition and Lyons did not compete in vault or asymmetric bars [16]. It looks like she's a promising young gymnast who could well be notable in the future but she doesn't seem to be, yet. Dricherby (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- participation in a youth competition should not confer WP-notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 1 May 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. Shortly after deleting, I'll be recreating this as a redirect to YOLO (motto), for which it's a likely search term. --BDD (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- YOLO principle (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)
Per WP:NFT, or more generally per WP:V and WP:N as articulated below. This is an unreferenced substub on a neologism, discussing an apparent software design principle.
Google test for YOLO "only load once" reveals 65 actual results, and "you only load once" gives 85 actual results. None seem reliable, and oddly do not include this article. Many hits for both searches seem to be about using laundry machines. Google Scholar reveals no results, nor does my university library catalog.
It would appear that there has been at least one other attempt to find sources. The only source ever used was a forum thread, which an IP editor removed citing COI (probably meaning SPS). Speedy was declined twice, and PROD was contested by article creator. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The question is very simple: on 12 September 2012 the Wiki user User_talk:Gnarlycs create the article YOLO principle, and the same day that article is cited on a non notable russian forum by a user that goes by the nickname @gnarlycs; coincidence? of course not. It's a deliberate attempt, by the wikipedian Special:Contributions/Gnarlycs, to use Wiki's content to make a point in an on-line debate. YOLO is an original research by wikipedian Gnarlycs, nothing else; YOLO principle doesn't exist in Computer Science, hence the article should be deleted and wikipedian Gnarlycs reported for vandalism and disruptive behaviours. In this case is hard to assume good faith over user @gnarlycs due to his contributions focused entirely on YOLO. Toffanin (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete via Toffanin. Nice research. I looked it over and agree with what you said. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This would fall under WP:NEO SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOTNEO. Ducknish (talk) 21:45, 1 May 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 AfD. I'm withdrawing this , as despite the lack of content it IS notable. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoài Thượng (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 – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NGEO and WP:NPLACE. Populated settlements are generally considered notable regardless of size. If you need sources to overcome the WP:V hurdle, I suggest referring to those in the Vietnamese Wikipedia entry. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search confirms that the commune is definitely there. Verifiability is a surmountable issue. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as the nom has provided no rationale as to why this is "non notable." A verified population center. [17]. --Oakshade (talk) 21:15, 28 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, non-admin closure. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ameristrailia (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)
Reddit meme, contested PROD. No evidence that it's been covered by any third party media, no evidence of notability outside Reddit. Shouldn't it be Ameristralia? Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- K.Shankar Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Notability. Subject has been a Sarpanch (elected local official), I could find Hindu talking about his candidature, losing in assembly election. [18] [19] as indepenendent references. No siginificant coverage otherwise. Evano1van (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources given, and the only things I could find were lots of social media links and one story mentioning his name. This seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject has received passing mention in reliable sources twice (one very brief news mention, and his name listed in a book with no other details), therefore the subject is not notable as defined by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:POLITICIAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Not notable person. Wekipedia is not the stage for self-promotion. This article should be deleted quickly.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:18, 29 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. If someone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pothonggang Hotel (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)
Appears to be a non-notable run of the mill hotel with no notability claims. An anon-IP deprodded the listing stating that being a North Korean hotel makes it notable. If it was the only hotel in North Korea, perhaps. But it is one of many, and as such does not appear to be notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COMPANY (WP:ORGSIG). Ignatzmice•talk 05:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as it is a North Korean hotel. The category of NK hotels includes fewer than 20 hotels so they are all notable. --ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 12:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is a very odd argument for inclusion, I must say. There are certainly no WP policies to support such an approach. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 28 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe there is more than meets the eye. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Tourism in North Korea seems a unique enough subject that its few hotels are likely (not automatically) notable. But with only one source, best to merge this into the relevant entry at List of hotels in North Korea for the time being, without prejudice against a standalone article if further sources are discovered. --BDD (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I fail to see how this hotel deserves its own page. Does not meet WP:GNG either. It could be included in the existing 'Hotels' section of the Pyongyang article which makes more sense.--Zananiri (talk) 16:27, 5 May 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. --BDD (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brandon Oaks, Wisconsin (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, very short article about a non-notable neighborhood. - MrX 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not an independent community, it doesn't have a GNIS entry, and the only substantial sources I could find about it are on the developer's website. There's nothing to indicate this place is notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neighborhood. It might be worth a mention in an article about the larger district to which it belongs. Qworty (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a run-of-the-mill subdivision (housing estate); and such are not usually considered notable without significant coverage in independent sources. Deor (talk) 14:13, 29 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. Courcelles 07:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortuna (company) (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 meeting notability guidelines. No independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. Company seems notable, I think. Other then "As a Pole and juice drinker I recognize them for having a good selection for many years", here's some coverage in Polish sources: soków: Fuzja Agros-Fortuny i Sondy and Rynek soków: jaki los Horteksu po fuzji Fortuny i Sondy? (wyborcza.pl), O rynku soków w Polsce and Rynkiem soków rządzą polskie firmy (gazeta.pl; likely - shows on google snippet, but paywalled). Uhh, not much, I know. Here's an article about litigation involving it: Agros Fortuna skarży wadowicki Maspex (interia.pl). Its marketing company is briefly mentioned at [20], [21] (both onet.pl) and [22] (small portal?). It's sponsoring of sport at [23] (never heart of that portal). I found a Polish portal dedicated to soft drinks, they do have a series of articles about the company at [24], but it may be promotional. Ditto for marketing article at [25]. Or [26]. The company is also referred to as Agros-Fortuna, and it seems that Argos is the parent company, which may be notable (it is described as one of the biggest Polish soft drink companies). Neither has an article on pl wiki. Still, I think there's enough coverage to make it notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 22 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do the sources found by Piotrus lead to that conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to article on parent company. I didn't have any trouble finding sources covering this major player in the Polish beverage market. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:27, 3 May 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. --BDD (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Minnesota Stretching Crew (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 tag team in a minor promotion. According to OWOW, the source, they only had 4 or 5 matches. The information is in Benjamin and Lesnar articles. I don't think that the tag team has notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 15:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There seems to be some notability problems with this subject.LM2000 (talk) 20:49, 26 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for now - While it mentioned something about going against John Cena, I could not find any reliable sources to back them. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG. Even if some notable athletes were previously associated with it, bear in mind that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious Speedy if you ask me. Feedback ☎ 17:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG. STATic message me! 23:05, 28 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) 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Federico Mena (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 not an encyclopedia article, it's a summary of an autobiography hosted by the subject himself. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is a known individual in GNOME project. Earliest codes were written by him and Miguel de Icaza. This article is not a self promotion. Anyone that reads anything about the GNOME project know and heard about him abundantly. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the subject is notable enough for inclusion - but yes, the article needs some TLC and some refs. Worst case scenario, this should redirect to the GNOME page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for commenting, Ultraexactzz. As this article currently stands it fails WP:BLP policy, so it very much needs some tender loving care. The problem is that when I sought out any sort of non-trivial coverage from what Wikipedia deems reliable third party sources, I came up empty handed. I'm not sure what the policy is on setting up redirects for subjects who do not pass any relevant policy either, so I will defer to anyone else who is more versed on that topic. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 22:43, 26 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a guy working for a company--notability is barely even asserted in the article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc. Qworty (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to GNOME. There are are a lot of passing mentions in reliable sources and at least one more in-depth article, and I think if he can be considered a creative professional he may satisfy points three and/or four of WP:CREATIVE, but there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG (yet). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The FOSDEM bio is interesting but not sufficient for independent or even a reliable source. Fails pretty much everything as Qworty points out above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 6 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trancelike Void (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)
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Did a quick WP:BEFORE search and didn't find anything conclusive, and almost no results in Google News. The metal archives website is user submitted and primary source. Mkdwtalk 21:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Utterly fails WP:BAND, WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Technology and environment (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)
Synthesis of negative technological impacts on the environment. Unencyclopedic. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 23:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Basically a position paper drawn from various referenced sources. The construction and conclusions all appear to be original and supplemental to the sourced materials. IMS91319 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 22 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, largely per WP:NOR and perhaps WP:NOTESSAY - a pastiche from multiple sources coupled with original research. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 00:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree that WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY are relevant policies here. Qworty (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:41, 28 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.