Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 17
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Miss South Dakota USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jessica Fjerstad (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)
Fjerstad was Miss South Dakota USA but that alone is not enough to make her notable. She is also a lawyer, but nothing indicates she is at all notable as a lawyer. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. My sweeps turned up zilch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss South Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I support deletion rather than redirection. She isn't notable, so delete or redirect, and I see redirecting as a statement that her greatest accomplishment in life is likely to remain winning a beauty pageant aged 19. I find that rather demeaning. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Allison Paganetti (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)
Paganetti won Miss Rhode Island USA which is not enough to make her notable. Her roles in the US army are also not enough to make her a notable soldier John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT - Winning a state-level beauty pageant doesn't seem likely to establish notability, and that's Captain Paganetti's only claim to fame at present. Having an article on her seems to be an unjustifiable intrusion into her privacy. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- a state level pageant win does not qualify under ANYBIO1 (although I've seen it use in this manner, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Johnson (2nd nomination). Coverage is all localized and not significant. My searches do not turn up anything better, except this brief mention in Forbes: "What Our Troops Miss Most About America". The subject may become more notable due to military service -- who knows? Then the article can be recreated if needed. She's not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the subject has been mentioned in the press in re: her military career, so a straight up redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA may not be the best option. That's why I would advocate deletion in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as that is the WP:ONEEVENT she is notable for . - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- A BLP on a non-notable person is actually harmful as it's an invasion of the subject's privacy, and any vandalism could lead to embarrassment to them. Notability guidelines cannot be endorsed by single projects anyway. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- These are very curious arguments. By agreeing to take part in a public competition, the subject has become a "public", not a "private", person and there is no invasion of privacy. As for deleting an article because of a potential for vandalism, that argument would call for the deletion of all biographical articles on living people, and would also call for deleting all biography-related material from non-biography articles. Indeed, these are very curious arguments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Just because someone was a participant in a public event 12 years ago does not mean that they have become a permanent public figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss Pennsylvania USA. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brenda Brabham (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)
Brabham is not notable. Winning Miss Pennsylvania USA is not enough to make someone notable. This is shown in part in that the only source that is not a Miss USA publication or IMDb, is an alternative paper from Philadelphia, her hometown, that is not even about her but spends one paragraph mentioning her in an article on someone else. If that source is enough to pass GNG, than most contestants in state Miss USA pageants would be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete My sweeps didn't turn up sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Pennsylvania USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - as per usual for beauty pageant contestants. Completely non-notable. Engleham (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Laci Scott (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)
Scott is just not notable. She was Miss Oklahoma USA. Winning a state level Miss USA competition is not enough to make someone notable. The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA Subject is best known for this pageant and it is a valid search term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss Ohio USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Aisha Berry (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)
Berry is just plain not notable. Being a contestant multiple times for Miss Ohio USA does not show multiple nominations that might suggest notability, it just shows persistence. The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. 2 are Miss USA organization publications, which just don't seem to be enough. The other is from the University of Cincinnati magazine, a publication of the university she attended. This is just not enough to show she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Ohio USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Chrissa Miller (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 previous discussion was largely predicated on the flawed view that winners of Miss North Dakota USA are default notable. The general consensus in recent discussions is clear that winners of such a title are not at all default notable. So we are left to look at sources. The sources basically are what we would expect for a non-notable person. One is a paper published at the university she was a student of. University newspapers are generally not good sources to pass GNG. The other is an article from the local Bismark paper ostensibly about her. However it really is about the Minnesota Timberwolves Dance Team, and uses her as the local hook to cover a broader topic. There is no consensus that members of such teams are notable, and one article in the paper in the town she is from is just not enough to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator or Redirect as per NorthAmerica (below).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss North Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E; not independently notable. Delete option may be preferred vs redirect to avoid an article re-creation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss New Mexico USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jacqueline Deaner (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)
Deaner is not anywhere near notable. There is one source, so even if it was reliable, secondary and third party, it would not pass GNG which requires multiple. However the one source is her official "biogrpahy" for the Miss USA organization, a biography that exists for the purpose of promoting her. Miss New Mexico USA winners, like other such winners, will in general only get very limited press coverage in their home towns (not even state wide) at the time of their victory. There is just not the coverage of people winning these awards to justify having articles on them. They generally fade quickly into obscurity. They are basically one event people, and we have rules that in general discourage articles on people notable for only one event. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete My searches came up dry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss New Mexico USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 07:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss New Mexico USA as valid search term and subject is best known for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (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 the "aliens guy". The cited sources are a PR bio and a duplicate reference to a single article in his school's magazine. Seriously, this fails WP:GNG by quite a margin. I think a redirect to Ancient Aliens is the best that can be justified here. Guy (Help!) 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete His ideas are very much fringe, and the coverage he has received is not enough to establish notability in that case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Could become a better article if users were to find out about more of his talks and theories. 86.45.250.131 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- We don't keep biographies because they could, if osme theoretical sources were found, become legitimately sourced. Please provide reliable indepdnent sources if you have them. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Redirect as it stands - I was slightly surprised not to find anything that wasn't Ancient Aliens. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it would need the good sources it doesn't have. I would redirect as he's actually famous, so people might look him up - typically several hundred to a few thousand hits a day - but that's the only thing he appears to be famous for - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)- Keep - good work, Mr. Magoo - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was a bit shocked to see this, being familiar with (and, admittedly, enamored of) his pioneering work in the field of stupid internet memes. But upon searching for sources about the guy, I find bupkiss that isn't there already. So while he is the host of an unintentionally hilarious television show, and while he did inexplicably appear in some talking head roles in earlier, equally unintentionally hilarious television shows, I think I'm going to have to suggest that we
Redirectthis to Ancient Aliens. Note that I'm not suggesting that the editors who created and edited this page are aliens. But they were. Because aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Aliens.
- Comment He does have some coverage, but it's mostly just related to mainly Ancient Aliens and him only named as a host of it. Yet he does have a lot of fringe coverage. I remember there being some rule about fringe coverage, so I'm quite unsure about this case. As a bit of an archivist, I'd prefer to keep his work record as it's harder to find elsewhere so neatly put. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I were able to find coverage when I omitted the "A." and just searched for Giorgio Tsoukalos. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Added a large number of citations. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also cleaned up the article quite a bit. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also now just noticed he actually had a notable career before Ancient Aliens as the runner of a San Francisco bodybuilding competition. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am changing my vote to Keep. Right now, that article is ridiculously oversourced, and while the reliability of many of those sources in general is highly questionable, their use for this article is, I think, perfectly fine. Mr. Magoo seems to have done a wonderful job here. Also, his reddit AMA is pretty funny. That's has nothing to do with why I changed my vote (it was aliens), just something I thought I'd share. Aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am also intrigued by the seemingly short-lived bodybuilding San Francisco Pro Grand Prix. The final year seems to have been in 2006. I found this other San Francisco competition with same final year: San Francisco Pro Invitational. I compared the winners with our Grand Prix and they're the same. Lee Priest is reported by numerous sources to have won the Grand Prix in 2002, but the only San Fran win his page says is San Fran Pro Invitational. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to pass GNG. Jarkeld (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep with the current references (considering the general lack of good sources), it seems alright to me. --Jonas kork (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- List of kosher supermarkets in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. PROD removed by creator. Fails WP:DIRECTORY and WP:GNG list entries are not notable and no evidence that such a list has any notability. Velella Velella Talk 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: the fact that so few of these are wiki-linked shows the topic itself is not very notable. ubiquity (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Something about WP not being a directory. BlueSalix (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Failure of WP:DIRECTORY. Completely a non-notable list. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. None of the supermarkets themselves are wikilinked (the only ones that appear to be wikilinked actually are linked to articles about other topics with similar names), and no sources have been provided other than the web sites of a few of the supermarkets themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Pretty classic example of NOTDIRECTORY. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:LIST. A category of the more notable Koshers markets would be allowed. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gregg Turkin (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)
Appearing in an advertisement is not a the same as notability. This is a person who has had transient fame for a single event and nothing more. None of the refs establish notability for the subject of the article merely that statements surrounding him are true. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I originally placed a PROD tag on this page. He fails any standard Wikipedia has for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete local police department lawyer, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I've seen the ad, I know his face, and he's a mensch. However, he fails my standards as a notable lawyer. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Michael Johnston (actor) (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 mention of this actor on any of the Wikipedia teenwolf pages. No sources provided to confirm his role or any notability. First ref is flagged as a dangerous site by my malware protection software, the other has no reliability. Appears to fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - article has been updated with sources that satisfy GNG. He was listed at List of Teen Wolf characters, where his name is now wikilinked. Found a few other articles where his name was mentioned and they are wikilinked now too.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Harut (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Joeyconnick (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Charley Retzlaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD as non-notable boxer was contested by the original editor. Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The fighter was a fully professional athlete with 77 professional bouts in 11 years, fought contenders and one future world champion, performed all over North America, was the Minnesota heavyweight champ, and has been inducted into the Minnesota Boxing Hall of Fame. I've expanded the references from one to three. He isn't a household name today, but neither is Nap Lajoie. Brain Rodeo (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Not all pro boxers are notable. Being Minnesota state champ fails to satisfy WP:NBOX. Notability isn't inherited from who he fought and coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: May meet WP:NBOX#3, if the WBA is considered to include its predecessor NBA. Per this and this, he was in the top 10 (presumably of the NBA) in 1936. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I struck my previous vote. WP:NBOX is met by his Ring magazine ranking [1]. Jakejr (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good find. Best to let this play out but it looks like WP:NBOX is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kleptophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable medical sources Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete indeed no MEDRS sources. more playing with greek. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete MEDRS--Savonneux (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Automatonophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete indeed, no MEDRS sources. Just more fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced; no evidence this is a real thing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. This does appear to be a real phobia, and sources do exist, although not great in quality or depth: [2] (see citation at bottom), [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bwimb (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 establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete original research based on fictional sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per BOZ. Contra Stasek Lem, WP:ATD-M prefers a merge for non-notable content (the assertion that it is OR seems curious; it's more like regurgiated primary sources) rather than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge. The sources are real, the content is fictional. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Darryl Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ramon espinoza (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 could almost be speedy deleted as purely promotional. There is a claim of importance but unfortunately, this football player does not meet the relevant notability guideline since he's never played in a fully professional league Pichpich (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - has never played at a fully pro level, the page is purely an advert/CV, can't find any evidence that this footballer even exists Spiderone 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wizzogmb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND. Notability is not inherited. Virtually all references in the article are to wikipedia, instagram, etc. Autobiography written by the subject himself. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Oiram.jef (talk · contribs · count), a
Confirmed sock master, created another version of this article, MarioFernandez, which I deleted per A7. Wizzogmb (talk · contribs · count), a confirmed sock puppet, created the current one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - if this was in fact created by a confirmed sock puppet. It may even qualify for a speedy . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dead Rising#Protagonists. MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: In the future if you feel something should be redirected, please say so! Even if my "common sense" suggests a redirect, I can't override a clear consensus to delete. That would be a WP:Supervote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- List of Dead Rising characters (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 coverage doesn't warrant a split from the main series article, which can adequately handle this information (and is otherwise relatively empty). The rest of game-specific characters can be handled in individual articles. But as a separate article, there is no summary style need for the split, and the list separately lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant the separation. I've already merged content to the main series article Dead Rising#Protagonists so this list would need to redirect there to preserve attribution unless we delete that info as well—I'm fine with either result. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Not only I had had already added more coverage since de-merging it last time, but there's more coverage out there that I haven't added. Such articles include this one I recently found devoted on Chuck Greene from Dead Rising 2, and this one for Nick Ramos from Dead Rising 3. Those sources, along with the ones already in the article should be enough to pass WP:GNG. It's also perfectly acceptable for a split when there's a lot of characters and details for them for a series like Dead Rising, per WP:SIZE. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No significant coverage by WP:VG/RS'es, only appears in "Top 10..." characters lists. No origin, no development, no real reception to speak of. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article about Chuck Greene I listed above includes origins and development. Having only sources where they appear in lists do not necessarily negate their notability anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, but I don't believe a list of Dead Rising characters by itself meets WP:GNG by this point. I'd rather see a decent Dead Rising article with a sourced, short section on characters, than a huge list that just rehashes the events from the games from the characters' perspective. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article about Chuck Greene I listed above includes origins and development. Having only sources where they appear in lists do not necessarily negate their notability anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Ultimately, most of the sources currently used seem trivial. They certainly don't provide any compelling reason to have a list article over summary style descriptions in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are you guys voting "delete" instead of "redirect" or "merge"? Even if you don't agree that this subject is notable enough for its own article, a redirect makes a lot more sense, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the information for any future potential notability. I could understand going with delete if there was nothing to redirect this to, but there is, in this case, the Dead Rising series article. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect per the arguments above. And @Kokoro20:, I think that it's mostly implied that spin-off articles like this default to being merged instead of outright removed, but I could be wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you are wrong about that, @Dissident93:. If no one votes "merge" or "redirect", but just "delete", then it would probably get deleted, regardless if there's a target available. So, why vote "delete" over "redirect" or "merge"? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just assumed it was common sense for something that is directly a spin-off article to be redirected, despite calls for "deletion". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- How about changing your vote to "redirect" then, @Dissident93:? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done, but I still think common sense would apply here anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- How about changing your vote to "redirect" then, @Dissident93:? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just assumed it was common sense for something that is directly a spin-off article to be redirected, despite calls for "deletion". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you are wrong about that, @Dissident93:. If no one votes "merge" or "redirect", but just "delete", then it would probably get deleted, regardless if there's a target available. So, why vote "delete" over "redirect" or "merge"? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect I don't think we can depend on common sense or implied recommendations in an AfD discussion--it is best to make explicit recommendations based on what one thinks is best. Here the list of protagonists seems verifiable based on sources in this and the parent article. Despite the nom proposing deletion, if the nom has merged content back into the main article, a redirect is needed to preserve attribution, per WP:PROMERGE. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Polyamorous Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm unconvinced by this act's notability. aside from the lack of references and clear COI issues, relating to WP:Music, this is my assessment no indication of any chart performances. likely that no album or single charted. a handful of reviews in respectable publications. reviews to me seem to be more suited to being classified as 'trivial as per WP:Music section 4 rather than significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Main internet search results are automatic entries on places like google play and itunes and discogs. band does not have significant web presence - most viewed youtube video has 50,547 views, majority of remainder have sub-10,000 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=polyamorous+affair facebook page has 1,585 likes https://www.facebook.com/The-Polyamorous-Affair-38684109107 last.fm has 124,000 plays http://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affairhttp://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affair my interpretation of the guidelines suggests delete unless I'm missing something or misinterpreting Rayman60 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Article doesn't claim notability, and notability isn't inherited from the artists. The complete lack of sources doesn't help either. Sunmist3 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A poor article and a lack of sources in the article are not necessarily an indication of a lack of notability, as the following easily-found coverage demonstrates: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], plus [13]. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Also this. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. While poorly written and cited, article appears to have relevance by discussing a band with a clear record of recognition within the broader music community. In fact, while reviewing previous edits to the article, I noticed that several apparent citations have been removed over time. Contributors could easily modify the article to include those references again. DavDaven (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. This seems like another case of a band that's had some minimal coverage by important music outlets, and consequently that has been used to justify an article. I do feel that the notability guidelines for music need some amendment, because too often it seems that every source is linked as evidence of "coverage", but often on actual inspection this is brief, not focused on the artist, or from a local publication that's unsuitable for assessing notability (and with a whole load of recency bias thrown in too). This seems to, again, be the case here: Quite a bit of the "easily-found coverage" is L.A. based media, including an inclusion on a list no less. If this is the sum of their prominent publicity then I can't see a substantial reason to keep this; That said, the NME review is more relevant, so I'll accept there's at least a case for inclusion. But as I say, as an aside, we don't seem to hold musicians to the same stringent criteria we do other fields and this is problematic. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per sources provided by Michig. The article just needs an overhaul. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as has enough coverage in total, with the links identified earlier, passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Charles & Eddie. Clear consensus here to not keep as a standalone article. More vague after that, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect. I don't see any support for hiding the history before redirecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Eddie Chacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've been trying to wikify this mess of an article, but am now beginning to question the subject's notability as an individual. Granted, *that* song and act most definitely pass WP:Music, and have their own articles, but I don't feel the subject has done enough to warrant any notability outside of that act. As a photographer, does not meet GNG. Nowhere near. There've been a few examples of songs written by subject that have had some success, but as a composer, subject wouldn't pass WP:Music. There's an argument that the sum of their work (as part of Charles & Eddie, as a composer with isolated pockets of success, and as part of a duo with limited impact (also currently being AfD'd)) could justify an article, but this interpretation of notability seems subjective, or perhaps may be more obvious to someone with more experience, hence the nomination to get some opinions.
If consensus is keep, I'd expect everyone to be in favour of stripping it back completely from its original version prior to my input here to something far more suitable (i.e. ~80% of the article needs to go)
The long and winding bio, seemingly added by an SPA/COI is written poorly - no sources, a rambling narrative which lacks a neutral tone Rayman60 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A member of two notable groups in my view and writing big hit songs for others also makes him notable. There's also some coverage of his work outside the two bands - [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:Michig, which is the second notable group? I don't believe he was ever a member of 2 Live Crew. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strike that, I've realised you're talking about The Polyamorous Affair – they weren't wikilinked in the article so I didn't spot the connection at first. But then, I see that article is also up for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. This seems to be similiar to the recent Paul Tucker (musician) AFD in that the sole reason to include appears to be being in "two notable bands", but one of them is borderline at best and up for AFD itself. As I do not feel the second band justifies an article, I lean toward a weak delete. That said, Eddie is more notable in himself than the second, largely unknown band he is in. KaisaL (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Charles & Eddie - seems like the obvious outcome here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and then Redirect as this is basically unsourced and then not convincing for independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seems like there is no evidence of notability, either under WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Maybe non-English sources can be found, in that case please post on WP:DRV seeking a review, please. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ritam Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Salt and burn BLP. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Boy, that's a big trophy. The guy's certainly an accomplished photographer but Gnews and Gsearch doesn't reveal any significant independent solo coverage, nor has he yet received the kind of exhibits or honours that would meet the additional criteria for creative types. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- That said, there may be Hindi or Bengali coverage I'm missing. That's possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reply No article in the Hindi or Bengali wikipedia, where it would have been easy to extract refs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Our systemic bias might make me more inclined to delete if he were from a country where wikipedia gives good coverage, I suspect we need better coverage of India. And I found a reliable secondary source ref without having to look very hard. I appreciate there are problems with editors on thsi article, seems I just got it looking neutral and an editor has come in piling on the puff-piece and with little idea of how to write an encyclopedic bio of a living person but I am happy to keep editing it for neutrality. It has been advertised on upwork so needs careful watching but none of this has anything to do with whether the article should be deleted, hence my falling on the keep side. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails all criterias of WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An additional problem I have with this article that it's written like an advertisement for commercial photographer. He does have one award in not very known movie festival which may satisfy WP:CREATIVE, but this looks like WP:COATRACK for his commercial photography. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Me and some friends created this article which is about a photographer we study and like. We are photography students living in India, and although we have little knowledge of how Wikipedia works, we love what Wikipedia does and wanted to include there something we are proud of and think deserves a place in Wikipedia.
This page was recently tagged saying it needed more references, and because I didn't know what this meant at the time, I posted an ad requesting someone help me with this. Someone did take on this job, but then quit when there was an issue with a photograph used. Oddly enough, the person I hired has a very similar username to the editor who proposed this article for deletion.
We are just starting to learn how Wikipedia works, and will be fully transparent about our contributions here and any future editing. We will also stop editing this article as we feel it's now been handled by people who know what needs to be done.
There are many more references about Ritam Banerjee that I did not include: [17]], [[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and more (as well as more in Indian press). 219.91.152.121 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Based on RichardWeiss's proposal to edit and Arthistorian1977's assessment that the article may satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Aust331 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I actually think it must be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, seemed to have misinterpreted your comment about the award you found that may help the article meet WP:CREATIVE. Regardless, if User:RichardWeiss thinks this is something he can clean up, I'm willing to vote in favor of keeping. Aust331 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I actually think it must be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no convincing collections or other convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Article reads like an advertisement. I looked at all of the references in the article, none qualify as WP:RS. I also did my own google search. The first page of search results includes, in order:
- His own website
- Our article
- Behance (a photo commerce site)
- Descreative, self-described as "an Indian Advertising Creative blog"
- Instragram
- Pintrest
- Wagonart, another photography commerce site
This is not the sort of coverage notable people have. I agree about having to fight systemic bias, but there's a line, and this goes way over it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with RoySmith. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sreten Jocić (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)
Delete: as non-notable; the article, after removal of unsourced claims/speculation, is valueless. Quis separabit? 16:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable person. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's nothing from that event to suggest his own convincing independence. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ganster/murderers are not all notable, nothing about him suggests more to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't like to get personal, but I'm sad to see some names above known for utter failure to even read WP:BEFORE, let alone apply it, and apparently voting out of their ass. The guy is all over Serbian news and has been for years [23][24][25] [26][27][28]... I can agree that the article is valueless, but that is unfortunately not a valid reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - we should not base our !vote on article size or quality, but on notability guidelines. clearly this person has been the subject of coverage for years. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If someone can translate those news articles that No such user provided, then we should try to incorporate those into the article to improve it. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article consists of a couple of sentences, the most important part of which is "He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the murder of Goran Marjanović in July 1995, and is serving his sentence in a Belgrade prison." Is everyone convicted of murder (aside from the notability of the victim, i.e. assassins of U.S. presidents, et al) and sent to jail automatically notable?? I don't think so. And if that is what my ass says, it's good enough for me. Quis separabit? 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Rms125a@hotmail.com: From WP:Deletion policy (WP:ATD):
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
andIf an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD
. This is a stub. We do not delete bad articles on notable topics. WP:BEFORE expressly states thatIf there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources.
andSearch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability; The minimum search expected is a normal Google search
. And I don't see that you or any of deleters in this discussion has done even the basic Google search, thus my pretty obvious anger. - As I'm writing this, Google news search produces 746 hits on the topic. Granted, most in Serbian (which is not a reason for deletion), but there are English ones too [29][30]. For Serbian sources, which span several years, his name usually appears in the title, which means he is their primary subject, which pretty much nails the WP:GNG. For example, Google translate of two lengthy pieces in respectful Vreme 2005 2009 could be sufficient alone to make a decent stub. If you are unwilling to do that, fine, tag the article and somebody else will improve it, but do not waste our collective time by nominating it for deletion. You have been a regular editor on Wikipedia for 10+ years, and you are expected to know how things work. No such user (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neka većina odluči. Quis separabit? 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Rms125a@hotmail.com: From WP:Deletion policy (WP:ATD):
- The article consists of a couple of sentences, the most important part of which is "He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the murder of Goran Marjanović in July 1995, and is serving his sentence in a Belgrade prison." Is everyone convicted of murder (aside from the notability of the victim, i.e. assassins of U.S. presidents, et al) and sent to jail automatically notable?? I don't think so. And if that is what my ass says, it's good enough for me. Quis separabit? 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, kids, this ain't my style, but am !voting Keep here. I just ran a Google search on Joca Amsterdam and came up with 46,000 hits— I pulled up just one of the Serbian news articles, translated it through Chrome, and was able to get a sense of this dude's notability (as well as his ugly mug— yeesh!). I am surprised he hasn't made it into the English news cycles yet, considering the amount of murdering he's apparently been up to. But as has been pointed out, even coverage in just Serbian can make him notable, and seems to do so. It's a weak article, to be sure, however, and the person who threw it together did a bad job of it: it would have taken very little to have included two legitimate Serbian references here instead of making others hunt for them and invoking this entire discussion out of the ambiguity that was created. KDS4444 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Tony Fox per WP:G7. North America1000 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Henriette Löwisch (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:GNG. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Subject is covered in enough reliable sources breaking threshold of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, but mostly no support for deletion. Clearly, there is no support for deletion here. Opinions appear to be split about whether the coverage justifies a separate article or a redirect in light of the recommendations of WP:BAND about subjects mostly known for their association with a band and this is fundamentally an editorial decision; probably best to continue the discussion on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Amending my close because as pointed out on my talk page, the prior close suggested an unqualified "keep" which isn't the case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jillian Hervey (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)
Alone, Hervey does not have any notable accomplishments to have a stand-alone article. The page is riddled with trivial information about her background and briefly mentions her debut recording with her notable band. Users can argue to redirect or merge this page to Lion Babe, but there is nothing really here to combine into the band page. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect
Delete and redirectto band article Lion Babe as a plausible, categorized {{R from member}}. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) -Amended. — Sam Sailor 15:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC) - Merge and redirect to Vanessa Williams or to the band. TOOSOON perhaps, but let's preserve the bluelink, as otherwise it's just going to be recreated. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lion Babe (and add {{R from member}}). The subject is not notable independently of the band, but the name is plausible search term. There is nothing to merge from the article though, so a redirect will suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- REDIRECT to
father (Ramon Hervey II)'s page,Lion Babe, where she is surely mentioned. Quis separabit? 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually her band Lion Babe is much more notable so it is much better target for redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, @Lemongirl942 . Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep with numerous sources such as these, including this one and this one in Glamour magazine and this one and this one -- all in-depth -- plus has anybody noticed that this page averages 500 pageviews per day? Deleting this article leaves all our readers high and dry with their hair up in a frizz. Clearly she is much more than her band Lion Babe, being the subject of many articles in the media. Elle magazine devoted an entire article to her -- one of many publications doing so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- ELLE Meets Jillian Hervey, Five minutes with Lion Babe - How is the subject independently notable of the band? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Enough articles focus on her, with her name in the headline, showing her photo, making the point that she is interesting, her hair styles, etc. Of course she's a member of the band (which is notable in its own right) but the sources indicate that she is a subject in her own right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- You may wish to see my comment about WP:BAND below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Numerous sources found by clicking the links right below the section header here, Tom only lists some. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment per WP:BAND,
Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.
--Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)- Yes. She has demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. Let's look at the articles about her: Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Is the New Face of Pantene: 'It's Really Exciting to be a Voice for Girls with Curls' People Magazine; How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Learned to Love Her Curly Hair Glamour Magazine You Won't Believe How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Keeps her Curls so full and Fabulous Essence magazine Why Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Says Sweat Is the Secret to Great Volume Allure magazine Lion Babe’s Jillian Hervey Has An Important Beauty PSA For Men Huffington Post. These are just a few, there are easily a dozen more like this. They are not articles about her band, they're about her. Actually, they're about her hair. I could see more of a case to be made for the article being redirected to Jillian Hervey's Hair than to her band. --GRuban (talk)
- Good idea. We could comb the Internet for even more sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. She has demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. Let's look at the articles about her: Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Is the New Face of Pantene: 'It's Really Exciting to be a Voice for Girls with Curls' People Magazine; How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Learned to Love Her Curly Hair Glamour Magazine You Won't Believe How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Keeps her Curls so full and Fabulous Essence magazine Why Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Says Sweat Is the Secret to Great Volume Allure magazine Lion Babe’s Jillian Hervey Has An Important Beauty PSA For Men Huffington Post. These are just a few, there are easily a dozen more like this. They are not articles about her band, they're about her. Actually, they're about her hair. I could see more of a case to be made for the article being redirected to Jillian Hervey's Hair than to her band. --GRuban (talk)
- Those are all interviews and primary sources and many of the headlines itself actually reference her as "Lion Babe" member. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to her band. When she stops being mentioned as a member of the band or as an advocate for curls (if that ever happens), she will warrant a standalone article. Until then, I can't see through all the hair. KDS4444 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep with the note that usually I don't even believe in the term, keep is a keep. But I want to stress my view on this one, in light of my concern that the WP's editorial demographics may be at risk of underestimating the significance of notice for Hervey in hair politics--which is to say, in U.S. race politics. WP needs more coverage of this, not less. I don't think this could be appropriately covered on the band's page; possibly it could be covered on her mother's page (where, sigh, I'm noticing now that Williams's place in race and beauty debates in the U.S. is also probably not adequately accounted for), but given the extent of the sources on Hervey specifically, I don't see a reason to shoe-horn her into a parent's entry. I'm glad AfD has brought the entry to my attention, I'll work on it this evening. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update There's still more to add (about her childhood, her music and still more beauty/fashion coverage), but as I realize this AfD has been hanging around a while already, I thought it'd be better to give notice sooner than later that I have gone in and added a bunch of material w/sources; still a work in progress but I hope the progress at least helps clarify why I consider this entry a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Umm, WP:NOTADVOCACY is a policy. We are not supposed to cover something unless the media has covered it as well. I still don't see anything in the sources about US Race politics - the only thing I see are interviews which are primary sources and she talk about product endorsements. In addition, considering that there is a huge amount of coverage for American articles, I have no sympathy for keeping this article and intensifying our WP:GEOBIAS on Wikipedia. A redirect to the band is appropriate here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Have you had a chance to look at my updates to the entry? They are all sourced--I can assure you, the last thing I want to see on Wikipedia is unsourced commentary on race. Still not all the sources that exist are yet incorporated; here's a list of five sources where secondary commentary explicitly situates her in context of racial politics:
- http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/lion-babe-mac-future-forward.html
- http://observer.com/2016/08/taraji-p-henson-is-the-latest-black-celeb-calling-the-shots-in-beauty/
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/lion-babe-interview-its-a-good-time-for-women-in-pop-music/
- http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/634-black-weirdo-rich-kids-zoe-willow-jaden-and-pop-nepotism/
- https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/jillian-hervey-and-her-curls-1445166476632118.html
- There are also many additional sources in which secondary commentary raises the related issue of (often even framing the whole article as being about) the "natural hair movement" or the "curly hair movement" (decent overview here for anyone unfamiliar with the significance: Afro-textured_hair#Politics_of_Black_hair). As I say I've begun to incorporate sources but I've probably only gotten to a third of them so far.
- Feel obliged to say too, I'd think it truly unfortunate if the approach we took to remedying geobias was one of eliminating arguably notable cases that are subjects of multiple other points of underrepresentation on WP, as this entry is. That only narrows Wikipedia's coverage; it does nothing to expand on source-able topics that are nevertheless under-described on Wikipedia. But my bottom line here is even aside from redressing any bias, there's plenty of encyclopedic, sourceable material on this subject; much of it is not about her band, much of it is not about her parents, so it's best represented on a standalone page. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect - To Lion Babe. Too much of her more notable parts of her career is in context of her band. Maybe in a few years a standalone article will be warrented but not now.ALongStay (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as satisfying GNG. In finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources, I rely primarily on the San Francisco Chronicle,[1] Allure,[2] and Glamour[3] pieces. There are more sources given in the article and mentioned by others in this discussion, but these three are enough to sell me.
In my view, the suggestion, per BAND, that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" only applies to determinations made under that guideline; I don't believe it limits findings under the more restrictive GNG and BIO guidelines. I also don't agree that the subject is any less notable because her notability largely turns on her membership in Lion Babe: the coverage is still significant coverage of her; and many subjects are primarily notable for their involvement with a single organization or activity and are frequently referred to in reference to that: sportspeople, musicians, politicians, and astronauts come readily to mind. Rebbing 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Nina Tabios, Lion Babe Brings the Fire to San Francisco, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 7, 2016.
- ^ Andrea Arterberry, Why Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Says Sweat Is the Secret to Great Volume, Allure (June 10, 2016).
- ^ Simone Kitchens, How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Learned to Love Her Curly Hair, Glamour (June 7, 2016).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Miss Washington USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Michelle Font (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)
Michelle Font is only noted for being Miss Washington USA, and this is not enough to make her notable. The previous discussion was a mass one that closed on the assumption some of the people might be notable. Despite an attempt to claim that all Miss USA state winners were default notable, the close clearly shows that they need to be shown to be notable on an individual basis. While this article is much better fleshed out than some, I have seen ones with assertions from 2005 on what the career goal of a given individual was without any indication if they had made any progress towards that goal in the ensuing decade, the way this article is fleshed out is just not workable. Her ancestry being Puerto Rican and Cuban is sourced to facebook. Her career over the last decade is sourced to Linked-in. Those are just not the type of sources that show a person is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Washington USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Michelyn Butler (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)
Butler is only notable for winning Miss Wisconsin USA, and that alone is not enough to justify having an article in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete I agree that the notoriety level has not been reached in my book. Dolotta (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 16:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Northamerica1000.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- G7 Records (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 meet WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions in reliable sources. The previous AfD discussion in August 2011 was closed as no consensus. North America1000 17:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:CORP, can't really find much about it apart from this short mention. Seems to be a touch of WP:INHERITORG based on Ghetto Concept - likewise I'm dubious about the notability of Kwajo Cinqo outside of the group. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- a minor record label. My searches do not turn up anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- UKCloud (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 significance. Appears to be just advertising. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as all this actually amounts to is PR entirely, none of it is actually substantial or convincing, at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete puffed up, not substantial - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is not PR or Advertising? This is literally facts and content provided via references and links. Creating a page to get many people to contribute facts and knowledge to, got to start somewhere. Instead of deleting (because it's not advertising), maybe help and provide details with how to improve current page.Sachaawilks (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Of note is that promotional aspects of the article were removed by another user prior to this nomination for deletion (diff). The article does not presently have a promotional tone. However, some of the sources in the article are primary. Also, the company was previously named Skyscape Cloud Services. North America1000 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- I skimmed for sources on Skyscape and the RS coverage was mostly about the trademark dispute that led to the name change, and passing mentions noting their existence as a company that sold to the government - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Cynthia Lett. czar 16:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- International Society of Protocol & Etiquette Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NORG. Sources given are namedrops at best and no better sources were found by search. shoy (reactions) 17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
DeleteThe coverage to be found were "Yearbook of Experts, Authorities & Spokespersons," "Miss Priss in the Office: First Impressions for Corporate Women" where a "Wilvena" is said to be a search associate member with the year date 2008 for some reason following behind it and lastly "The Art of Professional Connections: Event Strategies for Successful Business Entertaining" where the creator of our organization is giving her review of the writer of the book and the organization gets namedropped. All in all pretty much no coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)- Better to Redirect to the founder's own article: Cynthia Lett. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional article on a subject with no evidence of notability. Once it's deleted, if anyone wishes to take up the suggestion of creating a redirect to Cynthia Lett, they will be free to do so, but that is not a good reason for keeping promotional content on a non-notable subject in the history, quite apart from the fact that I am highly doubtful whether Cynthia Lett is notable enough for an article anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Before ISPEP many executives were complaining that they had hired an “etiquette expert” who was “certified” and they were not well trained and couldn’t answer questions due to lack of depth of their knowledge. Before ISPEP, all a person had to do was sit in a four day class and receive a certificate of attendance and they said they were “certified”. Since 2002 when ISPEP was started, they can no longer say they are certified unless they pass the CEP or CPP exam from ISPEP. I think it is notable and significant enough to have a page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosam Allam (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Coverage is needed, no matter how significant it really is. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cynthia Lett. As much as I would like to think a freestanding page on this organization would be a net plus to WP, it doesn't seem to pass GNG muster. The fact that there is a legitimate redirect target softens the blow somewhat. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Focus on the Family. Consensus here supports mainly a redirect to Focus on the Family - the sources mentioned by Jclemens don't appear to be convincing many people of keeping the article. I'll be deleting the article prior to the redirect because the discussion indicates the current article contains no salvageable content (Jclemens's keep !vote refers exclusively to sources, not to the current article content. Andy Dingley's !vote does not appear to address the concerns about the quality of the current article text at all) and a number of people have advocated such action. This topic might develop more coverage that justifies a separate article in the future, but it doesn't appear to be right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Plugged In (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)
Delete The article for Plugged In is extremely poor and unexceptional. Not only is the article's bulk written like an advertisement and seemingly bias, but simple research proves that an entire Wikipedia article for the publication is likely unnecessary and non-noteworthy. The editor who wrote the majority of the article, @Androidmonkey5:, hasn't edited since July 21, 2015, and has only contributed to this page, leading me to believe he may have a connection with the company. Since this article's information likely couldn't be merged without major reconstruction, it would be best to delete this page. Carbrera (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Almost wholly self-sourced. It justifies a section within Focus On The Family, but not an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Adding a more specific search tool. The bare search terms seems to be the title of at least four separate books in addition to the website/community run by Focus on the Family. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as I've found sufficient sourcing without a lot of effort:
- Descriptions of Plugged In by other Christian or family-oriented media outlets: PulseFM, Hope 107.9, KPDQ, and WBFJ
- Quoted as an RS elsewhere: The Christian Beat, Christianity Today
- Urban Dictionary doesn’t like it: [31]
- Neither do some even more conservative Christians: [32]
- Book (by FotF, so not independent) ISBN 9781561796281
- Self-titled app: App Store, Play Store
- Their press releases get picked up by NRB.org
- … and even a reference.com entry [33]
- At any rate, that's a lot of sourcing, even though a lot of it is in passing and some is clearly not RS, like The Urban Dictionary which is fascinating because non-notable things don't tend to attract such criticism. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Jclemens: I appreciate your findings, but this would be better mentioned on the article for Focus on the Family. The Urban Dictionary entry has no place on the aforementioned article. Additionally, the Gospel Spam article doesn't look reliable. The app and print sources are good and all, but much more suitable on the Focus on the Family article. Carbrera (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- So if you're proposing a merge, withdraw this AfD under WP:SKCRIT point one, and start it at the talk page. If we delete this article, nothing from it can be reused per WP:CWW. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Jclemens: Merge what? The bias and obviously self-sourced information that currently plagues the article? There is nothing of use on Plugged In's page that belongs on Focus on the Family. A mere mention of anything, but definitely not an entire article or even a merge. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- So if you're proposing a merge, withdraw this AfD under WP:SKCRIT point one, and start it at the talk page. If we delete this article, nothing from it can be reused per WP:CWW. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with Focus on the Family, its parent entity. Instaurare (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect (after delete) to Focus On The Family; not independently notable. Otherwise, this is strictly advertorial content with passages such as "Plugged In is a resource designed to shine a light on the world of popular entertainment while giving families the essential tools they need to understand, navigate and impact the culture in which they live" and a full-list of non notable editorial stuff. Due to WP:PROMO concerns, a Delete & Redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why would "delete and redirect" be a useful move? Why would that ever be a useful outcome? "Merge and redirect" by all means, that has (and always has) several advantages over delete and redirect.
- Redirecting to a "blind" article with no relevant content confuses readers (but we keep doing this). Merging gives a useful coverage of a topic, like Plugged In, which might be useful but not WP:N-notable. Deleting also makes it impractical to re-use content, either to access itfor re-use, or to credit its authorship as is required. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: the current article does not appear to have any content suitable for merging. It largely consists of advertorial description of what it does and a list of non-notable staff. For example:
References
- ^ http://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews
- ^ http://www.pluggedin.com/music-reviews
- ^ http://www.pluggedin.com/tv-reviews
- ^ http://www.pluggedin.com/game-reviews
- ^ http://www.pluggedin.com/book-reviews
- ^ http://pluggedin.focusonthefamily.com/
- ^ https://connect.focusonthefamily.com/aprimo/AudienceUpdate.aspx?D=b9ca57b2fbe8cb42458807853387983f6a0f6be5ccdab113&T=1&A=83f2ca9b0cad5323&F=d0f05528368ce09a&M=b333208886639fd5&G=951c0aad4f451d07ded428ddc25201eb&FromSite=PluggedIn
- Delete and then Redirect as there's no need to keep if it's all questionable and then not convincing for independent notability; there's also no guarantee it will be notable in the future. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seems like the consensus indicates that references provided in the article don't contain enough to establish notability. Also WP:FRANKENSTEIN concerns exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kevin McCullough (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)
Deleted in 2007 however it would imaginably not be the same as now thus renominating, my searches are not finding anything actually substantial and the article itself also mirrors this. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not enough sources to show he is an impactful journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have no strong feelings on this one, but looking at the old AfD and the current text, I'm uncertain they're even for the same person. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- There do seem to be at least 2 journalists conflated here, one has recently retired from a career as a news anchor in upstate New York [34]. The other appears to be a mid-career journalist at CNBC [35] I have no idea who the journalist in that old AFD was, but searching news archives on this name is tough, it's an extremely common name, there's a prominent Canadian attorney, a guy whose house got hit by a flood in Flroida, another who gets picked up for drunk-and-disorderly, a high school track star, and multiple respectable men in Ireland. There is also, however, an internet newscaster, here's a 2003 news story on him"Salem Communications announced the relocation of Kevin McCullough from WYLL AM1160 in Chicago to be on air in New York, Monday through Friday... WMCA 570AM... The mission of "Kevin McCullough Live from New York" is to be a daily intersection of news and current events through the dialogue of faith, conscience, and country. Along with being a radio talk show host, Kevin McCullough is a syndicated columnist, and is a past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards." There's more, but I was using a password protected archive (Proquest) Thing is, this article seems to have conflated the first 2 journalists. This is going to require more time than I have right now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - a micro-stub of an article on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - subject has enough references to be notable for a stub article, full disclosure I am also the editor who created this article, vote keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - None of what's been listed is actually convincing for his own convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- I still don't see sources suggesting individual notability. Yes, the subject is an anchor for a TV channel, but many are and thus he is not necessarily worthy of note. Both the sources and the content in the article are not substantial to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "delete" side has the more persuasive arguments because Geoff has looked at the sources in detail and concluded that they generally do not support the content. His argument has not been rebutted. Sandstein 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ashanti cuisine (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 content of this article seems to mislead. The creator of the article has several sock puppet accounts used in promoting Ashanti or Ashantiland usage on Wikipedia over Ghana or Ghanaian. Take a look at the Products section in this very article. →Enock4seth (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The Ashanti are a major ethnic group in Ghana. Their cuisine should be notable and sources are provided for this article. The problems mentioned in the nomination seem to be real and probably need some kind of arbitration. But deleting a notable topic would not help.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I think there could possibly enough in some of the references to satisfy WP:GNG for an article on culture, but not cuisine. I am confused because the article began life in 2012 as a discussion of Akan cuisine and the principal cited sources refer to Akan traditions. Are Akan and Ashanti/Asante one in the same? Further, one source, which was a dead link, turned out to be, when I restored it, just a blog post and definitely not a reliable source. Another source turns out to be a book on Akan customs, but does not mention the foods for which it is cited. The third cited source, on the Akan diaspora, also does not appear to mention the foods for which it is cited in the article. There may be something under all the mush, but it is very hard to see it. Delete and start over with better sources and a bit less "Ashante 'everything'" labels. Geoff | Who, me? 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Non-Klinefelter XXY (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)
Prior to the main part of the nomination, I should mention the article's recent history. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d removed much of the article's content, then posted on the talk page suggesting the article should be deleted. I have restored the version prior to the IP's edits prior to this nomination as the removed content's (lack of?) usefulness to the encylopedia is central to this discussion. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d may wish to comment here, but if they do not, commentators here should have a look at their talk page comment which outlines a deletion rationale.
On reflection, despite being the AfC editor who approved this 3 years ago, I believe deletion is appropriate here. In the 2014 deletion discussion (no-consensus), I suggested moving to Gender identity and sex chromosome anomalies, which would be broader in scope. However, I now think that if such an article is created it would be better done from scratch rather than being based upon this article.
It seems apparent that this article was created as a content fork for Klinefelter syndrome, advancing a POV that a person with the XXY karyotype does not have Klinefelter syndrome if they do not identify as male. I believe content to this extent was bounced from the Klinefelter syndrome article. There is relevant discussion on Talk:Klinefelter syndrome.
The grounding in reliable sources is quite scant here. Although several papers are cited, it is not apparent that "non-Klinefelter XXY" is widely considered as a status for XXY persons (specifically SRY-positive XXY persons). This article gives a lot of weight to the "non-binary" gender category, I do not believe this weight is justified.
Overall, there's no evidence that XXY individuals identify as female or non-binary any more often than XY persons, and the inherent assertion that such persons having or not having Klinefelter syndrome being dependent on that identity is insufficiently supported. There does not seem to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article on gender identity for XXY persons. LukeSurl t c 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging editors who contributed to the prior (no-consensus) AfD for this article: @Novangelis:, @Trankuility:, @CAWilson52:, @Mikeman67:, @Flyer22:, @Bluerasberry:, @Cirt:. --LukeSurl t c 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure I am still not ready to give an opinion about whether to keep or delete it. I gave a quick look. The sources seem fair but I did not read into them and do not know much about this. I will cross-post this to WP:LGBT for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to describe people who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome but don't identify as their given gender. It's thus something that belongs at the article for Klinefelter syndrome and possibly in a section of its own; if it has coverage, but I'm not really finding usage of the term, and there's no sense redirecting "non-Klinefelter" to "Klinefelter." Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/integrate into Klinefelter syndrome Thanks for the ping. My views remain that this article should be deleted with its content appended to a section of the main article for Klinefelter syndrome. The term "Non-Klinefelter XXY" does not appear to be in meaningful use, but the term XXY is very much in use by persons with XXY sex chromosomes, and to some of those persons it avoids the male-specific connotations of Klinefelter syndrome. Trankuility (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- List of Roadside zoos in the United States (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 significance. Page is almost entirely empty sections and red links. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The main article for this would be Zoo#Roadside zoos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I mean, there definitely is potential to this article. Most of these zoos are notable and have news-sites cover them, even though nearly all of them are for bad things such as violations and animal deaths. (example 1, example 2) Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- But that's what I'm kinda wondering. The "main article," for want of a better term, states that "Since they are sometimes less regulated, roadside zoos are often subject to accusations of neglect and cruelty." So is that the criteria for inclusion? A small zoo gets hit with an accusation of animal cruelty, it's located near a road, and gets added to this list? I wonder if this isn't a case of WP:ATTACK or WP:COAT? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's not really the criteria. The criteria is that it must be a roadside zoo. It is not the point that they are particularly volatile, however if that makes it notable, that's fine. It still has to be a roadside zoo (this seems confusing, I can reword it if you want) Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There are only two articles, one of which is already in the List of zoos in the United States. There's no need for two lists at this point. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an indiscriminate list. The topic is already addressed in Zoo#Roadside zoos sufficiently. If the red linked articles are developed into articles on notable subjects, than a list can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as vague and indiscriminate list. Should the zoo be noteworthy enough for inclusion, it may be documented at List of zoos in the United States. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There's nothing to merge, and the capital R makes it a useless redirect. We already have a list of zoos in the United States which would encompass this sort of zoo. There's furthermore difficulty in making a distinction, with the two zoos on the list that we do have articles for appearing to be normal zoos (a 60 acre zoo=roadside?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Torgoen Swiss (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)
Previously nominated for deletion by someone else, but closed for lack of input. No in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources - just some passing mentions and press releases. I suspect the article creator has COI. Citobun (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- a non-notable brand. Mostly trivial coverage: all I see are blogs, press releases and adverts. Sources discussed at the last AfD are insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH> K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. the sources are the sort of promotional mentions to be expected. This was aa draft the contributor moved themselves from Draft space; the various diverse articles on small companies from this contributor all need to be examined. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Press releases, trivial quotation by the founder in one article, and advertisements. Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. I agree this brand is not notable. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- SNOW Delete as this is frankly speedy material, consisting only of PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 02:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Eric Edmeades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD previously removed. There has been years of significant undisclosed COI editing surrounding this person (most recently this deceptive edit). Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria - references are mostly unreliable, i.e. self-published, blogs, or garbage like this. Lacks coverable in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. A puff piece, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete Not even one of the sources is truly viable.The article is also written in a strange manner, as if someone wanted to be blatant about COI. The Humanitarian Works section is especially guilty of this. It's got a fairly unencyclopedic tale which is sourced to a blog post by the person himself. I tried searching for sources myself but they were mostly just sideline mentions, nothing of great note. The most viable one I found was this Estonian article. Running it through Google translate, it says it's from an economic leadership columnist and it has the columnist describing Edmeades' guideline to success. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
|
- Keep This may be my fault. I am not a regular editor and while I am a fan, I have no close ties to the subject. (Disclosure: I have seen him speak at business conferences and met briefly at one, not that he would remember.) I will jump back in and try to clean up. Many of the bad sources might be my doing. Also, there was an early edtior (E2Sue or something) that I think worked for Edmeades at one stage but I don't think she has edited the page in years. SpecialFXavier (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: The first two "keep" votes above come from two single-purpose accounts with probable conflict of interest. SpecialFXavier's short editing history includes persistently adding disparaging content against Ray Duncan and David Duncan (vintner), two men that Eric Edmeades has apparently accused of fraud. These two single-purpose accounts follow a long list of other single-purpose accounts that serve only to promote Eric Edmeades and his interests on Wikipedia:
- 81.132.177.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 142.166.81.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- E2 Sue (talk · contribs)
- 86.138.145.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 88.107.30.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 202.176.200.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 202.169.246.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 203.118.59.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 216.232.47.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - removed notability and article tags, added content about Kerner (Edmeade's company) on other pages
- 196.38.228.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - deleted past PROD and notability tags
- 206.47.36.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - removed notability tags
- 61.8.120.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 76.232.8.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - adding links to his personal website, Facebook page, adding promotional content
- 209.133.123.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 76.251.106.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 76.234.121.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 76.252.223.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 76.252.223.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - added ridiculous "quotations" and also started WikiQuote page for Edmeades
- 206.176.237.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 65.255.49.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 65.255.53.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 64.134.231.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - damage control in response to Kerner having filed for bankruptcy protection
- 24.84.209.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Vinterchuck (talk · contribs) - more damage control, and some disparaging remarks about one of Edmeades' foes
- Peterchasefx (talk · contribs) - has added multiple photos of Edmeades, suggesting some kind of COI. Has also removed, PROD, notability, and COI tags on multiple occasions and participated in talk page discussions without declaring any conflict of interest.
- 142.166.81.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - using deceptive edit summary to re-add Edmeade's name to a list of alumni
- Over the years various people have challenged the notability of this subject as well as the article's neutrality. But an anonymous IP or single-purpose account always seems to show up promptly to remove PROD and maintenance tags. Hence I seriously suspect a case of paid editing and/or undeclared conflict of interest. User:Paleomaan, contrary to your claim that Edmeades is "clearly notable" I am still not seeing significant, in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources.
- Lastly: the photo of Edmeades on this page comes from the official website of Kerner, further suggesting undeclared COI for promotional purposes. Citobun (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I have stated elsewhere, the issues here are about editing and sources. User:Citobun, you have said that there are only glancing references to Edmeades in the press when a cursory search turns up several articles about Edmeades (mostly related to his role at Kerner Optical) in Variety_(magazine), and additional articles by CNN, Forbes, the Sunday Times and a variety of publications in a number of European newspapers and magazines. The article has more poor sources than good ones but there are plenty of good ones. This is a strong case to clean up the article and not to delete it. Paleomaan (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs).
- I replied in detail below. These articles do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia policy. This article has existed for nearly a decade, has had hundreds of edits by single-purpose accounts and still the notability criteria have not been met. Citobun (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This being one of my first few edits , i'll only make couple of points: First, the article has a huge overall scope for improvement ,specially the pics. There is no doubt about that.Second is the all important point of notability. Withstanding the first point of average overall quality of the article in question, the only fact that Mr Edmeades is actually linked with the Kerner Group which has been renowned in the fields of visual effects,modelling etc over a long period of time, has had past association with George Lucas' company ILM( Industrial Light & Magic) makes him notable enough to have a small basic article to exist.
- Any little search can easily prove his association with the Kerner Group which is unquestionable. The importance of companies like Kerner Optical, Kforce etc make Mr Edmeades notable enough for the article to exist. I have seen many credible sources to prove his asscociation with the Kerner Group, few being :
- * http://variety.com/2011/film/news/kerner-optical-shutters-amid-bankruptcy-1118042318/
- * http://www.cgw.com/Press-Center/Web-Exclusives/2010/The-Kerner-Group-Focuses-on-3D-Production.aspx
- Having said that ,i have no first hand information to comment on the facts relating to bankrupcy filing,his relationships,disputes with some people etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.212.172 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — 117.234.212.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- These two sources are just passing mentions of Edmeades within the context of Kerner Optical. They are not in-depth nor do they meet the other criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't doubt that Kerner is notable but I am still not seeing significant in-depth coverage of Edmeades himself in reliable, independent secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, I included information about the Kerner Optical bankruptcy because the Duncan's were burying it. I have been around the visual effects industry long enough ( long before Edmeades ) to value the contribution that Kerner Optical made to the industry and to be annoyed at Duncan's killing off of the business and, worse, his burying of that fact at every turn. It happened. It is notable. And is father was involved, as noted in the sources I listed. That a user named 'family friend' undid my edits does not make them true and should not have an impact on my contributions here, even if they were somewhat misguided. If you don't like some of the content on this page, delete it or modify the article. The notability issue is not in question but may have been obscured by overzealous references to invalid sources (some of which may have been mind). I am working on it. I found, for instance, two references today of Edmeades appearing as a subject of discussion in published books, one in 2010 (which internally references an article about him in the Sunday Times) and one in 2015. I included them on the page.
- I agree about the photo. Funny enough, I posted about that in the TALK page asking for help with uploading something different. SpecialFXavier (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment There seems to be permanent COI editing on this article and has been like that for 9 years now ever since the creation, and the COI tag keeps getting removed. It was again removed, but I returned it and added a reason of never removing it because the page has had COI issues for years and years and the COI tag, again, keeps getting removed. Also added the not-a-ballot template here. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and where these tags have been added the answer should have been to correct the COI entries, not through the baby out with the bathwater. Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs).
- Delete non-notable businessman and speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, a gsearch brings up no useable book reviews, WorldCat shows no library holdings[36].Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- But a gsearch does bring up at least two references to Edmeades' being discussed in published business books. Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs).
- Link? Citobun (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
|
Keep according to Bristol Post "...Eric is one of the most effective business mentors in the world."1 I think that makes it notable enough. The article mentions he was also nominated for Entrepreneur of the Year, well I cited that term. The article needs few reliable sources, I've added couple of them. Article should be given a chance for cleanup. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is NOT a reliable source, it is an event listing written by the group that hired Edmeades to speak! It was not written by Bristol Post. The article has been given plenty of chances for cleanup over the past decade – and still there is no in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- And what about the article that was originally made by Bristol Post. Like I said the article needs additional reliable references..they exist somewhere out there for someone to find and add. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- What article by Bristol Post? Where is that? The link you posted was written by YESBristol, a group that hired Edmeades to speak. If these reliable sources exist, add them!
- User:Umais Bin Sajjad, I see you have engaged in paid editing work (although you have placed a speedy deletion tag on the only page with a record of that). Do you have any COI in this case? You also added as references an obvious Wikipedia mirror and a short bio seemingly written by Edmeades himself, or one of his staffers. These are not reliable sources.
- Guys, this is getting absurd. If this guy is really notable – as so many sockpuppets have insisted over the past decade – then someone should be able to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with my paid work. I started and recently closed. I've reached here having Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople in my watchlist. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- So what is the basis for your "Keep" vote? Citobun (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- These: [37][38] [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs)
- The first is about his company and only mentions him in passing. The second is CNN iReports, which is user-contributed content, and it literally says so on the page you linked. The third appears to actually be someone using him for business acumen, so might be useful - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- These: [37][38] [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs)
- So what is the basis for your "Keep" vote? Citobun (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I just did a quick reference check. Everything about Edmeades himself is puffed up, per the blatantly promotional tone of the piece. The various Kerner enterprises may or may not be notable, but I'm utterly unconvinced about Edmeades himself. In the event this is kept, it'll need to be culled to about the size of a stub - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not seeing or finding independent, reliable sources showing his notability, and most of the article has little to do with Edmeades himself. Meters (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete then Redirect to Kerner Optical, where he was chairman - There's a very weak argument for notability, but even if it were just enough, the promotion, socking, and likely paid editing makes it a WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Kerner Optical. Outside of his involvement with that, the rest of this looks like puffery. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT and redirect to Kerner Optical. While a legitimate claim of notability, and the reliable sourcing necessary to support it properly, might be possible here, all the COI socking makes it virtually impossible to properly sort out what's valid content and what's PR puffery. Entirely too much of the sourcing here right now is parked on primary sources, press releases, YouTube videos and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him — and that's not how any person, regardless of their notability claim or lack thereof, gets to source or keep a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Holy smokes are there a lot of questionable edits here at at AFD for this "serial entrepreneur" and "philanthropist" -- so much so that if these accounts were affiliated with the subject or his PR firm, they would be a rather poor reflection on him, no? Anyway, that hypothetical thought experiment aside, Gnews simply does not have the level of coverage that would make a separate bio article deserved. Be very interested to see if this needs to be SALTed, too, if deleted here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I wasn't able to find much of anything either. Also per Shawn, consider salting with prejudice if not redirected. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Improve & Keep There seems to be a lot of to and fro motion as regards to this article. Although the earnestness of the article writers is questionable as is the quality of the article, this does not take away anything from the fact that the article in its inherent nature deserves to exist. The detractors have not supported any attempt to clean or improve the article. Mine just got snubbed right away( i would happily accept few of the edit rejections if individually explained. Instead the whole edit was white washed twice).This proves that either there are only fans or only enemies out here . Nobody is taking a balanced view.
Few days ago, i came across an Afd article for a lizard claimed to be an internet celebrity ! That afd btw was surprisingly tilted heavily in favour of the "keep" votes with notability being granted in view of the uniqueness . Compared to that case , notabilty should not be a great issue here. Bonafide association with the kerner group( as i had tried to cite with a Bloomberg citation in my edit) as its head, is easily sufficient.Also Gsearching i found , there are sevearal examples of appearances at public speaking events of reasonable repute which just have not been mentioned at all in the article. Also 'build school campaign' and scaling mt kiliminjaro 5 times (if properly referenced to) is a notable achievment for me. The 'delete' seekers must instead contribute towards enhancing the quality of the article( even though they are not obliged to do so) rather completely discarding it. As a worst case i would even vote for it to exist as a stub rather than an article with references to kerner group and few others, and then improve it further. I woluld look for a leaner but cleaner article which has full possibility to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-centric (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your case might be more credible if you actually linked or named the specific other AFD discussion you're talking about — because there are all kinds of contextual reasons why that situation may not actually be the way you described it. For instance, if the "keep" votes were all coming from WP:SPA users with no grounding in policy, and the "delete" votes were coming from established users who actually understood and cited policy, then it could be closed as a "delete" consensus regardless of the raw "vote" total for either option. Or, alternatively, it's entirely possible that the other article cites better sourcing than this one does, or that you're completely misrepresenting the base notability claim. Without knowing what specific discussion you're talking about, however, we have no way to determine whether the situations are actually comparable or not. Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 02:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Adam McCune (columnist) (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)
Zero reliable sources identifiable by thorough Google search. —swpbT 13:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete He won an award for columnists who write in papers with low circulation. This is like standing up and shouting "hey, I just do not make an impact."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment McCune wrote 220 columns[40] for the Union Leader. The Union Leader is the biggest newspaper in New Hampshire. The UL has a long history of trying to influence Presidential primary voters and candidates. Don't forget that NH is the host of the first Presidential primary every 4 years.10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
- Weak Keep: He is relatively young and a regional writer. But he wrote for the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Manchester Express, which are leading newspapers in New Hampshire. 100,000 circulation is pretty good for a small state. (The biggest paper in my entire state has a circulation of 45,000) That can be a pretty good impact in a region that isn't dominated by a major metro area. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- To editor Montanabw: If he were so notable, one would be able to find at least one RS. Without them, we cannot keep the article, as you (should) know well by now. —swpbT 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The sources are adequately reliable, he really IS a writer, he really did work for these newspapers, one can easily pull up some of his work there, and he really did win the award. So WP:BASIC is met. The question is not verification or reliability, the question is if what he has done rises to notability. I voted "weak keep" because I think it's a marginal case. But where sources exist, there exists a presumption of notability, so when in doubt, we keep. A statement like "zero reliable sources" is simply not true. There are reliable sources. The argument that he writes for newspapers that are not in a major metro area is a red herring-- these small New Hampshire papers do a great deal every four years to select the President of the United States; their impact reaches far beyond their circulation. So, the real question is if he has done enough to be notable and that is the question we need to debate: Is a columnist for a major state newspaper notable by dint of having worked for those papers and having won one award for his work? If the answer is "maybe" (as here), the where and how should the line be drawn? Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are perfectly clear. The papers this individual wrote for are not, and will never be, reliable independent sources for the establishment of notability. The size of his market is irrelevant. There are literally zero, yes zero reliable independent sources that I've seen yet with significant coverage about (no, not written by) this individual. You keep insisting they exist, but you cannot produce even one. —swpbT 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, instead of arguing with me, we need to just let the process move forward and allow other individuals to comment. It would be very useful if you would simply stop laying out "red meat" remarks like "zero." "Insufficient" or "too few" gets you to the same place and is less inflammatory... and saying "you are wrong" is also not going to win your argument, a statement such as "I disagree" is more civil. Remember, focus on the content, not the contributor. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you...are you serious? The number is literally zero, but I should pretend it's something higher, to protect your feelings? If your feelings are bruised that easily, you don't belong here. The number is zero. None. Nothing. I won't bend reality for you, and neither will anyone else. —swpbT 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPA is policy. Disagreement in a civil fashion is policy. This is not about my feelings or yours. I've been here longer than you have and you are not hurting my feelings. You ARE very rude and your AfD statements are quite bullying in tone. This has nothing to do with "reality" as you define it, it has everything to do with civility and professionalism, which, apparently, you do not understand. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you...are you serious? The number is literally zero, but I should pretend it's something higher, to protect your feelings? If your feelings are bruised that easily, you don't belong here. The number is zero. None. Nothing. I won't bend reality for you, and neither will anyone else. —swpbT 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- JPL raised the size of the market the journalist was writing in. That's why Montana addressed it. That said, Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. I couldn't find any independent coverage of McCune.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
- Once again, instead of arguing with me, we need to just let the process move forward and allow other individuals to comment. It would be very useful if you would simply stop laying out "red meat" remarks like "zero." "Insufficient" or "too few" gets you to the same place and is less inflammatory... and saying "you are wrong" is also not going to win your argument, a statement such as "I disagree" is more civil. Remember, focus on the content, not the contributor. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are perfectly clear. The papers this individual wrote for are not, and will never be, reliable independent sources for the establishment of notability. The size of his market is irrelevant. There are literally zero, yes zero reliable independent sources that I've seen yet with significant coverage about (no, not written by) this individual. You keep insisting they exist, but you cannot produce even one. —swpbT 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The sources are adequately reliable, he really IS a writer, he really did work for these newspapers, one can easily pull up some of his work there, and he really did win the award. So WP:BASIC is met. The question is not verification or reliability, the question is if what he has done rises to notability. I voted "weak keep" because I think it's a marginal case. But where sources exist, there exists a presumption of notability, so when in doubt, we keep. A statement like "zero reliable sources" is simply not true. There are reliable sources. The argument that he writes for newspapers that are not in a major metro area is a red herring-- these small New Hampshire papers do a great deal every four years to select the President of the United States; their impact reaches far beyond their circulation. So, the real question is if he has done enough to be notable and that is the question we need to debate: Is a columnist for a major state newspaper notable by dint of having worked for those papers and having won one award for his work? If the answer is "maybe" (as here), the where and how should the line be drawn? Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- To editor Montanabw: If he were so notable, one would be able to find at least one RS. Without them, we cannot keep the article, as you (should) know well by now. —swpbT 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I really can't find much, here's his final column [41].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- a non-notable columnist. My searches do not turn up enough sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per others – in the absence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, he does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about a potential page move to change the article's name can continue on its talk page if desired. North America1000 02:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lex "The Hex" Master (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)
Insufficient material to risk having a WP:BLP. No evidence of meeting any of the twelve criteria of WP:MUSBIO. No charting records. Very little third-party coverage. The Allmusic bio is better than nothing but not convincing and certainly not enough to base a WP:BLP on. I'm willing to be convinced, but present content is marginal at best. David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The EP clearly charted quite well, so I'm inclined to change my opinion to keep - though maybe it should be an article on the EP, either title is fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the allmusic bio is a reliable source and the foxforcefivenews review is significant coverage and seems to be a reliable source at least for music reviews, the other references are to confirm facts rather than sig cov, nearly all the material in the article is verified by the sources and anything that is not can be removed, he has a new album out soon so there should be other sources available which would of course be very helpful if other editors can supply them. Think this article is verifiable as a stub until extra sources allow it to be expanded, not sure whether he has charted but IMO the article just passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BLP. Literally every statement in a living bio needs to be citable. If this article were culled down to literally just the statements supported by those two sources (and AllMusic is almost certainly not a WP:RS for biographical purposes), it would be exceedingly short. Is there anything more substantial now, or is this a WP:NOTYET? - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Allmusic bios are reliable sources for biographies see the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionheart (band) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good argument at AFD, and your link is mostly you asserting that Allmusic is sufficient and others responding "what on earth" - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Editors Michig (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) supported that allmusic bio is reliable source, though increased sources are of course better. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not, however, for WP:BLP purposes. I urge you again to read that policy - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure which part of the policy you are referring to, allmusic is not selfwritten by the subject and the bio is about the music career and not any personal matters that are contentious which I agree would be best left out, but musical history rather than personal life is not so contentious. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not, however, for WP:BLP purposes. I urge you again to read that policy - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Editors Michig (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) supported that allmusic bio is reliable source, though increased sources are of course better. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good argument at AFD, and your link is mostly you asserting that Allmusic is sufficient and others responding "what on earth" - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Allmusic bios are reliable sources for biographies see the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionheart (band) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BLP. Literally every statement in a living bio needs to be citable. If this article were culled down to literally just the statements supported by those two sources (and AllMusic is almost certainly not a WP:RS for biographical purposes), it would be exceedingly short. Is there anything more substantial now, or is this a WP:NOTYET? - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd concur with all that - it's a usable source, but it doesn't swing WP:MUSBIO, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, and I'd be very wary of it as a WP:BLP source - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there's no precedence for withholding its use for notability towards BLPs - but otherwise we seem to be on the same page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the deletion process, this article was at first a BLPProd which said that all that is needed to stop this article being deleted was the addition of at least one reliable source, then I added two and two other refs and since then its been prodded and taken to afd which seems to contradict the spirit of the BLPProd. If this is going to happen regularly the wording of the BLP prod needs to be changed to warn that other deletion processes can still occur as at present it is misleading and particularly when some editors add a Prod notice at the same time as a BLPProd notice. This advice is given on the Prod notice sent to the authors but not on the BLPProd notice or the message sent. Also, its important the notice on the article is clear about this as a large number of editors including senior ones choose not to inform the author at all, I note that you do inform them which is best practice. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Back to the article I agree that more sources would be best so will have another thorough search later on today, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the deletion process, this article was at first a BLPProd which said that all that is needed to stop this article being deleted was the addition of at least one reliable source, then I added two and two other refs and since then its been prodded and taken to afd which seems to contradict the spirit of the BLPProd. If this is going to happen regularly the wording of the BLP prod needs to be changed to warn that other deletion processes can still occur as at present it is misleading and particularly when some editors add a Prod notice at the same time as a BLPProd notice. This advice is given on the Prod notice sent to the authors but not on the BLPProd notice or the message sent. Also, its important the notice on the article is clear about this as a large number of editors including senior ones choose not to inform the author at all, I note that you do inform them which is best practice. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- You'll have to be more specific, SwisterTwister, as "not enough substance" is not in itself a valid deletion rationale. Do you mean not enough sourcing? Not enough substance in the sources? Not enough content in the article? That latter would be a valid rationale for a merge or redirect, but an article being short isn't a valid deletion rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- "needs moar" one presumes - there's twelve listed criteria in WP:MUSBIO and the closest I can see that this swings is no. 9, with an album and EP on an indie label that may be notable (has had actual hits, though this artist hasn't). But as I said, I'm willing to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no substance for actually convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- You should probably word your stances closer to something involving not passing the WP:GNG and/or lacking independent sourcing if that's what you mean then. Your initial comment sounds more like a WP:NOTCLEANUP violation... Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no substance for actually convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment after a very long search, the positive news is that Billboard record that his EP peaked at 49 on the billboard independent albums chart which I think means he passes WP:NMUSIC by passing criteria 2 (only one criteria needed). On a negative side, could not find any extra sigcov only mentions. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent news! If you can add the Billboard cite to that, the EP passes basic notability, and the artist probably does - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I've added the Billboard cite referred to above (the EP in question also seems to have reached #10 on the Heatseekers chart), and now as far as I'm concerned this scrapes by WP:MUSIC 2. Fosse 8► 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Cheers to Fosse8 for finding the chart entry for the EP. I've changed my mind to marginal keep. Maybe it should be at the EP title, and it needs a de-promoing rewrite, but I'm satisfied he probably passes basic notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Attempts to rebut the subject's presumed notability via criterion 1 of WP:PROF appear to have be adequately answered. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inman Harvey (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 banner has been active since February 2015. Proposed deletion due to non-notability.DanversCarew (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Supportive of the decision to delete. Non-notable academic.Lesgriffin (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no comment on the nomination itself at this time. @DanversCarew: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall talk 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete our sources are the university website entry on him, his own webpage (which says very little) and the world cat entry for him. Even if we accepted that the univeristy website entry on him was an indepdent, reliable 3rd party source, which would be contentious at best, the other two are either clearly not independent, or clearly not substantial. The only notability criteria he might meet for academics is criteria one, having a large impact in his field. However nothing in the article suggests that he actually meets that requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A GS h-index of 36 passes WP:Prof#C1, even in the high-cited field of computer science. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
- Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There is little on this page to suggest notability. The notability banner was placed in February 2015 to suggest lack of content. Yet no further, supportive material has been added since that time Joseperez22 (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep He appears to meet the first criterion of WP:PROF, even just based on his GS citation record. Vanamonde (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The 3 supporters for Keep all use one and the same argument regarding the number of his citations on GS. The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page indicates that the Web of Knowledge and Scopus are reasonably accurate. Yet Harvey is not included in these as being highly cited or indeed he is not on the ISI Highly Cited list. The page also explicitly cautions about the use of Google Scholar and also states that "Measures of citability such as the h-index are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied". GillSanderson (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, Web of Science gives very different results with a citation report for "AUTHOR: (Harvey I*) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: ( COMPUTER SCIENCE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE )" (the other I. Harveys are in unrelated fields so I think this catches everything) giving:
- Results found: 38
- Sum of the Times Cited [?] : 437
- Sum of Times Cited without self-citations [?] : 420
- Citing Articles [?] : 383
- Citing Articles without self-citations [?] : 372
- Average Citations per Item [?] : 11.50
- h-index [?] : 10
- Scopus gives similar results for "AUTHOR-NAME ( harvey i* ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( AU-ID , "Harvey, Inman R." 7103367209 ) )", finding 559 total citations with an h-index of 12. I do however note that the last bullet point before the notes at the bottom of WP:PROF suggests that Google Scholar may be a better indicator in Computer Science. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources tell us to avoid using Web of Science for computer science, as its failure to include conference publications leads to big distortions: see the final bullet point (just above the notes at the end of the document) in WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Reed College#Reed_Canyon. czar 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pedestrian Bridge (Reed College) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
college trivia. Only local and college references. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep (disclosure: article creator). Since this article was nominated for deletion, I've expanded it slightly and added some additional sourcing. Yes, many of the sources are Reed-related, but I still think there is enough coverage to expand this article with more detail. In addition to the sources incorporated into the article's prose, I added a couple "external links" and posted more sources on the article's talk page, one of which is this link at 'Reed Digital Collections', which has 7 more sources to add. The schematic design and construction updates, in particular, are helpful and will allow a more detailed article, much like the Blue Bridge (Oregon) article, which is also about a bridge on the Reed College campus. This latter article is close to meeting GA criteria (I hope to promote it to Good article status soon). I think the same can be done for the Pedestrian Bridge article, with perhaps slightly less detail. IF consensus concludes this subject does not require a standalone article at this time, please move this page to the draft space and do not delete. I'd appreciate having more time to develop this article if needed. I also wonder if there are some city sources that could be added to discuss the "troll habitat" naming! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, sorry but i can't see how this is notable, all the references are from the Reed College, isn't this a case of WP:PROMOTION?, the same can be said for Blue Bridge (Reed College), they are mentioned at Reed College, which could be expanded if required. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Reed College. Non notable on its own. Any worthwhile content (such as it is) can be included there. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: what stumps me about this article is that the bridge does not have a name. Thus it sounds trivial, as I image articles on "Footpath (Municipal Park)" and "Overpass (Highway 95)". An article without a proper name for its subject sounds odd and veers into "indiscriminate amount of information". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – at the very least, a merge to Reed College would be more congruent with Wikipedia's editing policy, in this case because the Reed College article has no mention of the topic at all at this time. North America1000 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- But that could very easily be changed, and the amount of detail even in just this current short article is more than is necessary for the main Reed College article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- possibly (at about 6500 words it could have few hundred more without exceeding recommended word limit at WP:LENGTH), then maybe a rename of List of Reed College buildings to List of Reed College structures, and info added there? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer keeping the list at its current title to remain more consistent with the other lists in Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Cheeky:))Comment, so there are no notable non-buildings ie footbridges on any other usa campus? mmm..
Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Cheeky:))Comment, so there are no notable non-buildings ie footbridges on any other usa campus? mmm..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It's nichey but Reed College itself is RS. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm curious as to why an apparently utterly unremarkable footbridge opened in 2008 should be considered notable. Would someone like to enlighten me? Is there something I'm not seeing here? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Reed_College#Campus I can't find enough independent coverage for this rather pedestrian (sorry) pedestrian bridge to merit a separate article. Not overly long and could be easily merged into the main article, with any overage trimmed by normal editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the bridge is mentioned and linked at Reed_College#Reed_Canyon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Then a very selective merge if desired, or a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Surface Magazine Covers (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:IINFO, no indication of independent notability. We don't have articles for covers of better known magazines like Sports Illustrated or Time, much less this one. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 13:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nominator. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Nom says it all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Not standard and not a notable magazine. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - added by COI editor for promotional reasons. Citobun (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete- Based on Nom. FairlySavvy (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- "corporate spam" and collection of trivial information. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 02:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- A Million Dollar Aai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unreleased film with no indication of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Film does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I added speedy deletion tag in start but needed AfD. Film is not notable. to have space on Wikipedia. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Channie Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBOOK. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book series is notable enough to pass NBOOK. The first book won an award, however it looks like said award is one given out by a blogging group that apparently has been defunct since 2013 and only gave out a handful of awards. However even if it was still active it wouldn't be considered an award that would give even partial notability on Wikipedia - most awards don't, in all fairness. It looks like this gained some mild popularity and has a decent number of reviews on Amazon, however Amazon rankings and review numbers don't count towards anything on here for several reasons, one of which is that anyone can post a review there. (I could go into a huge lecture about how authors have been caught writing their own reviews or review swapping, but that's an aside and probably not what happened with this series - it's just that it happens and is another reason why Amazon and social media sites like Goodreads are unusable for establishing notability.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, nothing notable found, just amazon, goodreads, blogs etc. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 03:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Project Trust (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)
Page nominated as it has no in-line references and seems to be written as an advertisement. Text likely pasted from a website. Mountaincirque 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. "No in-line references" is not a reason for deletion. Advertising would be if the article was "without any relevant or encyclopedic content", but that's not the case here; it may need some attention in this regard, but it's hardly unsalvageable. Copyright violation of a website would be if there was evidence that the whole article, including previous versions in its history, was pasted from a website, but the nominator presents no such evidence and the article has a seven-year history, including a complete rewrite in February 2015. Subject is notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in The Glasgow Herald [42] and The Daily Telegraph [43]. Qwfp (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It may well be salvageable with a complete re-work, referencing and removal of weasel words, also to remove many of the unreferenced lists included in the article. Just to note that the complete re-write was done seemingly by a Project Trust staff member (http://projecttrust.org.uk/author/davel/) and uses the username 'DavidlyonsPT'. The external references included there are good but need to actually be used in the article properly. Mountaincirque 10:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe this user has added advertising language relating and linking back to this page on several other pages, including Isle of Coll. Without rapid and extensive changes made to this article, I don't believe its an important enough topic to worry about keeping around for its encyclopedic value. There are numerous other organizations like this, many of which do not have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.hill7 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 11:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has arisen from this discussion. North America1000 03:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- John Henry Williams (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am quite surprised this article survived the first challenge. By the article's standard, every kid of a Baseball Hall of Famer is entitled to a Wikipedia page. To that I ask who is going to research Enos Slaughter's kids? This guy was basically chasing in his father's footsteps and, in doing so, failed at, even, that. Definitely not a Wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzanof (talk • contribs) 23:32, July 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as discussed in the previous AfD (which should have been linked by the nominator), he meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Marginal, redirect to father's article - by far the most notable thing about him is the cryonics kerfuffle over his father, which could do just as well there. Does he meet our standards for baseball players? - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think he was notable solely as a baseball player, but as was discussed in the previous AfD, he received substantial coverage for a variety of issues, including his baseball career and the cryonic kerfuffle, e.g., [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49], which would meet the general notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what "http://www4.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/H9/" is. His B Ref page does not count towards notability. The other coverage concerns the Alcor situation, and his obituary. How does that get him to GNG over WP:BIO1E? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think he was notable solely as a baseball player, but as was discussed in the previous AfD, he received substantial coverage for a variety of issues, including his baseball career and the cryonic kerfuffle, e.g., [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49], which would meet the general notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep I have to vote keep merely because the deletion rationale completely ignores what John Henry Williams is most famous for; the Alcor controversy, not his baseball career. I would consider deletion if someone were to make a stronger argument of WP:BLP1E if this is nominated for deletion again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- He died in 2004, so not a BLP :-) I'd still be inclined to merge it to his father's article - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah he died in 2004, but he was only really notable for the Alcor situation, so WP:BIO1E could still apply. I forgot to be clear on which "1E" to cite. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- He died in 2004, so not a BLP :-) I'd still be inclined to merge it to his father's article - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. This page should be condensed into a short blurb on his father's page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 11:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep His involvement in his father's cryonic suspension makes him notable. A very well-covered and well-documented situation. RonSigPi (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pearson Education . MBisanz talk 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- InformIT (publisher) (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 electronic publishing company. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- keep Notable electronic publishing company. A very major publisher. At the moment of nomination the article was vandalized. I restored last good version. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong forum Let's see, the "about" page says that Pearson is, "the world's largest education company, with 40,000 employees in more than 70 countries". So there is no case for a WP:DEL8 deletion. Notability for a subsidiary should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and at most result in a merge. There is plenty of work to be done for this topic without adding to the work with a discussion of deletion policies. For example, lots of the prose has no citations. An editor on the talk page considers out loud merging to the parent article. However, these are all content decisions, not deletion decisions. Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete Yes publishing company notable, but there is no third party reference to keep. If article improved with third party sources acceptable by Wiki then we can keep. Jessie1979 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- merge into Pearson Education as per the suggestion on its talk page - I have looked through google news and have been unable to find anything but trivial mentions such as on a story about XYZ, "hours after appearing on the website of its publisher, InformIT, XYZ..." Lizzymartin (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Pearson Education as not independently notable per available sources. Redirect may also be an option. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Alex Gaudino#Discography. czar 15:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor Love (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete is preferred. Alternatively, Redirect to Alex Gaudino where it is mentioned. Non notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - or at least redirect to Alex Gaudino. Meatsgains (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Baypath Rd (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)
Self referenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notabele....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NALBUM - Google news search comes back with zero results. Regular google search returns 22 hits, all of which are for an actual road called "Bay Path Rd." Had AfD discussions not already begun, I would WP:A9 it. Lizzymartin (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Diego Deiros (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 meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. ubiquity (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia should keep the article. Do not delete. I do not know the person but I love the mountains. I think that having the achievement "measurement height of a mountain" [1] is pretty merit and also if it is the highest mountain of a country.[2] 200.124.121.24 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your reference is a WP:MIRROR of the wikipedia article. Do you have anything else? Kuru (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mirror of another Wikipedia article! My mistake, better reference:Pérez et al (Sep. 2005) & IGVSB (2003). Bolivar is a Ultra-prominent peak, very high altitude and close of extreme altitude. To reach that peak must climb high rock walls and depending on weather conditions with snow and ice. The mountain has taken many strong and skilled climbers lives.[3] That mountain require intensive training.[4] Storms can suddenly occur. The weather can change for no apparent reason. The peak is at a wind convergence zone. At 16330 ft the technicals of the climb are not to be underestimated. Pressure decreases exponentially with altitude, it is about half of its sea-level value at 16,000 ft. When you are at 16,330 you are in high risk of High-altitude cerebral edema, HACE occurs in 0.5% to 1% of people who climb or trek between 13,000 ft and 16,000 ft. 200.124.121.24 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your reference is a WP:MIRROR of the wikipedia article. Do you have anything else? Kuru (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- The person's research includes the altitude of the highest mountain in a country, has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline broadly construed. Because should be in every geography book.
- Just a quick search on the web. We can find in all this pages, "measurement was made by Diego Deiros" only in this topic, World Heritage Encyclopedia "Pico Bolívar is the highest mountain in Venezuela";[5] Seen2; [6] Jsonpedia. [7] Digplanet Geography of Mérida.[8]World library. [9]Gutenberg. [10]Schoolserver. [11]Wow. [12]Wiki2. [13]Medlibrary. [14]and, The Government Agency of National Cartography mentioned literally that the data used to put the official altitude of Venezuela was measure by Diego Deiros and another two geoscientist.[15] is demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- This altitude value should have been taken as a parameter for construction in the close city, for example: probably for the cableway of Merida, calculation of sunset and sunrise there. Also, is in the climber blogs,[16] country tourism pages,[17] they are mentioning the person, some times. Has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Additionally. The person was a elected member of the university board of governors of the University Simon Bolivar in the period 2000-2001, has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Perhaps less relevant, tutor in engineering thesis and their papers are used in many thesis bibliographies. Biographer1950 (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not do quick searches. That's one reference to Wikipedia, ten to Wikipedia mirrors (most clearly identified), one to a forum post, and one to a blog. The only one that would qualify as a reliable source is the Government Agency of National Cartography "mention", but it's just that: a mention. Are there any sources for the rest? Kuru (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information Kuru. Here's another reference: refereed journal Interciencia from the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research.[18] I am not sure if the newspapers can also be taken as references, but was in the two the most widely read and circulated daily national newspapers of this country. [19][20]Biographer1950 (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Another reference made 8 years later by another author.[21] Biographer1950 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Pico Bolívar - Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks Read Article Id: WHEBN0003103722
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elevation_extremes_by_country
- ^ Local News EL UNIVERSAL
- ^ http://www.hike-venezuela.com/en/tour-picobolivar-6d.html
- ^ Pico Bolívar is the highest mountain in Venezuela
- ^ Pico Bolivar at seen2 Seen2-Pico Bolivar
- ^ http://jsonpedia.org/annotate/resource/html/en:Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar Poco Bolivas Josonpedia
- ^ digplanet Geography of Mérida, Pico Bolivar
- ^ http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/pico_bol%C3%ADvar
- ^ http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar
- ^ http://schoolserver.xsce.org:3000/wikipedia_en_all_2015-05/A/Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar.html Pico Bolívar
- ^ http://www.wow.com/wiki/Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar Wow Pico Bolivar
- ^ https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar wiki2 Pico Bolivar
- ^ http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Pico_Bol%C3%ADvar Med Library Pico Bolivar
- ^ IGVSB BG 14 2003
- ^ Posts: Amazing Venezuela: dreams come true, Pico Bolivar (21 Oct 2014)
- ^ Details of World's Top Mountains
- ^ Pérez et al (Sep. 2005): "Alturas del Pico Bolívar y otras cimas andinas venezolanas a partir de observaciones Gps." INCI v.30, n.4, Caracas sep. 2005. Retrieved 2012-09-27.
- ^ Ivarelys Figured. Newsletter El Nacional, Caracas, November 07, 2002
- ^ Jenny Lozano. Newsletter El Universal, Caracas, November 08, 2002
- ^ Ernesto Linzalata. Newsletter El Universal, Caracas, April 26 ,2010.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the measure of the highest mountain of a country is a great achievement. The article can be improved, but should be keep. Inveritate (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep their measure, it is what we use when we mention the peak. 186.188.65.80 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the measuring height of a mountain is a great discovery for me, I thought that this page should not be deleted.Alessandro96 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I am truly amazed by the number of single-purpose accounts here. ubiquity (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I m an elite biker and i love the mountain , so it caught my attention because i think that it s very interesting. Alessandro96 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; obvious case here. Does not pass WP:PROF nor GNG. 6 citations overall for articles he wasn't a main author of. Does not hold any notable positions and measuring a peak's height is obviously not a significant contribution to his field. 4 puppets commenting here are clearly socks not to be heeded. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Most references speak on the subject or the subject work, three of which written by diferent renowned journalists, another is the bolletin of a public agency. Be written by the third party makes more valid no less.Biographer1950 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keep votes come from single-purpose accounts, possibly sockpuppets, with probable conflict of interest. Citobun (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can not speak for anyone else here but I wrote the original article. I am here. conflict of interest? why? sock puppets? who? Biographer1950 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E unless evidence can be found showing something other than measuring the height of that one peak that he has gained attention for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Arvind Dudhwadkar (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)
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nominator a non-notable politician. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors may consider a possible merge to the parent article through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jermaine Dupri production discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a large, unreferenced list of production credits that reads as a CV. The entries do only give a summary indication of his involvement, not outlining the relevance of his involvement. That he is a noted producer is without a doubt, but his notable contributions should be mentioned in the main article, not in an unreferenced list here. Karst (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Green River (band)#Studio albums. MBisanz talk 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1984 Demos (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 demo tape recorded by a largely unknown band without and references to reliable independent secondary sources does not qualify as notable. KDS4444 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - created by single-purpose account, with probably COI, probably for promotional purposes. No indication of notability whatsoever, and no references. Citobun (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The band is notable, and the two bands that formed out of Green River after their split – Pearl Jam and Mudhoney – are even more notable. But this is a very limited edition release for Record Store Day 2016 – there were only 2000 copies pressed up. So without an official worldwide release there will be no reviews and little information available on the songs or their recording. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Green River (band)#Studio albums. Firstly, this isn't a 'demo tape', it's an LP released in 2016 for Record Store Day containing tracks recorded as demos in 1984. Secondly, Green River are pretty well known internationally to anyone with an interest in US alternative rock. The album, however, didn't seem to receive enough coverage to justify a separate article, so a redirect would be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hugh Saunders speedway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I haven't been able to find evidence of notability, but I'm no expert here. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, i opened this article expecting it to be about a speedway, if this article is kept (it will need more sources for notability), suggest this is renamed to Hugh Saunders (speedway rider). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe this should not be deleted. Any rider who has participated in league speedway is notable in my opinion and a simple click on one of the categories of the clubs he has ridden for shows dozens of other riders of equal or less notoriety including the entire list of his Rye House team-mates in 1978 for example Rcclh (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Noida Sector 52 (Delhi Metro) (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:crystal KDS4444 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's under construction, so it will open. It's not just a plan. And we consider all railway/metro stations to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The nom's one-word WP:JUSTAPOLICY contradicts actual evidence that the line and station are under construction. [50] It took me less than 5 seconds to find that article. It doesn't seem WP:BEFORE was followed here. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A ll Metro stations have always been consideredd notable here. We have often deleted ones merely in the planning stage , or the basis of WP:CRYSTAL, but this one is alraady under construction. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions do not address the reasons for deletion advanced in the discussion, i.e, not meeting WP:N. Sandstein 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Realms of Odoric (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 claim of notability made. Would have sent to CSD but no category for stuff like this. KDS4444 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This article needs a lot of improvement, but that's no reason to delete it. All the band's other albums have articles and there doesn't seem any particular reason why this one alone should be deleted. Neiltonks (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: a need for improvement isn't the reason for the AfD nomination, Neiltonks, it's a lack of sources. And there is a good chance some of the other albums will be put up for AfD as well at some point, because they also lack reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. KDS4444 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: What, exactly, in this case constitutes "lack of sources"? Is there not enough evidence that such an album exists? It is mentioned on the band's official website. What additional evidence is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.164.50 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just because something exists doe not mean that is it notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: a need for improvement isn't the reason for the AfD nomination, Neiltonks, it's a lack of sources. And there is a good chance some of the other albums will be put up for AfD as well at some point, because they also lack reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is my first contribution to wikipedia. I found myself listening to this band and I really liked it. Checking it out on wiki I realised the song list was missing, so I thought to add it. I used as reference a famous band like Slayer to format the Track list [51]. I will gladly add the other albums as well. Hopefully someone else will "enrich" these pages as well with details about the different albums. - Let me know if I made some mistake or improvements are needed. Nick.realdini (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- None of that is a reason to keep the article. Notability is not inherited from the band. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- And the information wasn't missing, it was apparently not notable— those are different things, and Wikipedia isn't interested so much in the former because that is a personal judgement call while the latter is established through the existence of substantive coverage in reliable independent sources, which this article seems to lack. KDS4444 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM. I was able to find a powermetal.de review (in German), but one review is not enough to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not too sure of what you are talking about. If you had the time to investigate the lack of significant coverage, why didn't you add the coverage. I found plenty of articles talking about Suidakra and Realms of Odoric. In time I will add the details, but I am not sure I would want to contribute to wiki as I wasn't expecting this kind of attitude towards content. This content is correct in its form and it is a backbone on which other content can grow. If you start pruning this then good luck. I have to be honest that I financially contributed to wiki for years. This starts to make me question the system on which you do reviews. Please spend your time more "constructively" not "destructively". - This is the opinion of an absolute wiki noob. Nick.realdini (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Boy Scouts of the Philippines. czar 15:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Chief Scouts of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (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)
Unnecessary list. KDS4444 (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Boy Scouts of the Philippines as a section-not a useful content fork.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Boy Scouts of the Philippines as above. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, which will improve the merge target article. North America1000 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mira Malware (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 and cannot find any sources on the subject, beyond something like this which seem to merely mention its existence. Sjrct (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Software (malware) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA.Dialectric (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable malware/software. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Face Off (FIRST) (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. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yet again, just drive-by tagging articles as "not notable" is not a constructive way to communicate with other editors. Are you claiming that For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) and the whole category tree is not notable? That this particular event is less notable than others? Or some other, as yet unspecified, reason? In its absence, keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- What I'm seeing here is an article that's referenced entirely to the event's own self-published content about itself, with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about it in media shown at all. I do share Andy Dingley's concern about the nominator's inadequate rationale — an AFD nomination does have to be more detailed than that about how the topic isn't notable — but primary sources are not the way to get something like this into Wikipedia. Delete unless somebody can source it better than this — and preferably review the related articles to see if they're also sourced this badly or not. It is very possible that each individual event is not independently notable (or at least not adequately sourceable as such), and should thus exist only as a redirect to the parent article on FIRST Tech Challenge rather than as a badly sourced standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete no need to redirect, since it is unlikely someone would search using this term and looking for this information. At best worth one line in the FIRST Tech Challenge . W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Stefani Dailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed with the unconvincing claim that the Scotsman is an acceptable source but it barely actually focuses with her, I still confirm my PROD as there's simply no substance here. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable sports journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Scotsman article about her hiring is certainly one RS article that supports notability. I have not yet searched for additional sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete a quick news search turned up nothing much, young sports journalist, may simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cardo (record producer) (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 went through AfD two weeks ago and was deleted. A speedy delete this time was contested. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Little depth of coverage. No awards. Although the article's lead states he is a "rapper", the article only discusses his occupation as a "record producer", thus WP:NMUSIC should not apply. Of the seven sources cited, all but two are primary source interviews:
- [52] - dead link (Incorrect claim, fixed dead link.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [53] - a primary source (a video interview) (Rogue claim.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [54] - another interview (Rogue claim.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [55] - another interview (Rogue claim.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [56] - this secondary source is a rambling article about who knows what (Rogue claim, pretty straight forward, "CARDO EXPLAINS HOW BIG SEAN ALMOST HAD JEEZY AND JAY Z'S 'SEEN IT ALL' BEAT.", meaning how Big Sean almost used the Seen It All beat, which if, two artists have the same but they want to use, it can get pretty messy.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [57] - another secondary source; completely vacuous and trivial (Rogue claim, pretty straight forward, Cardo left the Taylor Gang label, its a hip hop news site, of course they are going to report which artist leaves what label.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- [58] - another primary source interview. (Rogue claim.) Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Second source articles supports noteworthiness of subjects field. User:osatmusic User talk:osatmusic|Talk! 12:44, 3 August 2016 (EST)
- Keep. With User:osatmusic, also, he is a rapper, which means that WP:NMUSIC does apply, your first dead link is wrong, you haven't bother to fix it, I've fixed it for you already, record producers do not need to have an award, Metro Boomin has never won an award. Also, please explain your meaning of "Little depth of coverage." I see it every time you nominate an article, but you do not explain it, please explain how this article fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. North America1000 03:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Marcella Araica (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 an open and shut case for failing WP:Music. Page has numerous issues, but failing notability seems the most pertinent. ASCAP awards do not seem to confer required notability. Rayman60 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 09:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I guess this is going to hinge on whether the ASCAP awards are considered notable or not. There are at least two reliable sources in there, the Sound on Sound article and the Billboard news article (a dead link on the Wikipedia article but archived here). Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The total sum of coverage seems to be niche publications dedicated to her professional field, and coverage of the awards ceremony via Billboard which would be a more reasonably general title. None of this is enough to suggest she's prominent enough in her relatively minor field, which surely places below songwriter and producer in the hierarchy of importance, and we routinely delete those. KaisaL (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep She is important in her field and recognized as such by Mix Magazine and Pro Sound News. She was interviewed in Billboard and profiled by Black Enterprise. I've added sources to the article which include books, journals and news. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Forgot to add that she's in The Huffington Post and in M Music and Musicians magazine. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: She's an engineer, not a performer. So "niche publications dedicated to her professional field" clearly constitutes significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject. And an ASCAP award is a major award for someone in a technical field. These folks who work behind the scenes probably have more brains and talent than most of the performers they work with. Credit long overdue, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 23:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mija Knežević (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)
Procedural nomination. Declined a speedy deletion nomination for this article as it asserts notability (a leading figure in Eastern European fashion and wide coverage in fashion magazines). Sending to AfD as there is insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Other views welcome, especially from anyone with access to fashion industry sources that may assist in determining notability and referencing for this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the subject appears to be a fashion blogger of some renown (how much of it I cannot assess). Perhaps posting to the related WikiProject may be a good idea? (Sorry I can't be of more help as I'm not even sure whether the subject is from Serbia or from Montenegro). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Professional Engineers Day (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a proposed unofficial observance, not yet celebrated once, and there is no evidence that it has achieved notability according to the GNG. Slashme (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple governors have proclaimed 8/3/2016 as Professional Engineers Day. 8/3/2016, the first Wednesday in August, is significant because it recognizes the date of the first professional engineering license received from the State of Wyoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.195.196 (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable. Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- James Fahy (writer) (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 author. Little evidence of any coverage outside of a couple of blogs, both of which are personal interviews with Fahy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: the sources listed is a Huffington Post (blog?) and the rest are mostly primary sources. The author appears to have some following on social media, but I'm not finding much else substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete as WP:TOOSOON I searched, and came up empty except for HuffPost, it is a blog post, not a HuffPost article. And it is just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sunmist (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sabina K. (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)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NF and has no references. The article is currently just a plot synopsis. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Recent improvents show the film having received enough coverage to pass GNG and NF. Cavarrone 11:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Seems like this is a case of an article naming error. No other concerns were listed, thus this is a keep but I'll move the article to the correct name that has been pointed out. If other concerns exist, please renominate at AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Zhyolty Yar Airport (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 reference used to create this was wikitravel, which is not a reliable source. A detailed search of airport databases reveals that there is no such airport of this name and that there is no ICAO code. The actual airport in this region is called Birobidzhan Yuzhniy Airfield, with the code RU-0123.
Here is the database results http://www.openaip.net/airports?apttype_type_filter=All&country_filter=All&name_filter=Zhyolty+Yar David.moreno72 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you search for "Zhelty Yar" here, you get Birobidzhan Yuzhniy Airfield. So it's an alternate transliteration of another name for the same airfield. Suggest we move it to Birobidzhan Yuzhniy Airfield and keep the redirect. Acer (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely seems to be talking about the Birobidzhan Yuzhniy Airfield, which would be a more appropriate page title. And while Zhelty Yar definitely seems to be something, Zhyolty Yar does not seem to exist in any other source, reliable or not. So I'd be in favor of a rename w/o redirect. I'm also going to go ahead and add some stats of Birobidzhan Yuzhniy Airfield to this page, feel free to let me know if you disagree with this. "Pepper" @ 04:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gliese 546 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing has changed since the last time this article was deleted. The star is still there and still not notable. Too faint, no non-trivial coverage per WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, and I don't see those reasons changing any time soon, unless Gliese 546 has any plans to the contrary. -Pax Verbum 04:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Another dime-a-dozen red dwarf star with no particularly interesting characteristics and no dedicated scientific studies. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Americade (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a bit of an odd nomination and is related to the AfD for Gerard de Marigny. The article was created by someone who appears to be de Marigny and was extremely promotional in tone. The article for his band has similar issues with promotion and it doesn’t help that it’s almost entirely unsourced. This is so promotional in places that I was almost tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion.
None of the sources can be verified and while I’m aware that sourcing doesn’t have to be on the Internet, it’s also problematic in this case since the article for de Marigny had several issues where non-notable, minor claims were promoted and puffed up to the point where they asserted far more notability than they would actually give – to the point where they were being portrayed as extremely notable things. To give an example of claims in the de Marigny article that were puffed up, the article tried to puff up notability by asserting video views on YouTube and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content.
This makes me question how good the sourcing actually is, as I’m afraid that this might be the case here and the sourcing might actually be minor or trivial coverage. This also makes me question the association with notable acts and people, as it’s possible that the association is so minor that it wouldn’t be something that could give notability. Heck, some of the sources that we can access don’t back up the claims, such as this obituary that doesn’t even mention that the deceased was a part of the band. This is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award. For all we know, this award could be some offhand mention. It might be real, but the problem here is that the article (and the other articles the COI editor has edited) has been made into such a promotional mess that there’s no telling what is actually a legitimate notability giving claim and what isn’t. It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page.
Now here’s the other problem and the other reason I brought this to AfD. Even if the band is notable, the article would need such a substantial re-write that it’d honestly be better to WP:TNT the article and start from scratch. We can’t verify half of the content and a search brings up little to nothing about the band that isn’t Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources, and various junk hits. If not for a few database type listings and the primary sources, it’d almost be like this band never existed at all. I’m aware that there might be coverage off the internet, but given the promotional puffery in the article and related articles, I’m arguing for a deletion. If any non-COI interested party wants to take this into their userspace for a rescue or can work a miracle, feel free – I just don’t think that this should be in the mainspace at this point in time without an entire re-write and far stronger sourcing. (Especially as the article as it currently stands seems to be used heavily as a vehicle to promote de Marigny.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward deletion as well. I've been able to verify two of the references - Billboard and The International Encyclopedia of Hard Rock and Heavy Metal - but these are very brief mentions and do not seem sufficient to establish notability under WP:NM. I'm continuing to look. Nick Number (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete. By the author's own admission, even in the band's heydey they were distributing their own albums and the media references all seem to be mentions of a new band with some potential, but which never really established itself. They weren't signed to any major labels, didn't have any national tours, and "did not play live often". If there were better evidence of them being highly influential on other artists then there would be a stronger case for notability, but the (OR) bit that's there about Dave Spitz isn't enough. Nick Number (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
My name is Gerard de Marigny. I am the creator of the page in question and would like to offer rebuttal, answers, where possible, to the questions raised above, and ultimately a call not to delete the Americade (band) page. For your consideration:
+ First, I understand the necessity for Wikipedia editors to be cautious and meticulous in policing entries. I, like so many, rely on Wikipedia entries as a valued source of information. It is my go-to first source, in many instances. However, it was for that purpose that I created the page in the first place, for two reasons: 1-There was at least one other Americade (band) page created awhile ago in Italian that was factually incorrect about so many aspects, including band members, band accomplishments (i.e. releases), band creation, dates, and other important information; and 2- though the editor who posted the request for deletion may not be aware, Americade was a historically important band, not so much for what they band accomplished on its own, but for the bands that were inspired after it, like Anthrax (which is inarguably an important band historically), and because of the members of Americade becoming notable musicians after the band broke up. Americade marks a point in time.
+ The point of promotion was brought up first, and I would assert, without substantiation. Why? Because, Americade is a defunct entity. There are no Americade products that are being sold by the author of the article (though there have been many Americade recordings that have been bootlegged over the last thirty years <-- this point alone substantiates the notoriety of the band, another aspect that has been called into question by the editor above. There are many examples of this bootlegging going on today, via the internet. The albums being bootlegged were recording over 30 years ago and are still being purchased today. One can consider that fact alone as substantiating that the band was important, perhaps not to the editor requesting the deletion, but to many other heavy metal enthusiasts around the world.
+ "Extremely promotional in tone" is a subjective statement. My question is then promoting what? A band that hasn't been together in over 20 years? The members themselves or the author of the page? For what purpose? To what end? The word promotion in itself is defined as, "activity that supports or provides active encouragement for the furtherance of a cause, venture, or aim." (Google definition) In keeping with that definition the questions that arise (where the burden of proof should be on the editor who made the assertion) what cause, venture, or aim is supported or to which active encouragement is provided? The band Americade no longer exists (except in its historic significance), no products of any kind are being sold by the Wiki page author (not a penny has been earned from the band since 1984 - no reference given, nor can be given, except the word of the founder of the band). To conclude, the assertion that the page is "extremely promotional in tone" is a subjective one and not substantiated by any facts.
+ Next, "None of the sources can be verified and while I’m aware that sourcing doesn’t have to be on the Internet, it’s also problematic in this case since the article for de Marigny had several issues where non-notable, minor claims were promoted and puffed up to the point where they asserted far more notability than they would actually give – to the point where they were being portrayed as extremely notable things. To give an example of claims in the de Marigny article that were puffed up, the article tried to puff up notability by asserting video views on YouTube and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content."
++ "Problematic" is, again, a subjective word. Problematic for whom ... the editor who raised the point in the first place? Perhaps other Wiki editors or others? But, what about others for which it is not "problematic?" The editor who raised this dispute is attempting to have the page removed primarily because she feels it is written from a subjective point of view, yet her reasoning to come to that conclusion is subjective in itself. <-- One may find this problematic.
++ "non-notable ... minor claims ... puffed up" ... a subjective assertion, at best. Non-notable to whom? To the editor who raised the point in the first place? How can one prove notability? Perhaps the inclusion of the band in "The international encyclopedia of hard rock & heavy metal" (Jasper, Tony; Reynolds, Derek Oliver, Steve Hammond, Dave (1985). The international encyclopedia of hard rock & heavy metal. New York, N.Y.: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0816011339) would prove to many that the band was indeed notable and not "puffed up." "Minor claims" ... "puffed up" are all subjective phrases. One could argue (and provide proof with statements from a number of "notable" producers, musicians, and entertainment executives including people like mega-producer Jeff Glixman (producer of KANSAS, LITA FORD, BLACK SABBATH, GARY MOORE, SAXON, et al., who produced Americade's unreleased second album in 1984, who considered and still considers Americade a notable band of major claims. There are many others, who could substantiate the notability and claims made in the band page, though none are internet sources (but can be furnished by email, from the sources, if necessary, as statements).
++ The example of the YouTube video for Americade's rendition of "We're An American Band" as a "claim" that was "puffed up" by using video views. <-- The views are there. The number of views were not "puffed up," and no other assertion was made to support the editor-in-question's accusation that some "claim" was "puffed up." Where is the proof of that?? While the proof of the video is there on YouTube, as are the views. By merely mentioning facts - the number of views to that date, and that the video exists cannot be disputed.
++ "... and that the author was notable because his quotes were added to various quotation websites, despite these websites accepting user submitted content." <-- The editor also mentions this as a proof that the author of the Americade band page is making claims that are "puffed up." Subjective again ... puffed up how, exactly? The assertion and linked proof of the many quotation sites that have quoted the Americade band page author, who is also a "notable" novelist and screenwriter are evident. The fact that the sites where the quotes appear accepting user-submitted content," one can argue "supports" the notability of the quotes and author. People not related or associated to the author in any way (and none were ever submitted by the author, himself) from all over the world (the quotes appeared in such varied places as newspapers in Africa to blogs in the Philippines, to other "notable" quotation sites in the US and abroad (all with clickable links) all have posted the author's quotes over a course of the last few years and continue to today, one could argue, supports and substantiates notability, since the definition of notable is, "worthy of attention or notice." (Google definitions). The fact that the quotes are posted in so many places by so many people, and in many cases voted on or liked by many more people fulfills the definition to the letter. One more point ... one can find it ironic that the editor who raised the point dismisses "user-submitted content," since that is the very foundation of Wikipedia, itself. Conclusion: Once again, the editor who raised the point used unsupported, subjective reasoning, while the author of the Americade band page used linked sources and made no other assertions beyond what is evident.
+ "This makes me question how good the sourcing actually is, as I’m afraid that this might be the case here and the sourcing might actually be minor or trivial coverage." <-- This entire statement is subjective, at best. Who decides what "minor or trivial coverage" is? The Wiki editors? Okay, the author of the page is one, as is the editor who raised the point, as are the people who will read this. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so arrive at one. Yet, it should be said that when claims are made on a Wiki page and they are substantiated by sources (which in the case of the Americade band page, they were, utilizing the rule of "best evidence available," then the burden of proof should be placed on the individual raising the request for deletion and refuting the article. "Making me question," and "might be the case" are not proofs and would not be accepted by Wiki for proofs supporting a topic. Conclusion: None of the sourcing is minor or trivial, except by utilizing subjective reasoning. What one person considers trivial, another considers important. In that case, Wiki should merely leave the article as is, published, and allow future others to possibly improve the validity or quality of sources.
+ "Heck, some of the sources that we can access don’t back up the claims, such as this obituary that doesn’t even mention that the deceased was a part of the band. This is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award. For all we know, this award could be some offhand mention. It might be real, but the problem here is that the article (and the other articles the COI editor has edited) has been made into such a promotional mess that there’s no telling what is actually a legitimate notability giving claim and what isn’t. It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page."
++ First, there was no "claim" mentioned that was SUPPOSED to be backed up by the Frank Antico's obituary. The obituary was there, partially, as one of the only existing references that this amazing musician even existed - AND - to substantiate his death. The obituary was not included to substantiate Antico's membership in the band ... "HECK" (to borrow a phrase from the editor who raised the question) there is a PHOTO of Antico that was published in the Wiki article that ALREADY substantiates that! And then to state that since there was no mention of Americade in Antico's obituary that that "this is good enough reason to doubt the overall usability of the sourcing and the claims of notability such as the MTV award?? One will offer this ... yet another "unsubstantiated" claim that can have no references ... but it is the truth (that can be substantiated by the few who knew Frank Antico) ... Frank Antico died alone in a small furnished apartment in Brooklyn, NY, from a massive heart attack, virtually penniless, at a relatively young age, with relatively few friends. He was survived by an interned mother only and she was not the source for the obituary. Though no source was given for the obituary authorship, it was obvious that whoever wrote it knew nothing of Antico's achievements, band memberships, recordings (he made many), or anything else "notable." For as anyone can see, nothing was mentioned. Conclusion: The fact that things are not mentioned in an obituary is NOT proof that they don't exist or that claims that others make are "puffed up." Frank Antico WAS a member of Americade from 1979-1980. May he rest in peace. And then, basing any consideration to not trust any other claim, because Antico's obituary didn't mention that he was a member of Americade is groundless.
++ "It’s kind of a prime example as to why a COI editor should not be editing their own article and why it’s a bad idea to try to promote yourself using said page." <-- This statement, based on the above rebuttal can be said to be a "prime example" of why a Wiki editor should "not" raise the question of deleting what some may consider historical and notable and important information regarding a real band that did real things with real people at real points-in-time, utilizing nothing more than a bunch of subjective, unsupported assertions and erroneous examples. Also, as already proven, there was no promotion made or implied. Simply, a Wiki page was created to document (utilizing best evidence) the existence of what most, not all ... many, not most ... some, not many ... several, not some ... a few, not several ... a couple, not a few ... consider important and notable (all those are subjective phrases added for emphasis).
++ "Now here’s the other problem and the other reason I brought this to AfD. Even if the band is notable, the article would need such a substantial re-write that it’d honestly be better to WP:TNT the article and start from scratch. We can’t verify half of the content and a search brings up little to nothing about the band that isn’t Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources, and various junk hits."
++ Now, the editor who raised this call to delete admits, "Even if the band "is" notable ...." A call to action is being raised (substantial re-write or start from scratch). One can argue, if the band is notable, then the facts presented and sources referenced, though many are before the internet was around, are accurate. and if the facts are accurate then the article/page is accurate, which does not call for its deletion or even a substantial re-write, but should be left published to invite future readers/contributors to add to the quality and number of sources. <-- Isn't this the very point of Wikipedia? Conclusion: There is more than enough verifiable proofs and references included in the Americade band Wiki page to support the notion that it not only should NOT be deleted or substantially re-written, but that it is, in fact, one of the BETTER Wiki pages covering an "underground" subject (unsigned heavy metal bands in the late 70s/early 80s would certainly fit the description of "underground."
+ "If not for a few database type listings and the primary sources, it’d almost be like this band never existed at all. I’m aware that there might be coverage off the internet, but given the promotional puffery in the article and related articles, I’m arguing for a deletion."
++ "If not for a few database type listings and primary sources ...???" <-- This statement does not refute the veracity of the article, it ESTABLISHES it and one can argue ENDORSES it! Database listings and primary sources are the BEST references and the core of ANY substantiated document, be it a Wiki page or white paper or magazine or newspaper article.
++ "it'd almost be like this band never existed at all." <-- Except for the photos of the band ... the living members of the band (all named and referenced) that are now still playing in some of the most historic rock bands in history ... the MTV/now YouTube video with over 13,000 views (undisputable) ... that appeared in dozens of the largest rock and entertainment magazines (some were referenced) including Billboard, Hit Parader, Good Times Newspaper, An encyclopedia on rock bands, Young Miss magazine, Gallery magazine, and all of the other international magazines mentioned ... except for all that. This statement made by the editor who raised the point is the primary reason why Wiki editors need to "NOT" use subjective statements when calling for something as egregious and harmful as the deletion of a well-sourced, well-written Wiki page/article.
+ "(Especially as the article as it currently stands seems to be used heavily as a vehicle to promote de Marigny.)"
++ "Seems to be used ..." is a, you guessed it, "SUBJECTIVE" statement! Who does it seem to be ... apparently to the editor who raised the question, perhaps to others, but to all? To many? To some? The definition of promotion was already stated above. What cause, venture, or aim is the editor who raised the point intimating that de Marigny is supporting from the publication of the Americade band page?? In fact, where is any proof whatsoever that de Marigny or any of the other band members are supporting anything at all, from the publication of the Americade band page.
In conclusion: The Americade band page documents the creation, actions, lineups (including two deceased members), accomplishments, and subsequent break-up of what some may consider an important, historical, unsigned, underground rock band. The fact that many of the members of Americade became notable figures themselves further makes the existence of the page vital for historic purposes. And the fact that the author of the Wiki page was a member of the band, while calling for increased scrutiny, understandably, does not negate the veracity of the references or information, nor does it inherently promote the author. If there are provable instances of self-promotion then provide evidence. If not, then leave the page as is, and allow the global Wiki community to add to it or modify it. So far, it has been published for awhile and there are no other "readers" raising any claims against it. Nor have there been anyone to add better quality references. In fact, the editor who raised the question of deletion offers none - none to support the band and NONE to call for deletion of a page that was thoughtfully created, written, referenced, and edited ... and which continues to be available to global scrutiny.
The band existed. The band was composed of who the article said it was composed of. The band did what the article said it did. The band no longer is around. The author of the Wiki page/article has not and does not benefit from the page in any way. The author of the Wiki page/article is now a bestselling author and scriptwriter (all verifiable), yet does not promote or even mention his published works or current projects in the Americade band article/page.
The page was created for the very purpose of why Wikipedia exists ... to allow interested others to learn about an obscure band utilizing best evidence. If the foundation of Wikipedia stems from the quality of its references then the concept of "best evidence" must also be part of the foundation. In the case of the Americade band page, best evidence was utilized, and the author's inherent bias was checked at instance. Read the article yourself, and decide.
For your consideration.
Keep in mind that, while prior to the internet age, sourcing on certain "underground" topics as unsigned heavy metal acts is difficult, none of the sources cited were erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerarddeMarigny (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's make an effort to be somewhat concise, and keep the formatting readable. Consistent indentation and {{quote}} tags, for instance, would help a great deal.
- One central question is notability. You correctly note that in general usage, this is a subjective term, but Wikipedia has some reasonably specific guidelines on what constitutes notability for a musical act. The result is still a judgment call, but one arrived at by reasoned consensus.
- Regarding criterion #1 in that linked guideline, the existing sources don't meet "non-trivial" in my view. The International Encyclopedia entry (viewable via a checkout on archive.org) is a three-sentence capsule. The others are all from 1983 and it's not clear that they constitute non-trivial coverage.
- Regarding criterion #6, it's not clear that two or more of the members are independently notable. The sourcing on all of their existing articles is extremely weak.
- Another central question is neutrality. As you claim to be one of the subjects of the article, all of the caveats in the guideline on autobiography apply. You should not be directly editing this article, except to remove vandalism or serious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Nick Number (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yikes. You really need to be able to whittle that down. I'm a verbose person, but that's long even by my standards. The bottom line here is that you came on here and created two articles that are extremely light on sourcing and made a lot of claims that aren't really backed up by anything - for instance you placed the obituary after a sentence that claimed he performed in the band. Since the source did not actually mention the band, it should not be used to claim that he was a member. Now as far as photographs go, those aren't slam dunk confirmation of claims for various reasons. For example, we've had people falsify images, use images from elsewhere that didn't pertain to the article at hand, and so on. You might not have done this, but the fact that this has happened somewhere else is the reason why we cannot automatically accept a photograph alone as evidence to back up claims. (The instances where it could be used is when the photo is uploaded from an organization or institution that is known for its fact checking and verification, like the National Archives, but even then an article would require a source to really verify claims.) Now in the cases where the source backed up the claims, these claims were ones that are completely non-notable on Wikipedia per the site guidelines. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia doesn't care if someone is listed on a quotation site because those are a dime a dozen. You would be hard pressed to find any experienced Wikipedian that would consider that noteworthy enough to even warrant a mention on Wikipedia. Now since you are a member of the former band and you're also someone who is selling his work on the Internet (books and what have you), you stand to greatly benefit by having articles on you and the band on Wikipedia because it raises your visibility - especially if the articles are written in a favorable manner. Also as someone with a COI, you're also more likely to see more notability than there might otherwise be and to take any deletion far more personally than an uninvolved person would. The best thing for you to do at this point would be to provide coverage to show that the band and yourself are notable and to provide scans of the sources that aren't easily checked on the Internet so they can be checked to ensure that they would be RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You're new with writing and sourcing stuff on Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult, just that the majority of newbies to Wikipedia don't know the amount of verification and depth that a source will need in order to be considered an in-depth, independent RS on Wikipedia. Since you have a COI here, this is made far more difficult, so providing more coverage and showing scans of the other sources is very important at this stage. I just think that you're far too close to the subject to write about these topics in a neutral fashion, to recognize promotional writing, or to be able to properly judge sources at this point in time. That you can't see where the quotation websites would be seen as a non-notable thing on Wikipedia is just kind of proof of this. 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and if that didn't convince me the lengthy justification from the creator does. Consider salting also - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. While I didn't read the entirety of the creator's lengthy dissertation, I did catch enough of it to recognize that he likely misunderstands what Wikipedia is for: we are not a free public relations platform on which any topic (person, band or otherwise) is entitled to have an article just because they existed. To get into Wikipedia, a band has to be reliably sourceable as having accomplished something which satisfies an WP:NMUSIC criterion, and both parts of that equation have to be met. A band does not get an article just for claiming passage of an NMUSIC criterion if that fact cannot be sourced anywhere — and if a band is so "obscure" that the sourcing has to depend almost entirely on minor music zines and a band member's own self-published website about himself, because quality sourcing on the order of published books, Rolling Stone, Spin and major market daily newspapers doesn't exist, then that is a reason in and of itself why the band doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Is it unfair that the band didn't get as much media coverage as the bassist thinks they should have? Sure. But it's not Wikipedia's job to rectify that unfairness if we have to rely on bad sourcing to do it. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Alpino (chocolate) (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)
Subject lacks notability. I couldn't find any independent coverage, significant or not, of this brand. I found a Fiesta del Chocolate Alpino, which appears to be unrelated. In deprodding this, the article creator all but conceded deletion: "There are not multiple sources for it, not in English language anyway. The said chocolate can be easily mistaken for an Indian chocolate of the same name." Rebbing 05:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete I cannot find any evidence of substantive, independent coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. I found a passing mention in a 2013 Wall Street Journal article of the chocolate's introduction into India by Nestlé and a marketing group's website that mentioning the packaging. But no substantial and reliable coverage. Geoff | Who, me? 20:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Great Sardaar (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)
Facebook and twitter links are not reliable sources Marvellous Spider-Man 04:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything for this, not even using WP:INDIA's search engine. Normally there'd be something about an even slightly major upcoming film in English, but there's just not anything out there. Unless there's coverage in another language, I have to assume that this just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Only found sources such as this and other unreliable sources. North America1000 03:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Muhanned cader (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 seeing sufficient for notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject is completely non-notable. Failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - fails to satisfy criteria under WP:ARTIST. Dan arndt (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mahip Riar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the basis that the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is fully pro, an assertion contradicted by reliable sources cited at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete Totally and completely fails the notability guidelines for footballers, which allow for way too many people to be considered notable as it is. 2nd and 3rd string league players should not be considered notable, no matter how fully pro the leagues are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - hasn't played a fully pro game Spiderone 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gustavo Ott (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)
unreffed so no evidence of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Created in 2009, and it exists from then without even a single reference. Completely fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.
The article can also be nominated for BLP PROD as it doesn't have any references.Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) - Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mark J. Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been around since 2009 with only primary sources for citations. Recently has become a WP:COATRACK for poorly sourced (The Daily Caller) accusations of being a men's rights activist. v/r - TP 23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A GS h-index of 15 is enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
- WP:Prof is for a presumption of notability. If the only sources to support an article are primary sources, for a BLP, then we shouldn't have one.--v/r - TP 00:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are several hundred secondary sources in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
- Feel free to include some of those several hundred secondary sources because right now we have 2 primary sources and a coatracked secondary source. I hate to also invoke WP:BLP here, but 1/3 of his life is not about this lounge.--v/r - TP 16:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- If a couple of them could be added to the article I will change my vote to keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are several hundred secondary sources in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
- Keep Unquestionably notable under WP:PROF. It has been explained many times the h index by itself is meaningless. First of all, the value depends on the density of publication in the field; Economists can only be compared with other economists. Second, h=15 could mean citations of 15 papers with 15 cites each , or 14 papers with 200 cites and one with 15. The first is not notable in most fields; the second is, in any field. In this particular case, it's 335, 287, 114, 97, 97, 78, 68 ..... this is notable in any field, unless the two highest cites are from student work where his name was added or papers with hundreds of authors, such as are sometimes found in medicine and in physics. Neither is the case here. And, TParis, Meeting WP PRoF is sufficient for notability ; it is not a presumption, like some other SNGs, its an alternative, and it says so specifically
- This guideline is ... explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.... if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. (WP:PROF,lede paragraph ) Thousands of AfDs have been decided in this manner. It a firm guideline, and much clearer to interpret than the GNG.
- Of the various criteria under WP:PROF, the key one is usually being an authority in the subject. In fields dependent on journal articles, like economics is nowadays, this is shown by the citations to articles in major journals. That's how academics do it. That's how WP does it. It's one of our few guidelines that exactly match the real-wiorld consensus. The article of course needs to be rewritten to emphasise the actual notability . It should not give undue comment to his more recent remark. (if that were all there was, it would fail BLP1E) DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @DGG: See my reply to Xxanthippe.--v/r - TP 16:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- {TParis, I do not know why you are ignoring the guideline that WP:PROF just requires sources to verify the criteria given there. The sources for that are the papers and the citation record. I've added them. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- For a better reason than you're ignoring that WP:BLPs require secondary sources and they cannot have WP:UNDUE negative weight to a person's life. If there are no secondary sources, then there is no article.--v/r - TP 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- {TParis, I do not know why you are ignoring the guideline that WP:PROF just requires sources to verify the criteria given there. The sources for that are the papers and the citation record. I've added them. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @DGG: See my reply to Xxanthippe.--v/r - TP 16:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Although he's not among the top 25% of economists in Michigan [59], I think his Google scholar citation counts of 335, 287, 114, ... are good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Could someone perhaps fix the first paragraph being almost entirely a copyright violation of the about me section of his blog? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- done. I reworded and reorganized things a little in the way I always do. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- done. I reworded and reorganized things a little in the way I always do. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Article does not assert notability, but WP's general principle of notability. Only secondary source is a news story about one incident.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- that is relevant to WP:GNG' it is not relevant to WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep good citation record proved by rs and WP:PROF is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Re-opening AfD per user request; valid arguments for re-opening presented. I will abstain from further action on this AfD. -- Dane2007 talk 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because he meets WP:PROF as explained quite clearly by DGG. The GNG does not apply to professors. We do not need personality profiles in general circulation magazines and newspapers, although they can be referenced if they exist. The determining factor in this case is how often his academic articles are cited by other scholars. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If any one of the keep !voters could be so kind as to also fulfill WP:V sourcing requirements as well as removing or otherwise dealing with the WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK instead of ignoring those concerns, that'd be great. WP:PROF may be an alternate to GNG but it's not an alternate to WP:V. Articles require secondary sources. Period dot. BLP's doubly so.--v/r - TP 07:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: comfortably meets WP:PROF. Per DGG, this should be sufficient. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: He has received some coverage in the Lansing State Journal (or his lawsuit has, at any rate), which I have added to the article. It isn't much, but it adds a secondary source to each of the three points therein: his academic position, his activities as a columnist, and his lawsuit. Vanamonde (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: That's my point. Including the lawsuit in an otherwise unreferenced article is a WP:COATRACK. The majority of his life is not this lawsuit. It's like everyone here is having a massive brain fart and is forgetting that BLP's must be referenced and must balance out negative information based on the weight it has according to the sources and according to this person's life. If this person is a prominent professor that passes WP:PROF, then why is the article now 1/3 about this lawsuit? Are you telling me that this lawsuit is as important to his life as his entire career?--v/r - TP 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: we need to do our best to follow WP:DUE, but I am not going to vote to delete an article just because coverage in reliable sources does not match my subjective conception of what the sections of the article should look like. This is not even a case where an individual is notable purely for something negative. He sued his employer, and became known for it; and we report it here, as we should. Not to mention that other parts of the article also now have secondary sources, added by myself and Jonpatterns; but my point is that "secondary sources do not cover what I want them to cover" is not an argument to delete in my book unless we're discussing a person known only for a single scandal or something. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- When it comes to articles of this type, WP:BLP is the priority and it requires secondary sources. I'm happy that this article meets PROF, but we absolutely do not keep articles where the majority of the sources are negative and BLP1E simply because something unrelated to the reporting makes them notable. BLP is the priority. If you remove the WP:COATRACK, which I am convinced none of you have bothered reading (including the ordinarily BLP champion, DGG), then there are no secondary sources. This is outrageous that all of you want to keep an article which is effectively slander just because of some trivial policy which doesn't have a basis in WP:V. What makes any of you think that WP:PROF supersedes WP:V and WP:BLP? All WP:PROF mentions superseding is WP:N. Fine, notability is there. Sourcing is not, though, and we don't keep unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs.--v/r - TP 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of the article do you consider slander? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The coatrack that existed before. 1/3 of the article was about the lawsuit and linking him to the MRA (without a source). Now that it's been sourced better, I feel better about the article existing.--v/r - TP 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of the article do you consider slander? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- When it comes to articles of this type, WP:BLP is the priority and it requires secondary sources. I'm happy that this article meets PROF, but we absolutely do not keep articles where the majority of the sources are negative and BLP1E simply because something unrelated to the reporting makes them notable. BLP is the priority. If you remove the WP:COATRACK, which I am convinced none of you have bothered reading (including the ordinarily BLP champion, DGG), then there are no secondary sources. This is outrageous that all of you want to keep an article which is effectively slander just because of some trivial policy which doesn't have a basis in WP:V. What makes any of you think that WP:PROF supersedes WP:V and WP:BLP? All WP:PROF mentions superseding is WP:N. Fine, notability is there. Sourcing is not, though, and we don't keep unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs.--v/r - TP 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: we need to do our best to follow WP:DUE, but I am not going to vote to delete an article just because coverage in reliable sources does not match my subjective conception of what the sections of the article should look like. This is not even a case where an individual is notable purely for something negative. He sued his employer, and became known for it; and we report it here, as we should. Not to mention that other parts of the article also now have secondary sources, added by myself and Jonpatterns; but my point is that "secondary sources do not cover what I want them to cover" is not an argument to delete in my book unless we're discussing a person known only for a single scandal or something. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: That's my point. Including the lawsuit in an otherwise unreferenced article is a WP:COATRACK. The majority of his life is not this lawsuit. It's like everyone here is having a massive brain fart and is forgetting that BLP's must be referenced and must balance out negative information based on the weight it has according to the sources and according to this person's life. If this person is a prominent professor that passes WP:PROF, then why is the article now 1/3 about this lawsuit? Are you telling me that this lawsuit is as important to his life as his entire career?--v/r - TP 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: He has received some coverage in the Lansing State Journal (or his lawsuit has, at any rate), which I have added to the article. It isn't much, but it adds a secondary source to each of the three points therein: his academic position, his activities as a columnist, and his lawsuit. Vanamonde (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Most of the keep arguments, while numerous, are rather vague, and largely boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. But, FourViolas cites a number of what look like good sources, which nobody refuted, so based largely on FourViolas's argument alone, I'm calling this a keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Scientific dissent (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 previous AfD was closed as no consensus because it seems that the arguments explaining why this article should be deleted weren't fully formed. Since it was closed as no consensus, it is fine to start a new AfD. I hereby attempt to make the argument for why a redirect is the best solution.
Aside from the idea of scientific consensus which has lately become a very popular concept in the field of science and technology studies, the particular idea of scientific dissent has found rigorous treatment in precisely one journal article: that of Kristen Intemann Inmaculada de Melo-Martín. Essentially no one else has identified this phenomenon as a separate and worthy-to-discuss idea outside of this one source. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote such an idea with such a limited source background.
The proper home for a WP:WEIGHTed discussion of Inmaculada de Melo-Martín's work would be at scientific consensus. The ideas found in the article can be safely incorporated there, though it is doubtful to me that much discussion is necessary over there, nor do I see an absolute need to use this source at that page. jps (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as a notable topic in science and technology studies in its own right. Academically published RS include:
- Inmaculada de Melo-Martín 2012, "Scientific dissent and public policy", referred to in nom
- Delborne 2008 "Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice"
- Martin 2008, "Enabling Scientific Dissent"
- Maguire 2007, "Scientific Dissent amid the United Kingdom Government’s Nuclear Weapons Programme"
- Bechler 1974, "Newton's 1672 optical controversies: a study in the grammar of scientific dissent"
- Aklin 2013, "Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy"
- Westin 1986, "Professional and ethical dissent: Individual, corporate and social responsibility"
- These sources demonstrate significant and lasting attention to the ways in which researchers depart from scientific consensus; their reasons for doing so; barriers to doing so; consequences for the researchers, society, and policy; and so on. That's more than enough for a standalone encyclopedic article, per GNG. Frequent mentions in the news, even excluding a much-discussed document called "Scientific Dissent to Darwinism [sic]", provide further evidence that a targeted article can be valuable. FourViolas (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: to say "the particular idea of scientific dissent has found rigorous treatment in precisely one journal article" is simply not true. It is discussed, for example, in Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society (Cambridge University Press, 2015) by David Harker, who draws on Miriam Solomon's 2001 book Social Criticism, as well as C. Shambu Prasad, "Creative Dissent: Linking Vulnerability and Knowledge in India," in Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance (MIT Press, 2014) - Prasad draws on Jason Delborne, "Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice" Social Studies of Science (2008). StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Presently the article discusses several specific authors' views on dissent in science, and I think the politicization article is more appropriate where politics are involved. Galileo and Lysenko are almost straw-men here, as they often are; Galileo was right and dissented, and Lysenko was wrong and dissent was suppressed. Those incidents are in the pre-modern scientific era, and they should not be used to suggest that there is some merit in dissent from things that are presently well-established. I'm opposed to keeping the article based on WP:GNG as well, because I think that dissent is not a concept applicable to the scientific method. Science can be politicized and it can be wrong, but one cannot dissent from the scientific consensus for a non-scientific reason and call that dissent "science". Roches (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand your comment, but to the first sentence consider WP:POTENTIAL in light of the many sources above. To the second, it sounds like you disagree with the above authors' choice of terminology even though you acknowledge that GNG is met; you're entitled to your position, but in a deletion discussion that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FourViolas (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Scientific consensus or Scientific method for the exact same reasons I gave last time: This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, and screams "future coatrack!" every time I read it. There's nothing in here that isn't covered elsewhere, and the article doesn't help to tie those parts together because they're already tied together in the two targets for redirect I mentioned above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- re: nothing in here that isn't covered elsewhere - false. "tied together in the two targets" - The two targets are coatracks even in worse than the current one. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm looking for something in this article that isn't covered elsewhere. Not seeing it. Still looking... Nope, nothing so far. I'm at the end with bupkiss to show for it. So your words say "False" but your (utter lack of) evidence says "Of course the amazingly handsome and unbelievably intelligent guy with the juvenile-yet-funny Nordic username is correct." Or something like that, at least. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Haha very funny. I'm sure you know a nifty logical trick about proving that something exists vs. proving that something doesn't. Anyways, please point me to a wikipedia article which covers points made by Kristen Intermann. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are no articles that do. Including this one. Also, if it's logical, it's not a trick. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Haha very funny. I'm sure you know a nifty logical trick about proving that something exists vs. proving that something doesn't. Anyways, please point me to a wikipedia article which covers points made by Kristen Intermann. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm looking for something in this article that isn't covered elsewhere. Not seeing it. Still looking... Nope, nothing so far. I'm at the end with bupkiss to show for it. So your words say "False" but your (utter lack of) evidence says "Of course the amazingly handsome and unbelievably intelligent guy with the juvenile-yet-funny Nordic username is correct." Or something like that, at least. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per FourViolas and StAnselm. This subject definitely meets WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It seems easy to find more substantial sources covering the topic. Apart from those listed above, there's Social Influence in Science: Agreement and Dissent in Achieving Scientific Consensus; Science and Dissent in Post-Mao China: The Politics of Knowledge; and Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology. Andrew D. (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - valid topic; important issues considered based on reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable topic with substantial WP:RS coverage, as covered by FourViolas above. Article needs a partial rewrite to better reflect this range of sources.Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There are numerous sources, as noted above and also including e.g. the section on scientific dissent in Science and Politics: An A-to-Z Guide to Issues and Controversies (Brent S. Steel, ed.). The presnt article is really, really bad, but deletion is not the appropriate response to that. -- 120.17.23.114 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect Even if the topic is notable the lack of any significant content that's disjoint from Scientific consensus screams WP:NOPAGE. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- merge to scientific consensus - this is part of that topic and should be covered there; that article is not so long that it cannot fully cover its topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - freedom to dissent from current scientific consensus is an essential driver of the scientific process. It's a big part of how real science progresses. This is an important article, an article which provides also balance and counterpoint to fundamentalists who advocate naive and repressive forms of scientism. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There has been discussion over at the Talk page about whether this article is simply a part of routine scientific method. Even if it is, we have articles on Hypothesis, Exploratory research, Data collection, Research data archiving, etc, all of which are a part of routine scientific method. It seems logical to keep this article. DrChrissy (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- PureJewels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be promotional. References are either ad copy/ press releases or are trivial mentions of the location only. (Two of them are also redundant.). Article needs evidence of non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary sources to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable.--Markbrown00 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I removed the LiveMint link, as it was redundant to the Reuters article. I'm not sure that it'd really be an in-depth source as a whole since the article isn't really about the store itself. It's mentioned more in passing. The FT article could be considered usable for the most part. It's not the focus of the article but it's mentioned more than in the Reuters article. The official website is of course primary and I need to note that this article was written by someone who works for PureJewels, so it'd be primary as well. This article only mentioned the company briefly, so another trivial source. Unless there's better coverage out there, this looks to be a solid delete. It could potentially be speedyable as spam, given the promotional puff in the article, but running an AfD would help keep it from getting restored in the future without establishing notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched (it didn't take long) and there just isn't a lot out there that isn't a routine database listing or a primary source. The best I found was this news article, but it's far from enough to keep the article and besides - the website offers marketing packages that includes promotional articles. The content in the DesiBlitz article is so promotional that it seems like this was written as a marketing piece. There just isn't really enough out there to warrant an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I'm unable to find sufficient substantive coverage in independent sources. It is also rather promotional in its tone. Vanamonde (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- purely promotional content and no indication of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- MobiKwik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing at all actually convincing given the sources and information are all simply about partnerships, PR awards, trivial coverage, interviews, funding and other financial activities, none of this amounts to actual convincing substance and notability; my own searches including at Indian news sources are find mirrors of this so there's nothing amply better. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "MobiKwik" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Additional sources are also listed. No "find mirrors" here. See the Advanced search options at right for more options. North America1000 07:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- Keep - while there are press releases, and puffery amongst the sources, significant coverage from reliable sources are available, and hence, notable. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- squeaks by on GNG. I don't see this meeting COPRDEPTH, since the coverage is rather superficial -- about plans and aspirations mostly. But there's enough human interest coverage to meet GNG, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nikolai Noskov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, as he was a rather unremarkable member of Gorky Park (band). No independent sources conform WP:RS. Possible selfpromo, as one of the authors (User:Анна Озерова) is canvassing on the Dutch Wikipedia to get this article translated ((in Dutch) [60] and [61]) The Banner talk 23:09, 9 August 2016 (
- Delete - Only his band is notable. Possible redirect to Gorky Park. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No redirect! No redirect! No redirect! --Анна Озерова (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- And that is why you are blanking this page, removing other edits comments and removing the AfD-template? Are you sure you have no Conflict of Interest? The Banner talk 10:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No redirect! No redirect! No redirect! --Анна Озерова (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I want saving of this page!!!! The users will read this article about him! --Анна Озерова (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect - Not notable independent of the band. Redirects are cheap. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - He has six studio solo albums. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - 30 interwiki, 5 Golden Gramophone awards, Ovation (award)[62][63][64][65][66]--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The 30 interwikis do not say anything, as User:Анна Озерова has been actively canvassing to get more article about him. The Banner talk 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly. But you've seen at least one person with the insignificant 30 interwiki? )))--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Noskov less significant than Aleksandr Marshal?--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 14:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do not. They are absolutely identical. Noskov career even more fruitful and rich.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 14:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The 30 interwikis do not say anything, as User:Анна Озерова has been actively canvassing to get more article about him. The Banner talk 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- keep Not top best, but reasonably notable, recipient of several Golden Gramophone Awards. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep Notable artist not only as part of a band, but as solo on his own merit as well. Six solo albums to his name stretching over one and a half decades. Television celebrity. Judge in TV show etc.. werldwayd (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- The canvassing for more articles about him made it look ugly but I bow for the arguments and improvements. I withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gerard de Marigny (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)
Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a self-published writer, based entirely on primary and user-generated sources with not one shred of reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. This appears to have been created by a direct colleague of his in defiance of our conflict of interest rules, and then edited by the subject himself in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO. And too many of the notability claims here are on the order of "got X number of views for a YouTube video" and "is included in online directories of quotations", which don't contribute notability (the quotation directories, significantly, are mostly user-generated ones to which a subject can add himself.) None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: If there are sources about him being part of Americade that aren't primary then that can help establish notability, assuming that the band is notable. Offhand it looks like it should be, however I note that the same COI that has been editing de Marigny's article was also editing the band's article, so the band's notability is somewhat questionable given the semi-promotional tones in the band article and the relatively weak sourcing currently in Americade's article. I'll see what I can find, but offhand the article seems to focus a lot on his novel. I'm going to remove the mentions of it selling well on Amazon, since that's not something that would give notability and we can only really add that to the article if there is a lot of coverage in independent RS that would justify adding it. So far this looks to be a great example of why COI editing should be done extremely carefully, since there's so much promotional puffery in the article (and in the band's article) that it would probably need to be TNT'd in order to make it fit NPOV and GNG. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also removed the quotes section. That was unambigously spammy and it also doesn't help that offhand the sites all accept user submissions, meaning that it wouldn't be hard to add things for any given person. I've issued a COI warning to the user in question. Offhand I'm concerned that there might be a bit of a walled garden here. If de Marigny's article is deemed nn, I'd recommend taking a hard look at the band page as well. The sheer spam and weak claims of notability in the author's article makes me kind of concerned that the band could potentially fail NBAND. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd endorse a speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion, except that I've got a strong feeling that AfD would become inevitable since a search shows that the author is extremely prolific in trying to promote himself and his work on the Internet. Wikipedia just happens to be the latest outlet for this promotion. None of his books are notable per Wikipedia guidelines and the only halfway decent source is this article, which is just a reprint of a blog review, which is considered a WP:SPS. He landed on the Amazon bestseller list, however that's a list that's specifically highlighted as a non-notability giving list on Wikipedia because it's relatively easy to manipulate - especially when you start branching off into the individual categories and sub categories and into country-specific branches. It's not even something worth mentioning on Wikipedia unless multiple independent and reliable sources mention it as something of note. The band does give some assertion of notability, however I'm extremely concerned about the notability for that article, given the sheer amount of promotional puffery and use of non-RS to assert notability in the author's article. I'm going to take a good hard look at the band's article. Unless there's a ton of coverage for it in good, strong RS, it'd likely stand to be deleted as well, even if only as a TNT because it's so darn promotional. I've asked for help at the rock WP, but offhand I'm leaning heavily towards nominating it just to get it TNT'd. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americade (band). It's actually something that could arguably be speedied as sheer promotional puff. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Americade_(band) - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.