Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Girl Crazy (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film with no press notice. (Nine votes in IMDb for a recent film is a pretty bad sign.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even a B movie. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added what I can to the article, cleaned up the formatting, and squeezed a few tidbits of information from various places. Despite this, I was going to refrain from !voting, but on second thought I'd like to say instead that the strongest argument for the film's notability lies in it being a formative experience for Richard Dutcher, who is clearly the auteur. I'm not familiar with Dutcher's work, but to the extent that Girl Crazy taught Durcher how to make films, and the experience moved him away from making "fluff" into making serious films, then the film is notable for those extrinsic reasons, not because of its own qualities. I think this means that the article should be kept for the film's "historical" value in illuminating this director's career. It rather hinges on how important Dutcher is, or may become. However, my own inclination in any case is to keep borderline articles, as long as they aren't destructive, misleading or uninformative.
If, however, folks here determine that it should be deleted, I urge someone to make sure that the pertinent information from it is properly merged into the Richard Dutcher article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as first feature film of notable drector. User:Beyond My Ken made some good progress and the article has been further expanded and sourced. And even though the director himself admits the film was "fluff", it has received attention in media (and not just Morman media) for years[1]. IMDB does not impart nor detract from notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These appear to be nearly all just passing mentions, other than the one interview with the director, which could easily be incorporated in his article. Where is there any notice of the film itself by independent sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First film of a notable director, which the director calls his "master's thesis". Plus it gets mentioned everywhere, many Google news results restricted for paying customers only. Dream Focus 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — plenty of references and a notable director, already on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, with comments from single-purpose accounts considered. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Longball (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. This article is about a completely non-notable game played at a single school. Based on the reading of the article, it's likely the entire thing is a prank being played by the members of the school. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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}} . |
- Delete. Agree with nominator. --Fang Aili talk 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, made up sport. RFerreira (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The first five words of the article is all I needed to see to confirm my suspicions that it was made up one day. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepYou can't delete Longball. This sport is part of a culture which you can verify through our sauces and Facebook page. On occasion Wikipedia users immaturely edit this page but I would assume this would happen with all other pages. As soon as these silly comments are found they are immediately edited out. Long ball is indeed a made up sport but how have all other sports been originated? Where would soccer be today if it had been dismissed long ago as a "made up sport". Humanity would lose the culture and all these things which this sport has contributed. Longball is fast growing, it has a strong and evolving culture and i would hope that Wikipedia would support this new sport trying to leave its grass roots and gain exposure in the wider community. I hope you will take this into account rather than just read five words and make your judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olig12345 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC) — Olig12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (just thought I should point that out.)[reply]
- Delete "You can't delete Longball." Oh yes, we can. Cricket and golf would not have been accorded articles until they achieved notability - by Wikipedia standards - had we been around when someone made them up. When there's evidence in reliable sources (please, not sauces - messy...), an article may be merited. "i would hope that Wikipedia would support this new sport trying to leave its grass roots" - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such records and does not promote. As yet non-notable unless some very good independent reliable references are forthcoming. Peridon (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Your arguments have presented some valid points, however, it is in our greatest interest to recognize these accusations and improve our page. It is understandable that you may see a lack of validity, however our focus is towards this issue and further links, references and soon to be posted pictures are forthcoming to Longball. As a community we feel a certain importance to expand this fast growing sport which has already spread throughout other schools (not only Carey). In addition to this, competitions are held daily with scoring and umpiring systems included. We are merely asking for your support towards it's development. We apologize if there is inappropriate or unproductive content on the page and we are doing everything in our ability to confront this issue. Before jumping to conclusions please consider the communities love and passion for the sport and again, please understand that it is in the peoples greatest interest to acknowledge your claims and further develop our page, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Nico (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) — Pete Nico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply A very eloquent argument, but pointless. Wikipedia has standards of notablity; they are listed here. "Longball" fails to meet these standards. The case is fairly cut and dried. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hello, I was notified by several members of my community of this conflict. Many have asked me to speak up, many families outraged by the proposed deletion of the article. After reading through the current argument, I believe that it is evident that the Longball page should stay. After analyzing several different aspects, I believe that the proposed deletion of this page is biased and unfair. It is evident that there has been a huge amount of ongoing effort to keep the page alive. I understand that there have been several occasions of people defacing our work on wikipedia, but we assure you, we are tending to that matter. Now as Dan stated earlier, this game has no "reliable sources". A quick search has shown that several pages on wikipedia still exists with no reliable sources, for example, Keep Away, another made up game. What makes this game more respectable than ours? I see no list of inaugural teams, origins, or for that matter many subjects the Longball page does cover. There have also been rumors of companies looking to sponsor our club. It is blatantly obvious that if you were to delete the Longball page, you may as well delete the keep away, or hide and seek, or even the completely theoretical big bang article, because in the end, none bar our page has a reliable community to actually prove it exists.58.175.232.148 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — 58.175.232.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Big BangI agree with the above. The Big Bang is largely a theory based claim, and there is no solid evidance that proves God was not the creator of the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.20.224 (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — 58.161.20.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep When i was told that there were people who refused to acknowledge that longball fall a real sport i was horrified. i have spent much time training in the hope of one day becoming a longball player once the game gets off its feet, and to have people not only tell me that what i spend a major part of my life doing isn't real but to try and make it so that longball will never become a 'major' sport is just terrible. just because you haven't heard about the sport dosen't mean it dosen't exist. go to china and ask about AFL and they won't have a clue what your talking about. Longball is one of the greatest sports in the world and should definitely be kept on wikipedia. at the moment it may not be big but with time i think it will become just as prestiges as any other sport. people should not try and take something that is very important to many people and destroy it just because they don't know of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jer11cho (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — Jer11cho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To whom it may concern, the reason of this message is concerning your views on LongBall which is a real sport, and a very existing and competitive team sport. We are simply trying to make people aware of this game as I believe that they would benefit from its character building attributes. If this letter does not satisfy you I, an ambassador of LongBall invite you to a training match on Friday the 25th from 12:35 till 1:20. The venue is the original and birth place of LongBall, Carey Baptist Grammar School Kew, Melbourne, VIC. The court is closest to the drop off entrance. Please note we have had a few problems with unauthorized editing of the LongBall page and are considering legal action, however we have a busy training schedule. It would be very much appreciated if you could join us this Friday and withdraw your comments as a lot of time and effort has being put in to this website. Many Thanks, Guiney —Preceding unsigned comment added by GUINEY115 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — Guiney115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - Not a speck of coverage in reliable sources to establish this as anything more than a local game made up in a school yard. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Sorry Whpq, as stated earlier, Longball is a victim to redundant and completely unnecessary comments; and if possible, try to ignore them. Instead - if you are interested in our deletion - read the objections prepared by either me or user 58.175.232.148, thanks. Pete Nico (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have read the objections. I've read the article, and the preceding discussion, and conducted my own research. The article fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That is understood, however, why does Wikipedia fail to delete other articles lacking inclusion guidelines? For example - Keep Away; a game missing many qualities of our own, yet addressed by Wikipedia to simply improve its information. This is precisely what we are asking for, only are held back by biased and unfair opinions. Pete Nico (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That other article may or may not meet the inclusion guidelines so its existence on wikipedia isn't really relevant to this discussion. If it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines, then somebody will eventually nominate it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Whpq, your argument is inadequate; stating that somebody will "eventually" nominate it for deletion means nothing. If I were to say to my boss, I will "eventually" complete this assignment, I'm sure he wouldn't take that as an excuse. This is no different and I still strongly believe that your arguments are based on biased and single-minded opinions. In addition to this, I clearly stated that 'Keep Away' does not meet the inclusion guidelines yet you support your argument on whether it may or may not include these guidelines. Maybe if you had bothered to research it you would understand that it is indeed relevant to this discussion. Try not to take this as an insult, but just a way of saying you're not being fair. Pete Nico (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If you feel strongly that the other article also doesn't meet inclusion criteria, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion as well. But as I said, we are not debating the merits of othrer articles, we are debating the merits of the article on longball. All of those who have been arguing for keeping of the article have not been able to produce any reliable sources covering this sport. This is fundamental, and no amount of people voting to support it can overcome it.
- Reply It seems that despite what I say, you manage to find a way to completely demoralize my argument and find a way to work around it. Then you write the same typical responses. Arguing with you is as pointless as walking around in circles. Pete Nico (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete this motherfucking scummy page. Useless fucking page about a stupid fucking invented by random people, just like every other sport was! Just because there is no difference between the acceptance of Longball to Keep away or even the bigbang, delete this. even though the quality and precision of the article is immaculate, just delete it as we are a biased
community!220.253.203.29 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyI would watch your language young man. Wikipedia is a page for people of all ages and your language is highly offensive. I think you will also discover that most pages and concepts were inventer by "random people" so i fail to see the logic of your argument.
- Delete Nutrients in apricots can help protect the heart and eyes, as well as provide the disease-fighting effects of fiber. The high beta-carotene content of apricots makes them important heart health foods. Beta-carotene helps protect LDL cholesterol from oxidation, which may help prevent heart disease. Apricots are a good source of fiber, which has a wealth of benefits including preventing constipation and digestive conditions such as diverticulosis. But most Americans get less than 10 grams of fiber per day. A healthy, whole foods diet should include apricots as a delicious way to add to your fiber intake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.21.210 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This argument has no relevence to the topic i wonder why it was posted on this page perhaps the wrong web page address was typed into the browser.
- Delete No reliable sources found in news or web searches and limited regional influence so fails WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Chignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he is the co-author of several books, I couldn't find anything that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics).I'm not very familiar with h index and don't have the time to go into it right now, so I'm going to say neutral. --Fang Aili talk 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I added some references, including one from the Toronto Star. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. The Toronto Star article appears to be a trivial mention. XLerate (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GS cites give h index = 21. A clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep with a passing H Index for WP:PROF. RFerreira (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. WoS shows h-index of only 8, but the total number of journal-based citations to his work is around 200, which when taken with the Star article suggests a pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @951 · 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts in reverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. Warrah (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.48.193 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm finding zero significant coverage for this band in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N or WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Gongshow. Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Newly formed band with no coverage in reliable sources, and a self-made EP that hasn't even been released. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noodle (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product; cannot find any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP coverage or merge with larger page on KM products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim@ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added some coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.73.100 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Edited by an IP address assigned to Vialect (the product's developer), and I have strong suspicions that Tim@ (talk · contribs) is related to Vialect. Only barely notable from the references I can see, and the article should be re-written by an independent third party if indeed it is notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only reviewed on obscure sites and blogs. Even in the highly specialized EContent site/mag, it gets very little coverage. Compare
- http://www.econtentmag.com/search/Default.aspx?Query=Vialect (all of their products because Noodle is a rename of their IntraNet)
- http://www.econtentmag.com/search/Default.aspx?Query=Ektron (Ektron)
- http://www.econtentmag.com/search/Default.aspx?Query=sitecore (Sitecore)
- http://www.econtentmag.com/search/Default.aspx?Query=fatwire (FatWire)
- Similarly compare the searches in KMWorld:
- http://www.kmworld.com/Search/Default.aspx?Query=Vialect&rowcount=0
- http://www.kmworld.com/Search/Default.aspx?Query=Ektron&rowcount=0
- http://www.kmworld.com/Search/Default.aspx?Query=sitecore&rowcount=0
- http://www.kmworld.com/Search/Default.aspx?Query=fatwire&rowcount=0
- Also, Vialect has 0 hits on CMS Watch, unlike the other three companies listed above. Pcap ping 05:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a resource for conducting business. --Closeapple (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bite Me (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weird. Twinkle puked and didn't make the page. Anyway, no secondary sources, not individually notable per WP:NSONGS; (song) part of title makes it an unlikely redirect candidate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. May become notable if it gets established, but just after its first event it isn't, yet JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BasauriCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure what's going on here. This article had a prod tag dated 9 October at its initial creation on 17 February ([2]). Jclemens (talk · contribs) declined the prod and it was re-prodded by Rapido (talk · contribs) on 18 February with the rationale "No evidence of notability; new, non-notable convention." Notwithstanding all of this, the article creator left a note on the talk page that hints at an objection to deletion, therefore deletion is not uncontroversial.
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my rationale above: No evidence of notability; new, non-notable convention. Rapido (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - tiny new non-notable convention; coverage is of stars, not convention. (This is really not a convention, but rather more a commercial show: tiered "tickets", etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of being notable. Warrah (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
The event has yet to be held, according to the article.Might still become notable, someday, and if so an article might be appropriate - but we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- correction - look further down; the first was held earlier in February; the "to be held" language is to clarify that it's intended to be annual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I've struck that bit, but I think it's still a case of a not-yet-notable event. More independent coverage would fix that, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - look further down; the first was held earlier in February; the "to be held" language is to clarify that it's intended to be annual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected to 2010 Austin intentional plane crash. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicate article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect This page was originaly created as a redirect. That seems like the appropriate handling. Have the article covering the event and redirect the name of the person involved. Currently the article is at 2010 Austin intentional plane crash although there have been a few moves and it could change again.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2010 Austin intentional plane crash or whatever ends up being the title of that article. No evidence that this person presently meets WP:PERP. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect for now, but with no prejudice against eventual creation of a bio article. I would not be at all surprised if his manifesto and his criminal acts gain coverage of his life story as widespread as that of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols or Richard Reid (shoe bomber). The crime appears notable, but the perpetrator is not automatically so per WP:PERP. Edison (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect it back to the article on the plane crash. The man is probably dead, but the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:BLP1E should be considered here, that is, we should cover the event, not the man. As time goes by, its possible he might become more individually notable, but he isn't now. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2010 Austin intentional plane crash. WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP make him not notable on his own, but only within the context of what he did. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect with/to 2010 Austin intentional plane crash. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Performing the merge/redirect. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Islam Zinda Baad Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe that this political party is notable. It seems to be a one man band that has stood once, receiving very few votes. Outside one piece in the local press, the only other coverage I can find is a tabloid hit piece about Salim:[3]. Fences&Windows 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a single candidate appears to constitute the entire political party, and that candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way, I can't see any grounds to keep this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have not yet heard any rumours to suggest that he (or the party) are thinking of standing in the forthcoming election, so as it stands it is a 'one hit wonder' I agree that the party does not satisfy notability policy. I agree that the only option is deletion. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Despite registration with the Electoral Commission, this is obviously a very minor polical party, probably consisting of one would-be politician and his election committee, essentially a one-man band. It got 309 votes in 2005, no doubt largely from his mosque and his friends. The apparent link to its leader goes to a dabpage, which does not seem to refer to this leader. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vegetable monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The factual accuracy of this article is highly doubtful. There is no evidence that anyone other than the author refers to members of the genus Monstera as "vegetable monsters". The term, as used by Erasmus Darwin, did not refer to this genus specifically, but to a whole class of plants (see this quote). The etymology of the term "monster" is completely wrong (it derives from monere (to warn) in Latin). The "uses" section appears to be the author's own review of Darwin's The Botanic Garden. In sum, the "facts" of the article are wrong, and the opinions of the article are irrelevant. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, perhaps speedily. About as inaccurate as you can get. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would support the article's etymology of monster as coming from 'monstrum' - backed up by Wiktionary and my Times English Dictionary, which gives the meaning of monstrum as a portent. The TED gives the origin of Monstera as being due probably to the holes in the leaves giving an aberrant appearance.
As to the contents of Erasmus Darwin's work, I cannot comment - not having read it.No, wait - I've found it. "[_Alcea_, l. 69. Flore pleno. Double hollyhock. The double flowers, so much admired by the florists, are termed by the botanist vegetable monsters". http://www.gramotey.com/?page=2&open_file=1195197382.9 So we have hollyhocks with double flowers not swiss cheeses - and he attributes the term to 'botanists', not his to own invention. This post started out as a 'Comment', but changed with a bit of research. Peridon (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as misinformation. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Double-floweredDelete. The current Vegetable monsters article seems to mostly be WP:OR and/or wrong. The Erasmus Darwin quote "The double flowers, so much admired by the florists, are termed by the botanist vegetable monsters" makes it clear that these terms are synonymous (and a reading of the following paragraphs in Darwin makes it clear that this pertains to flowers only, not flowers or leaves as the article currently claims). Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the discussion below, doesn't really sound like we need a redirect. It isn't like this is a common term (like Hopeful monster), which makes it hard to come up with an appropriate target for a redirect. Erasmus Darwin, in that passage, is talking about double flowered, but teratology#In plants would make sense, as would Unusually shaped vegetable (per Curtis Clark's reaction), Plant creatures, and probably other choices. Kingdon (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When I first saw the title, I was assuming "monster vegetables", such as 100 kg zucchinis. The article conflates several topics (Monstera deliciosa has no petals, iirc), and is not even amusing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think this is a plausible enough title to redirect, but if it is to be redirected, the target should be teratology#In plants. Hesperian 23:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it were to be redirected teratology#In plants would be more appropriate than double-flowered. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacksonville Ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, non-notable, ahem... "ninja". JBsupreme (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO in general. — Rankiri (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Rankiri. -RobertMel (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS and fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Pcap ping 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this fails WP:ENTERTAINER and the more general WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We've already had this debate once before and it was decided to keep the page. How many times can an article be brought up for deletion? MaxMercy (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When? According to your contribution history, this and WP:Articles for deletion/AC Transit Bus fight are your only AfD discussions. — Rankiri (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm confused, but here in the history it shows that a speedy deletion tag was removed because the article had ample news coverage and that it was a "robust indicator of significance." MaxMercy (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big difference. Speedy is a much lower threshold to survive than AfD. AfD requires passing either the WP:GNG or one of the additionals WP:BIO in this case. Passing that particular speedy just requires an assertion of notability, not that it actually get there.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one of the two references is completely incidental, and for a subject to be deemed notable by local news coverage only he would need far more than one significant mention. Let me know if some solid sources are found; I'll gladly reconsider.--otherlleft 14:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another Jacksonville Daily News story at [4] This is the only daily newspaper in the region. MaxMercy (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that a single article in a seemingly non-notable small-town newspaper—particularly one that pays attention to unfounded rumors and user comments on YouTube—can be seen as significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The tone and style of the article can and should be fixed by editing, but are not reasons for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack Yan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Definitely vanity page, clearly written by the person himself; makes unsubstantiated claims eg " region's leading font software firm". Have already deleted link to page of New Zealand political party leaders page, this guy clearly isn't one of those. Is not a person of note.10:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruatoriapies (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I have corrected the attempt to reopen the the original AfD, which closed as keep in 2007, and moved the above comment from there.-gadfium 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've completed the nomination by fixing the header. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of the mainstream media mentions that I can access only have passing mentions of him and/or interview him as an expert. planete-typographie.com however has a lengthy interview with him about his own work. Pcap ping 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His fashion magazine Lucire, has some coverage in the NZ press, but only very brief coverage in the Romanian press [5] (the article is about all "glossy" fashion magazines in Romania). Pcap ping 00:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:GNG with references listed in the article and others e.g. NZ Herald, Stuff.co.nz. Some of the 3rd party articles are only a trivial mention, but others are more in depth. XLerate (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject is running for mayor of Wellington, as I have added this to the article. The article strikes me as POV, so I've also tagged it regarding neutrality. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was largely edited by the same editor that edited Lucire and Medinge Group, so the WP:COI is rather obvious. Pcap ping 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must say I love the accusations of my authoring my own stuff, or at least the frequency of their appearance. Most recently I saw it on a Stuff article that I had not read until several comments had been added concerning me, to find that one commenter accused me of writing the earlier ones. I see the same issue has arisen here on my first visit to Wikipedia in ages. I won’t add any vote, being the subject, though I am not a political party leader and even that deletion I agree with. Jack Yan (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone can be bothered chasing up the offline references, there are a few more for editors’ consideration here. Over to you. Jack Yan (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chimes Aviation Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of many thousands of flying schools no sign this is one is notable enough for an article MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable school. A fairy extensive search for refs turned up blogs, press releases and some media repeat publication of school press releases, but like this Wikipedia article, it all looks like a concerted effort to get some coverage and no genuine third party references that establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the claim here that it is India's largest aviation school is correct, that would indicate notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yup that is the same press release that they seem to have spread around everywhere. The school PR dept claims that it is the biggest school in India. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the claim provided by Eastmain can be supported by reliable third parties. Otherwise... JBsupreme (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete. This report from The Hindu says it's one of the largest, I've found a few reports of the industry on The Economic Times but none that mention this particular academy (although they mention others). Another piece I saw from 2009 says that they expect about 120 students a year. I'm not seeing in much of notability (quotes are plenty), but willing to change my opinion if someone finds something other than a press-release that says something about it being the largest academy. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete claims are unsubstantiated, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 51SIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- 51Give (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy G11 declined. Although there are references establishing that some of this organization's projects were notable, none of these references link the organization to the projects in question. Google News returns nothing. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I declined the speedy, but tagged for notability issues. It seems to me that the tone is not so promotional that it couldn't be dealt with by normal editing, provided that the organization is notable. Given that this is a Chinese organization, Google results, particularly English-language Google results, may suffer from systemic bias -- there might be sources in newspapers or other works published in China. On the other hand, it is not implausible that this is not (or not yet) notable. There may be WP:COI issues also, the creator seems to be a single purpose account or nearly so: the user's edits are to 51Give, 51SIM, and the deleted articles Daniel Foa and Hiu Ng, and no others. DES (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am adding 51Give to this AfD. The articles are about closely related organizations, and have similar issues. They were both created and primarily edited by the same user. I declined G11 speedies on both. DES (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google news search finds 2 English language hits with trivial passing mentions, and a number of Chinese-language hits. I hope someone with the required language skills can look at the latter and summarize them here. DES (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, Chinese sources write "51Sim" in the Latin alphabet. According to a machine translation, this source cites 51Sim as a sponsor of a competition at Hong Kong University. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/51Give. DES (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google news search finds 2 English language hits with trivial passing mentions, and a number of Chinese-language hits. I hope someone with the required language skills can look at the latter and summarize them here. DES (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I swear to God I've seen this article before under another name. But I can't for the life of me remember the other article's name. Angryapathy (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's great that I read before I type. Idiot. Anyway, this is just a recreation of previous articles, see 51Give's previous deletion debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/51Give. Angryapathy (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Recreation of previously deleted material, possible copyvio and/or possible WP:COI and no evidence of notability. -RobertMel (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure about notability, but both these pages read like a corporate brochure. Smocking (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. JBsupreme (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathaniel Mellors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete non-notable myspace artist who fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Keep artist has at least exhibited at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam and the London Tate, which are both respected museums. These claims are backed up by third parties at [6] and [7], which makes him pass the first criterion of WP:ARTIST. Other claims check out as well. This just needs some references, that's all. Smocking (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Smocking. An artist who has exhibited at Stedelijk and Tate and has been covered in Frieze easily passes WP:ARTIST. I'm not certain how the description "myspace artist" applies here. The article needs work, but notability is obvious. freshacconci talktalk 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is glaringly obvious even in the article when nominated.[8] I fail to see why the nom highlights MySpace and ignores the Tate and Stedelijk Museum. The nominator might like to read WP:BEFORE, and also check out the links above for Google, Books, and Scholar. All this needed was {{refimprove}} or a note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts. Ty 07:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interest Based Approach to Teaching and Learning any Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely coherent how-to, non-notable teaching technique. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Easily fails WP:GNG as Googling the term gives only one result besides Wikipedia. It's barely comprehensible and unsupported by evidence, so WP:OR. Smocking (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Smocking above. Suggest bundling Teaching Communication Skills to Polytechnic Students in Maharashtra: similar article by same creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At best a personal essay, but certainly not encyclopedic. I had already PRODed the other article mentioned by MuffledThud before I saw this. Support the idea of bundling if this PROD is also contested. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As WP:OR (as claimed by the article itself). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Something between an essay and a how-to guide. Whatever it is, it's all non-notable original research, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted, per WP:CSD#a7. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manubia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article about a non-notable software service, with COI issues attached. Too close to spam for comfort. Warrah (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – this software article lacks 3rd party sources to establish notability; subject appears to be non-notable. Dialectric (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. Smocking (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A7 delete. Web site with no third party references or claim of importance. Tagging as such. Pcap ping 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:NACD (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drumized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Re-delete. Prod was contested after deletion, but the album continues to fail WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete – Per User:JBsupreme. Changed my vote, see below. XXX antiuser eh? 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage to pass WP:MUSIC. A decent review here and more sources here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about that... When I go to click on "about" for Drowned in Sound to determine their quality as a reliable source (and editorial policies), it actually takes me to their Wikipedia article. (!) The NYT blurb is a passing mention. JBsupreme (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:MUSIC, also mentioned in the New York Times --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per lugnuts - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – mention in the NY Times establishes notability for artist and album. XXX antiuser eh? 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The title of the book cited by the "keep" !voter, Xerxes, makes clear that it is about the 480 BC battle. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Battle of Thermopylae (353 BC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-existent battle, no references, created by now-banned user MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been writing about the ascendency of Ancient Macedon (see Rise of Macedon), and as part of that, the Third Sacred War, in which Macedon was involved. In the process of doing this, I came across this article, which purports to describe a battle that took place during the Third Sacred War, following the Battle of Crocus Field. However, none of the sources (ancient or modern) that I have seen mention this battle.
There was a scramble to occupy the pass of Thermopylae in 353 or 352 BC (the date is uncertain) after the Macedonian victory at Crocus Field, in which the Phocians and the Athenians successfully occupied the pass. This deterred Philip II of Macedon from making any attempt to use the pass, and instead he returned to Macedon. However, there was not (as far as I can see) a battle.
There are no references in the article which would allow us to try and verify the claims made by the original editor, who is now, in any case, banned. I therefore suggest that this article be deleted, as very probably non-historical and certainly non-notable, since no source bothers to mention it. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the above, I should also point out that there is the very famous Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), as well as numerous other Battles in the same place (see Battle of Thermopylae (disambiguation); this nomination does not refer to those battles, only the supposed one in 353 BC. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my nomination. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Never heard of a Battle of Thermopylae on that date, there is indeed the notable Battle of Thermopylae, which article exist already but which happened about a century prior. -RobertMel (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would tend to agree with the nominator that something happened there in 353 BC, but it wasn't exactly a battle, particularly after looking at [9] and [10] and [11]. This is what happens, of course, when someone writes an article and doesn't bother to tell us where they got their information, but anyone who cares to try a fix (I don't) can look at those sources (type in the words Onomarchus and Thermopylae in Google Books, add 353 if you want to). This reminds me of "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" If one army occupies a place and nobody contests it, it doesn't sound like a battle. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found a chapter in a book on this in Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=ob0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA176&dq=%22Battle+of+Thermopylae%22&lr=&num=100&as_brr=1&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22Battle%20of%20Thermopylae%22&f=false This could certainly add some text to the article. J appleseed2 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to suggest to keep myself when I noticed that most of the Google Book results refer to what seems to be an entirely different battle (480 B.C.). — Rankiri (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Battle of Thermopylae and Battle of Thermopylae (disambiguation). It looks like that place has seen more fights than the Colosseum. — Rankiri (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above keep nomination is based on a different Battle of Thermopylae (the more famous one). MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't view the content, but given the way the chapters are assembled, I can assume it's about another battle which happened over a century prior, the more famous Battle of Thermopylae. -RobertMel (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Table of voltages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indiscriminate, un-maintainable list of trivial non-notable individual observations (of dubious accuracy at the moment). Millions of voltage measurements are made every day without being notable for an encyclopedia article. There is no criterion to exclude a voltage measurement or rating from this list. WP:NOT says this is not "A complete exposition of all possible details." and this table is no more notable than a collection of any other dimensions of physical objects. Nor is this the place for " Excessive listing of statistics." This table qualifies as a "terrible idea". Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for random tables that don't give any understanding of *why* different voltages are used for differnt things. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's a terrible idea for an article topic, but this seems to break all the rules for an article: unsourced, zero context, apparently original research, and not aimed at informing anyone. I guess I learned today that the proper name for a nine-volt battery is a "PP3 battery", but it might as well say "one of those little square batteries". At the moment, the article is too technical for laymen, too simplistic for electricians. May someone can take charge, give it some power, be a little more current, etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Orders of magnitude (voltage) would not be an unreasonable article, to go along with all the other Orders of magnitude articles we have. But this is so far from that (needs sources, needs greater logarithmic range, less clustered in the 1-100V range)
that I'm not sure if it's better to try to convert this to Orders of magnitude (voltage) or to nuke it entirely and start over. Chuck (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete based on DMahalko's nice catch of Volt#Common_voltages. Chuck (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good idea for an article and done in good faith, but misguided due to lacking references and strange phrasing/terminology. I think starting from scratch on Orders of magnitude (voltage) will be less work than improving this and will also lead to a better article. Smocking (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This content already exists on Wikipedia, in a more complete form over here: Volt#Common_voltages DMahalko (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - already covered, as above. --John Nagle (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kristofer Eisenla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Debatable whether he meets WP notability standards. Rd232 talk 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This person is not notible in his own right, he's serves as a spokesperson for a member of Congress, for which another 535 people currently do and thousands others have done previously, and all of the citations included in the article are only references to them serving as a spokesperson, not for any achievements or abilities on his own right, except the reference to a single article in a niche publication which is an article written by him. Also, the article seems to be written as a personal PR piece and not a proper biograhpy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - references which merely quote him as a spokesperson do not establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinky Bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any reliable sources that establish that this is a notable game. There are some claims that the game is "hugely popular," but those come from press releases. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I (as well as the many followers of Dinky Bomb) say keep this page. I have been working on improving this page's content and adding sources where needed. I will continue to improve on it when I have more time, and I will also get some more people with experience on the topic to help me do so. This game and the community around it is very much so notable, in early 2004 (which is before the game was at its peek) it was said that "It has been played by as many as seven million users throughout the world."[12] This will not be my last comment on this debate. But this is a start, Thank you. --75.187.49.50 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above editor has pointed out to me that Dinky Bomb was used in the show "Hi-Score" on gamer.tv [13]. I'm afraid I'm not sure how notable this programme is. It's also important to note that popularity is not notability; the inclusion threshold for video games is "significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources". If Dinky Bomb has a large following but is otherwise unnotable, contributors may wish to detail the game at Wikia Gaming instead. Marasmusine (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of the game in reliable sources. The key is being able to build an article with such sources and not merely stuff ripped from YouTube or from the game's own website. –MuZemike 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. The signal-to-noise ratio in this discussion is pretty bad, there are numerous keep comments that are not based on Wikipedia policy in any way, and several that don't even seem remotely relevant to this conversation. Nevertheless, there are also perfectly valid arguments made to keep, and to delete, meaning the outcome today is no consensus. Perhaps this should be revisited in a few months when this issue has cooled down somewhat and it will be easier to retrospectively determine what lasting notability this incident/fight/meme/whatever may have. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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}} . |
- AC Transit Bus fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This is actually closer to a speedy delete (CSD A7) but some joker would just remove the tag.
While this is a WP:BLP article, it doesn't even rise up to BLP1E as there is no single event which has ever made this one person (or people) notable. Furthermore, it is highly questionable, even by the "sources" being cited as to whether the older gentleman involved in the Oakland Athletics tasing incident and the sensationalized AC Transit dispute are actually one in the same, as no reliable third party source has ever reported on this in any definitive manner.
So what we're left with is a lethal combo of original research generated by excited 4chan fanboys and tabloid-style BLPzeroE subject matter. JBsupreme (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fight seems to be a notable event as it has widespread coverage in reliable sources. Maybe the article should be renamed and mention of Thomas Bruso removed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Negative. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source or platform for creating and perpetuating said material. JBsupreme (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading WP:EVENT we are already seeing global scope and depth to coverage. I say it's too early too call a delete on this event. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully the only person you're kidding is yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to event-oriented name to remove BLP issues, and remove mention of Thomas Bruso unless reliable sources are found confirming he is the individual involved in the event. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I moved the article to remove all BLP issues, this is now all about WP:EVENT, too early to call a delete on this event, see my comment above.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't seem to pass WP:EVENT and the person involved certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Beating of a man on a bus and getting tasered and arrested as a result is WP:BLP1E at best. If there is any encyclopedic value in this one, I just don't see it. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some corrections. He was tasered and arrested when he refused to leave the Oakland stadium in 2009. Then he beat up a man on the bus a year later. It's not notability. It's called recidivism. — Rankiri (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much delete as being utterly unencyclopedic and BLP problematic all in one giant ball of fail. WP:NOTNEWS works, as does WP:BLP1E; whatever you choose, this article needs to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pontificalibus' assertion that this story has the necessary scope and depth of coverage ignores a key factor, that the coverage be over time. This may be notable in a year, but it isn't now. For it to be notable then, the example at WP:BLP1E of Reagan's attempted assassin would be a perfectly cromulent test.--otherlleft 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as just not notable to anybody not on the bus. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following your logic, was the Virginia Tech massacre only notable to people in Virginia Tech at the time? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My logic was that outside of the USA the Virginia Tech massacre was on mainstream news outlets which gives an indication of worldwide notability, this incident appears (to us foreigners) to be just a local news story with no real importance outside of the local area, hence the delete comment. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following your logic, was the Virginia Tech massacre only notable to people in Virginia Tech at the time? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fight itself is not as relevant as the massive online reaction, creation of a meme, and propagation at a stunning pace over less than 24 hours. If this article is deleted, the info should be moved to an entry on memes, or to a list of memes which should be documented as a timeline. Perhaps splitting it up by year eg and entry that is "Internet Memes of 2010" for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.240.137 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This internet meme was all over the web and has been covered by several news outlets besides just blogs. The site Deadspin.com has also covered it and they may not be a mainstream news outlet, but have a large readership. Also, this entry is no different than the Jacksonville Ninja. MaxMercy (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We judge each article by its own merits, and will discuss Jacksonville Ninja if it is nominated here. --otherlleft 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. JBsupreme (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Edrigu (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not paper, and this is a notable event that I was interested in finding out more about. Fortunately, wikipedia was around to provide this information. Baiter (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We all know that Wikipedia is not paper, that also means it is not a WP:NEWSpaper as well. ;-) RFerreira (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not news. Woogee (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Contrary to the nomination, the Oakland Tribune reports that Bruso was indeed the same man that was previously tasered. Also, Google yields 175,000 results for "epic beard man". — C M B J 09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is a classic example of bad reporting. If you read closely, you'll see other highly unlikely remarks, such as "Thomas Bruso [...] who calls himself "Tom Slick," "Vietnam Tom" and "Epic Beard Man."" Really? He refers to himself as Epic Beard Man? When did that happen? It is obvious that Angela Woodall of the Oakland Tribune is just skimming blogs and reporting things as if they were fact. That's... frightening. JBsupreme (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to our article on The Oakland Tribune, the newspaper is 126 years old—and this article was filed in a standard (non-editorial) manner. But perhaps you're right. In case anyone is interested in verifying the integrity of her sources, the article says to "Contact Angela Woodall at 510-208-6413". — C M B J 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is a classic example of bad reporting. If you read closely, you'll see other highly unlikely remarks, such as "Thomas Bruso [...] who calls himself "Tom Slick," "Vietnam Tom" and "Epic Beard Man."" Really? He refers to himself as Epic Beard Man? When did that happen? It is obvious that Angela Woodall of the Oakland Tribune is just skimming blogs and reporting things as if they were fact. That's... frightening. JBsupreme (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It seems to fit quite nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_memes --Bahati (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merits only a mention on a list entry such as List_of_Internet_phenomena#Videos. Hairhorn (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For now at least. Made San Jose Mercury News and the Christian Science Monitor also, and is ongoing CE. There is no BLP anymore. Corella (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this is a notable internet meme. Thue | talk 14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't read this bus article, but for some ideas you can probably compare it to The Bus Uncle. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)voted below rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - notable; "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" Linnea94 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, just read the article and some of the sources and I think this is borderline notable at best. It does have coverage in some sources (CSM being the biggest of these, I think), but not much beyond typical news coverage, and I don't see a huge outbreak of significant commentary in reliable sources, just reporting on what happened. The closest it comes to being notable is its being part of a larger phenomenon (see the CSM article), but even that is not developed very much. I don't think there's sufficient coverage here to make this more than a news event—it's not like The Bus Uncle, which I linked above.
Also, for what it's worth, the article in its current state is extremely poorly written and nearly incomprehensible; I had to go watch the video to get any idea what it was about. If this is kept, it is sorely in need of a complete rewrite by a competent editor. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Merits a mention as an internet meme at List_of_Internet_phenomena#Videos. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia (due to personal reasons), however, after seeing the video from my friends and reading news articles, I thought it fit the criteria for notability, and that there was enough to make a Wikipedia article, so I came back to make the article, but seeing it had already been done,but was in AFD, I shall voice my opinion for it to be kept, and if it is kept, I shall improve it according to sources that become available. Acebulf (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide the reason you believe it is notable, or are you only here to tell a story about how you got here? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if it wasn't clear, I meant to say that it reached a significant amount of news coverage both on the actual event but also on the meme that ensued.Acebulf (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide the reason you believe it is notable, or are you only here to tell a story about how you got here? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The event doesn't seem to be anything outside of a news story. If the event gains notability outside of the press (meme notwithstanding), then it might be worthy to keep. --Ted87 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with AC Transit. Not major enough to merit own article. 76.202.76.41 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.202.76.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep It's notable enough. I don't get it, Wikipedia is full with articles on gay stupid memes. 79.118.181.216 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — 79.118.181.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep This incident is becoming more notable every day. If it dies off in a month, then someone can nominate for deletion. As it is, it would be strange to delete this article when the incident in question is gaining so much attention in the popular media. --Xaliqen (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please recall WP:CRYSTAL. Someone can recreate the article if it doesn't die off in a month, not the other way around. — Rankiri (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see your point. I'm not making any predictions about whether the subject will be notable in a month. I'm merely stating that it's notable now and, therefore, should be included. The salient point of my argument is precisely based on the subject's current notability. --Xaliqen (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and an event is only presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. The subject's current notability doesn't seem to satisfy these guidelines. — Rankiri (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess we disagree on the coverage aspect. Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, CBS, SJ Mercury, SF Chronicle covered it so far. --Xaliqen (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, this event has received much more coverage in the past few days. "'Racially-charged' fight on U.S. bus becomes YouTube hit". A historic occasion like this will make future generations proud. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to ensure the pride of future generations? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it's the purpose of the news media to be a bit more selective in their coverage choices. — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's very informative on the even that happened just recently and should be placed in the wikipedia, as one of the fastest growing memes in first 24h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.169.154 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This video is also an excellent example of why mass transportation will never be an acceptable replacement for personal transportation; without picking sides, who wants to be exposed to all the blood and spit flying between those two people? Not I! The answer isn't buses and trains, it's smaller, more efficient vehicles. Zaphraud (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's amazing how little that has to do with anything. Will someone slap a WP:SOAPBOX template on this AfD, please? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The video has spawned many commentary videos, musical and animated parodies, and printed media discussions. It is not only a record of a political moment captured on video, similar to Dont tase me bro, but, like the hamster dance, it is also a viral video meme which has given rise to numerous meme-ish responses. Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The video is one of the largest memes as of recently, and the attention of the video is ridiculously large. It'll definitely be something that people will always think of, because it's a notable event. Cyanidethistles (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This incident is becoming more notable every day. If it dies off in a month, then someone can nominate for deletion. As it is, it would be strange to delete this article when the incident in question is gaining so much attention in the popular media. Thanks, DotComCairney 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another internet meme that no one is going to care about in a month. The article is mainly about the incident, which is truly not noteworthy, and not about the reaction. Is a fight on a but notable? HardlyTicklemygrits (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What's the rush to delete events as they're still shaping up in the media? There's multiple reliable sources concerning this incident. It could end up like featured article - The Bus Uncle, or we may all forget it next month. If that's the case, then revisit it next month. - hahnchen 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wow, Bus Uncle is featured. Contrary to the comments going on here about the low quality and relevance, the message seems to be that, in fact, two guys fighting on a bus is among the best content Wikipedia has to offer. In my mind, that certainly invalidates the seeming undercurrent of prejudice favoring deletion on the grounds that the topic is too "low brow" — TheBilly(Talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it in Wikipedia - Michael follows Bruso to the front of the bus. That is what goes on in Public Tranportation. I saw it happen in Cleveland , Detroit , New York and Alabama .. The young blacks are just looking for a fight..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.229.166 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 24.121.229.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep as per Catherineyronwode and Xaliqen --IU2002 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as many articles on memes exist on Wikipedia, it seems hypocritical to just sweep this one under the rug. now I understand that not all esoteric memes should be chronicled here, but those that merit such media attention have such a right. The only particular controversy that I see is the choosing of sides and likeliness of vandalism, which could possibly merit article protection for the moment. Assuming the article can be tailored to be neutral, either by just reporting on the event (lacking discussion of opinions) or presenting equally the opposing sides of the discussion, the article does deserve to exist. Also it seems that the primary reasons for deletion seem to be that the event is not news and that it will dissappear from peoples' memories in a short time. I find that this argument is mostly opinion and seems to be lacking valid evidence to support itself, as the event has resounded through mainstream and non-mainstream media. ChaosData (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The news coverage seems to be very much local in nature. I can't see US national news organisations covering it on google news, let alone international news mediaTicklemygrits (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't just rely on Google News searches to establish notability. "Epic Beard Man" has 466,000 results on Google's main search. Are we contending that none of those sources are reliable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it isn't verifiable, I'm saying a fight on a bus isn't notable and it hasn't had enough mainstream coverage to make that trivial event notable.Ticklemygrits (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AOL, CSM, CBS are not local news. As for international media it's been on both British and Swedish. Linnea94 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it isn't verifiable, I'm saying a fight on a bus isn't notable and it hasn't had enough mainstream coverage to make that trivial event notable.Ticklemygrits (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't just rely on Google News searches to establish notability. "Epic Beard Man" has 466,000 results on Google's main search. Are we contending that none of those sources are reliable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The news coverage seems to be very much local in nature. I can't see US national news organisations covering it on google news, let alone international news mediaTicklemygrits (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For now. Scope, depth, and diversity of sources are clearly established. It has a reasonable possibility to in the future satisfy the "lasting effects" criteria. It only needs to satisfy the first combination of factors (scope, depth, diversity), or the second one alone (lasting effects). The fact that it has not yet satisfied the latter, therefore, is not sufficient to condemn it to deletion — TheBilly(Talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Combine with Bumfights. Bum Fights may have started as a video series but it seems to have become a genre or meme. So I say make Bum fights a genre (of voyerism?) not just a video series and stick all notable incidents, like Mr Bruso's, and commercial projects together in one article. FWIW I see on the net that people have been commenting about Mr Bruso's behavior on public transportation since before the incident, so he may actually be a known personality in Oakland and cities near Oakland that are served by Amtrak. Geo8rge (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think most people are judging the article based only on the incident itself, its trivial at best however its an internet meme now. On par with Leeroy jenkims, Dont tase me bro and many others, if the article is removed then most articles [14] on the internet phenomena should be considered for deletion(most already have, multiple times but survived). its part of pop culture now, quasi-relevant - maybe but still has some mainstream appeal. At the end of the day its just a single article with cited sources, I think it can be left alone, its not going to tarnish Wikipedia all by itself. --Theo10011 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but Relocate I don't know to where, but AC Transit only happened to be the urban transit system on which it happened. The incident is, a multi-layered illustration of how a racially-based micro-phenomena plays out in today's instant communication environment, with a macroscopic application of the Heisenberg principle of how the original observer may or may not have affected what is now secondarily observed. Howardskid (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep This incident appears to be attracting more attention, and its coverage probably hasn't crested yet. In a few weeks its notability may be clearer, but for the time being a delete seem premature. Blowfish (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable internet meme with extensive news coverage from radio shows, newspapers, TV, and online media. --Nick Douglas (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:EVENT with ease. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered by the Huffington Post, Deadspin, numerous Internet "newspapers" like Examiner.com; it may not have fit the criteria for notability before, but it certainly does now. I've seen discussion of the subject pretty much everywhere at my numerous Internet haunts. 71.203.159.37 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a writer for Examiner I can assure you that is not a reliable source. The content is not fact-checked or verified in any way, before or after publication. I also am not sure if Huffington Post should be considered reliable, because I do not know if they exercise editorial oversight prior to publication, or just publish instantly like other blogging sites, but that's really a question for another page.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Will Decay (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Internet Phenomenons are valid entries; Numa Numa for one has an entry. These types of entries represent valid and very new cultural events for our time period. Whether it lasts or not is for future historians and wikipedians to make a career out of cataloging. Anyone who is connected to the net saw this video. Almost everyone in the Bay Area, connected or not, has heard about this. So this is a regionally significant event at the very least. In addition, and I think most important, are the issues involved. This video displays real life Oakland with all the social, political, economic, and racial overtones that anyone who lives in the area is in continuous dialog. The entry and the discussions on the entry will make for good wikipedia.Phail Saph (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep While I wouldn't consider the event depicted in the meme notable, the ensuing coverage means the article has the sources and coverage to merit a Wiki article. Australian Matt (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to point this out, It's already being called one of the fastest growing internet memes, here[15] and [16].--Theo10011 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage, national notability. Perhaps it's not good notability, but it's certainly there. Dayewalker (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has recieved significant coverage by reliable sources. Maybe no-one will care in a month; but notability is not temporary, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is pathetic how some wiki admins want anything off that hasn't been recorded on meet the press. It is reliable and significant. This is just as pathetic as how some admin got Raywilliamjohnson deleted even though his youtube channel has had over 100,000,000 hits173.54.200.196 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why should this be deleted? It is an epic chapter in internet history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.103.125 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is history, it's epic, it has a purpose, keep it for fuck sake!
- Keep it's a legit meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.223.66 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - this seems notable enough, if stupid. the article needs work, it has some kinda odd structure and sentences. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samurai Aerobics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD challenged after deletion, but I don't particularly believe the rationale. Article has been tagged for major cleanup for 2+ years, and appears to be substantially OR/synthesis. I think it needs a WP:HEY rewrite to be kept, and I don't see that happening, given the article's history of neglect. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What does a recently invented term for cardiovascular exercises have to do with the ancient Japanese warrior class? Let the article's own introduction answer that question: The ancient Samurai of Japan realized the importance of being in the very best physical condition. Though they may not have heard of aerobics, they knew that to win battles, they needed training. They practiced sword cutting and thrusting techniques thousands of times every day to build strength, power, and endurance.
- The subject doesn't appear to be individually notable; the term "samurai aerobics" seems to conflict with WP:NEO; and the overall tone and structure of the article go against the guidelines of WP:NOTHOWTO. From the Google results, I can only see a seemingly non-WP:RS training manual called Samurai Aerobics: The Kenjutsu Workout. The article doesn't really discuss it, and even if it did, the book would most likely fail WP:BOOK anyway. I would recommend to merge the information somewhere else, but most of it looks like unsourced original research and all informative bits can already be found on Kendo, Kenjutsu, Samurai and other relevant pages. — Rankiri (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual, and from a brief search I have not yet found any sources to suggest notability. Janggeom (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article has history of neglect because it was {{orphan}}, but as for notability there is 2.5M google hits for the same including videos. The article needs cleanup which i started already. Piano no who (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are nice, but you're waaay overstating the case this search gets 2.44m hits, while a more precise search (for the two words as a quoted string) shows under 2,500, with this Wikipedia article the first hit. When quotation marks wipe out 99.9% of your Ghits, that's not a particularly strong argument to use. Cleanup is all well and good, but you'd be better off adding independent, reliable sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic. If there aren't enough good sources with which to accomplish that, then cleanup isn't going to particularly help the article. Best wishes with your improvement efforts, I'd love to be surprised by the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS. A large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Besides, Google only returns 156 unique results for "Samurai Aerobics" -wikipedia, not 2.5 million. From what I can tell, none of them can be seen as significant coverage by reliable sources required by WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely-not-even-close-to-notable. The book it's based on isn't notable, and neither is the author of the book. This article fails to meet WP:N on every level. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author isn't notable? That's debateable. He's written a number of books. [17]. Mostly martial arts/weapons related, but not like he hasn't published anything before.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any WP:RS and it fails both WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. The article also seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHOWTO. The major contributors appear to have been SPAs (that's not necessarily bad, but it is worth noting). Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats where I could not go forth. I could not find enough WP:RS in the lead section, other than inventor's own book. And the books mentioned in references section seem to be not connected to the article too. Piano no who (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added few third party refs, take a look now. Piano no who (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I admit, when I saw the title I rolled my eyes. But when I looked at the references, I had to admit, it easily passed WP:GNG. The article definately need re-written into a more encyclopedic article rather than a how-to manual entry, but that's style, not notability. The topic itself is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked the nom if he'd consider letting this article go to the WP:INCUBATOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a long list of references, but what good does it do? Aside from the mentioned manual, none of them seem to actually discuss the subject or even mention the phrase "samurai aerobics". I strongly disagree that WP:GNG is satisfied. — Rankiri (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The manual, which is a decent first step calls it that. Then the other articles describe the same thing. Some people call it an automobile, some call it a car, but they're talking about the same thing. Is "samurai aerobics" trademarked or something that would prohibit others from calling their class by the same name? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. — Rankiri (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that just a reason to rename the article? --Natet/c 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To a degree. But there is a common sense factor that we ignore. If two classes each teach aerobocs, both using a bokken, and one calls it "Samurai Aerobics" while the other calls it "sword aerobics", that's not original reasearch. Simply re-titling the article could cover that. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These terms would still have to be notable outside the classes. To extend your earlier car analogy, if some reliable sources call it an automobile and some call it a car, it's not a reason to have an encyclopedia article for some silly car name like Satanvertible. Reliable sources call it kendo, kenjutsu or bujutsu, so let's keep the information there. — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that kendo, kenjutsu, iaido etc. are the study of the art for the purpose of learning the use of that weapon, not borrowing portions of the art for solely aerobic purposes and your reasoning misses that part. Kickboxing is one thing. Aerobic kickboxing borrows portions of kickboxing solely for aerobic exercise purposes. (No, I'm not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'm illustrating the flaw in your example). I'd suggest a merge and redirect on this one if there was a single art to merge it to. But there are multiple ones this could go under. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely this form needs more place for training each person, so commercially did not succeed as much. I think notability is enough with refs in lead, though few more are always welcome from you, but below it needs drastic cleanup of sections. Piano no who (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that just a reason to rename the article? --Natet/c 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not get you, what to rename to? I just "cleaned up" few unreferenced sections by commenting out that are not essential. Piano no who (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- What's wrong with renaming it? Samurai aerobics may be a copyrighted name. So make it a generic title and it can take in courses teaching the same thing without being "original research". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I wasn't clear, my comment related to Rankiri's mention of NOR. I have moved it accordin gly--Natet/c 14:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems that the article has been partially rewritten. It now covers Joseph J. Truncale's exercise program and no longer suggests that is has anything to do with the history of Japan. However, from what I can see, the program is still only covered by a single primary source and doesn't seem to meet WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A re-write can solve the idea that it is about a product and make it into an article about the concept. The concept meets GNG. The "brand name" may not. That's a matter of changing the title. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, again, just because the article no longer treats its subject as if it were a notable Japanese martial discipline, it's still only a how-to guide based on a very particular training program invented and described by a single non-notable primary source. The program heavily borrows from other much more notable training techniques, but that how is this in any way relevant? I still don't see any direct nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources, so the logic behind your willingness to keep the article still eludes me. — Rankiri (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article from Muscle and Fitness magazine calls it "Samurai conditioning". But it describes in detail, enough detail to see the overlap from samurai aerobics. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe this boils down to what you want the article to be about. If you want it to only be about Turncale's exercise program then I think it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. If you want an article about aerobic exercise using a sword, then I think the article can be salvaged with a rewrite (and renaming). Papaursa (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think both subjects fail WP:N. As for renaming, the problem here is that the article has no general information. It only discusses the equipment, positions, movement patterns, and names of techniques in Samurai Aerobics: Basic Manual for Students. If we remove all unique descriptions related to that book, as well as all duplicate and how-to content, we'll probably be left with the following single sentence: "Kenjutsu or Kendo involve the use of wooden sticks called Bokken for safety purpose." Considering the article's negligible traffic statistics, it doesn't even seem enough to warrant a redirect to Kendo. — Rankiri (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Traffic is the least of the considerations. If that were the standard, a lot of junk that gets kept under GNG should go. The article can be re-written. Unfortunately, I don't think I can do it in the next 24 hours and even if I could, I doubt I could get some diehards to change their !vote. I have already discussed it with the nom. He has no issue with this going to the incubator after this closes. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Probably should stubbify and rename. There's info out there.[18][19] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I have included one of your ref for notability in the lead. Piano no who (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article needs work for sure, but seems notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable. It is unclear to me whether the huge amount of sources are actually being consulted throughout the article or if the author just listed them to try to show notability. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that they exist demonstrate passing GNG. That they aren't bing used with inline sourcing is a style issue, not a notability one. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are reading too much into my statement. I never confused notability and style. I simply questioned whether the author was trying to force notability by listing all of those sources. Having many sources on something doesn't necessarily mean it is notable. Besides, 99% of the sources pertain to sword postures and combat applications of them and not to the actual exercise itself. If you deleted the first and third sentences in the lead, the article could easily turn into one about Kendo. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kate Bush and Georgian folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined WP:PROD. Unreferenced topic which looks like an original research essay, of undetermined notability. It may be that sources could be found but I'm not sure the topic would be notable anyway. Frank | talk 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very clear Delete; this is just someone's unreferenced essay. I'd also add that as a discussion of the alleged sources of the music of a living composer, it should conform to WP:BLP, which it does not. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Personal essay. Trout writer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete - Possibly qualify as a speedy delete. -RobertMel (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Personal essay. — Gwalla | Talk 06:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yucatan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Future file WP:NFF Chuunen Baka (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFF. No reliable source evidence found that shows principal filming has begun. No prejudice towards recreation once notability requirements are satisfied. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation. Bring it back if or when principal filming begins, and the film gets coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've merged the minimal information in this article into the Steve McQueen article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transmogrifier (computer science) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination due to {{hoax}}
tag placed on article. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything that matches this description. I can't figure out whether this should be redirected to something more appropriate or deleted as a hoax so I'm opening up for discussion.
I am currently neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete --OpenFuture (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I have found several articles that refer to this transmogrifier pattern, which is really another name for the facade pattern or whatever, and most use this wikipedia article as a source. If it is a hoax, and it may well have been, it has almost created its own reality. I guess I would lean toward weak delete here just based on the paucity of wp:n - these blogs/etc aren't really wp:rs. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Demeter Transmogrifiers To The Rescue, Haacked.com]
- [Symfony versus The Law Of Demeter: does Symfony promote bad habits?]
- [[20]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikHaugen (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I added the second meaning of transmogrifier as TMG, the compiler generator language, which was mentioned by Dennis Ritchie in his CACM article on the development of the C language. That being said, I don't think there's anything here that qualifies as a complete WP article. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delemogrify per the above. JBsupreme (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J. Kenneth Grider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Theologian with no apparent notability. JBsupreme (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He wrote several article for the
Evangelical TheologyEvangelical Dictionary of Theology (Arminianism, Forgiveness, Glorification, Heaven and Hannah Whitall Smith) but these are not listed on Google scholar. His top work there (A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology) is cited only 22 times. His obituary at Nazarene Theological Seminary ought to be cited in the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not yet have a firm opinion about keeping or deleting the article, but the claim (though unreferenced) in the article that he was on the English translation committee for New International Version of the Bible (which, as I understand it, one of the main English translations of the Bible) gives me some pause. There is an obituary about him[21] at the Nazarene Theological Seminary website as well as a news-release there about his death[22]. The obituary file mentions several honors: an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1991 from Olivet Nazarene University, and a named lecture series named after him there, established in 1999, as well as the the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Wesleyan Theological Society. I was able to find an independent verification of the latter: vol 34 (1999), no. 2 of Wesleyan Theological Journal (the full content of this volume is available here[23]). Editor's Introduction, on p. 5, mentions that he received the award in March 1999 at the annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society. There is also a biographical article about him, Tribute to J. Kenneth Grider by Paul M. Bassett, pp. 281-286 in that volume. I am not sure if this is sufficient for establishing notability (plus I am not sure if one should be using WP:PROF or WP:BIO in a case like this), but it does suggest that a closer look is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The careful researches of Nsk92 incline me to keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Per Nsk92's research. This may be Kansas City Star obit, or just a death notice. There's enough on him in the sources given for WP:BIO. According to New International Version, there were only 15 on the translation committee of this major work, good evidence of notability if the claim can be sourced.John Z (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- both membership of the NIV translation commitee and having been given a lifetime achievement award suggest notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think we can sat Grider was a member of the NIV translation committee. There is a list here which lists 15 members of the committee, together with 104 people involved in the translation. Grider is one of the latter group. StAnselm (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drought Conditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough info for a stand alone episode article, No real world context, no development info, just plot. Ridernyc (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The mention in List of The West Wing Episodes is sufficient, and the information can be placed elsewhere, as described below. This one dates from 2006, when Wikipedia was heavy on stubmakers and what-I-saw-on-TV editors. Since then, entertainment wikis have provided a new outlet for the telepedia stuff, and there's a West Wing Wiki that would welcome this as an addition. As the nominator has point out, there's not any demonstration of any notability of this particular episode in the real world, and judging by the narrative, it wasn't anything special. Mandsford (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of film crossovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, trivial list with a non-encyclopedic intersection. JBsupreme (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems quite an encylopedic intersection to me, wouldn't you mention it in the article on the series? Polarpanda (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are a handful of needles in this haystack, but very few of them are the promised "film crossovers". This is one of the most useless lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I have no idea why it stayed up so long. Case in point-- if you wanted to know which film combined both "King Kong" and "Godzilla", why would you want to sort through a list of every single film that featured either King Kong or Godzilla (but not both)? How dumb is that? (BTW, out of the 51 films listed, I think that #10 on that list, called "King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962)" might be a crossover, just a hunch). Not at all useful as a reference. If someone wants to make a list of crossover films, start over and do it right. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ...rather pointless and does not live up to its name. A shorter list of true "crossovers" with a deeper explanation of those particular films might have some value, but even that is stetching the imagination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial, useless and inappropriate list. B.Rossow · talk 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too loose a criterion, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mostly per the arguments put forth by Mandsford. RFerreira (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Lotus Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PR firm with limited notability. Article written as a promotional piece. NJA (t/c) 14:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. No minimal claim of importance; this is an independent Indian public relations firm. A PR firm that thinks having a Wikipedia article is a good idea: surprise, surprise, surprise! Unambiguous advertising to the point of complete bollocks: ...acclaimed for its knowledge based public relations.... keen to do something different from the rest of his colleagues.... working on a scientific approach to application of strategy in Public Relations. In this quest, Trust, came across the most fundamental attribute required for all other positive attributes to flourish..... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD G11 would apply. JBsupreme (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:SPAM -Quartermaster (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete just a CV and company profile... no academic value —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:SPAM fo sho. B.Rossow · talk 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Pile-on the spam wagon. Warrah (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Old calton cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Came up on an edit filter as a hoax, and there's no references. But seems to check out through a Google web search. If anything, I'd think a redirect to Calton_Hill#Buildings_and_structures might be in order. Brought here for community consensus. NJA (t/c) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
should be Calton not calton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat independent of Calton Hill as such and is of sufficient historic interest to merit an independent article. In research terms someone seeking information would be unlikely to search under Calton Hill, which is now visually isolated from the graveyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's obviously work needing done here - editing (I've started cleaning some crossrefs and categorisation), renaming to capitalise Calton, and the wider question of the extent to which an article stands distinct from the Calton Hill article and the biographies of those listed in the "Monuments" section. AllyD (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Google books, I think there's just about enough "here" here to justify an article. Fair enough, Wikipedia isn't Flickr, but clearly this is a case where we could easily produce an *illustrated encyclopedia* style look at the monuments and gravestones there. If ultimately there isn't enough for a stand alone article, well then we can always merge it with Calton Hill or whatever, but I'd like to give any interested parties a chance to expand it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - historically and architecturally important cemetery. Plenty of information to stand separate to Calton Hill. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Angus. If the article doesn't improve within a reasonable period of time, we can always merge with Calton Hill. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Benjamin Sanvee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find evidence of notability for this bio. No coverage in reliable sources. Also, this is probably an autobiography, so COI issues on top of notability issues. Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of authoritative third party sources supporting notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article material seems to come from internal information probably only available by the subject or those having any connection with him. No evidence of significant notability which would justify the existance of the subjects article. -RobertMel (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lars Reimers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have been unable to find reliable sources documenting notability, but also am unable to search in Swedish to establish such notability. I have also searched the various Swedish academy websites and can find no mention of Lars Reimers on them. Barring reliable sources being included if someone with an understanding of Swedish can find them, the current article fails WP:ARTIST. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The corresponding article in the Swedish Wikipedia has been deleted. See sv:Lars Reimers Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, lacks actual notability. JBsupreme (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Not all of the new sources are exactly on point and relevant to this article, but there's enough now to warrant keeping the content. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay-Z vs. Nas feud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable, third-party sources (WP:RS). The article appears to be built upon the premise of WP:OR. ArticlesForRedemption 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, violates our no original research policy. The "feud" was made up to begin with. JBsupreme (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR RadioFan (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I'm in the UK and have no interest in hip-hop, don't read about it, don't listen to it or take the slightest interest but even I know this is a famous rivalry. 5 seconds on Google gave a reliable MTV source But no beef stood out more than the rivalry between Nas and Jay-Z. SunCreator (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, with Cleanup This is a notable event. The feud, while childish, is very notable. Ask any hip hop fan who was alive at the time about the Jay-Z/Nas feud. Multiple songs were released concerning this, it was well covered (especially in the Tri-State Area), sources can be found. Note that there are several reliable sources at the bottom of the page. mynameinc (t|c) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to have reliable sources such as MTV and Village Voice. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JLS theatre tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable, third-party sources (WP:RS). ArticlesForRedemption 13:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why doesn't it have notability, every tour that has been done, has it's own article on Wiki. Jayy008 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: from notability guide for music and musicians Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
- Delete: per above rationale --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again: Deleting it is not a valid option, if the article is deleted, move the info onto the album or artists page atleast. Jayy008 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable RadioFan (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to JLS. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oritsé Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No signs of notability (WP:BIO/WP:N) outside of the pop group JLS from multiple, reliable, third-party sources (WP:RS). ArticlesForRedemption 13:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect as no notability outside of the band. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to JLS. No notability outside the band yet, but is a very plausible search term and a redirect would satisfy the guidelines - "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". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with possible redirect; subject shows little notability by himself, and the article has no sources. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GE 1.5 mw wind turbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems too much like advertising or plain product information with no encyclopaedic content. Author claims it is referenced "in several places on wikipedia" but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/GE_1.5_mw_wind_turbine shows just two, one to the PROD listing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Automobiles are great, and favoring a keep or a delete on this article is no reflection on one's enviornmental concerns. It's worth noting that the list of automobile manufacturers shows that there are many companies out there that manufacture these. It doesn't take long to see that the description of any specific automobile would apply to other automobiles (four wheels, cab, gearbox, cruise control, engine). I'd like to see a larger article about the automobile, but the distinctions between Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, etc., can be described in fewer words. kovo138 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but you attempt at a sarcastic demonstration of whatever your point is, completely eludes me. Could you please explain what you actually ment? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would be glad to clarify that for you. My intension was to cause the reader to think of wind turbines in terms of automobiles (cars). As you may know, all cars are basically the same. It is generally accepted that they have four wheels, a cab, a gearbox, cruise control, an engine, etc. Yet there is not one single listing on Wikipedia for all automobiles, and this is acceptable. Maybe it can be done better, but this article is in its infancy. It’s not finished growing. It is accurate, informative, and long over do. Most importantly, it is a start. If someone doesn’t like an article, they should fix it! Not whine about how it shouldn’t be there. kovo138 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wind turbines are great, and favoring a keep or a delete on this article is no reflection on one's enviornmental concerns. It's worth noting that the list of wind turbine manufacturers shows that there are many companies out there that manufacture these. It doesn't take long to see that the description of the GE 1.5 mw wind turbine would apply to other horizontal-axis wind turbines (three blades, axis hub, gearbox, yaw and pitch controls, generator). I'd like to see a larger article about the horizontal-axis wind turbine (the current article lumps it in with Dutch windmills and vertical-axis turbines), but the distinctions between GE, Vestas, Gamesa, etc., can be described in fewer words. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is the most widely used wind power turbine in the world. [24]. Added some refs. Novickas (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Also - wrt to referenced on WP - it does show up in several wind farm articles as "General Electric 1.5 MW wind turbine" [25]. Novickas (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I would tend to err on the keep side here with this caveat: is this a class of turbine created by GE or is it a specific product? That's not clear, but either way if it is a widely used item in the industry, could evolve into a useful article. My spam radar isn't going off here either. -Quartermaster (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a series: the 1.5se, 1.5sle, 1.5xle, etc. [26] Novickas (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GE has only three models in business. Perhaps it should be merged into a single article; see my comment below. Rehman(+) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable wind energy product [27], but the article could use better referencing. Warrah (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems reasonably notable. However, could perhaps be merged into a larger article if one such as suggested above by Mandsford is created. DES (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable product by a notable company, of course articl should be greatly expanded (units sold, where operating, etc.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change: Change to a parent article like "GE Wind Energy", and list all GE turbines there. It helps prevent a "GE 2.5MW wind turbine" or so on. A table too would help. Regards to all. Rehman(+) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very good idea! Warrah (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that, but there are so many dedicated locomotive and computer series articles on WP [28], [29] - this article looked an acceptable instance of the pattern. It's been my impression that the stand-alone-worthiness of an article is based on its potential for expansion using multiple reliable sources. I believe that applies to this article. It could contain background, specs, marketing, installations (12,000 in 19 countries), performance (noisiness, reliability) sections. A Gscholar search on ("General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" yields 112 results [30]. A Google search on government domains for "(General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" site:.gov) gives 43 results, [31] 39 hits in edu domains [32]. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Warrah. Novickas, although i still support merging all to one article (because the other two models are also quite popular), i would suggest renaming this page to the latest model number ("GE 1.5XLE" or "GE 1.5XLE Wind Turbine") and list all older models in an "Older models" section. Of course, only after consensus is reached to keep. But yet, i still support a merge as a good table and good notes would do the trick in adding all to one page. Best regards. Rehman(+) 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that, but there are so many dedicated locomotive and computer series articles on WP [28], [29] - this article looked an acceptable instance of the pattern. It's been my impression that the stand-alone-worthiness of an article is based on its potential for expansion using multiple reliable sources. I believe that applies to this article. It could contain background, specs, marketing, installations (12,000 in 19 countries), performance (noisiness, reliability) sections. A Gscholar search on ("General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" yields 112 results [30]. A Google search on government domains for "(General Electric" OR GE) "1.5 MW wind turbine" site:.gov) gives 43 results, [31] 39 hits in edu domains [32]. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very good idea! Warrah (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or move?) with caveat. Create the Parent Article first with the different types of turbines as part of it (as suggested above). Once they reach unwieldy paragraph size, then split them out. I would also mention that the Link user:Novickas points to above, (mentioning "most widely used wind power turbine in the world") is not a reliable source, its a PR from a company mouthpiece. The overall topic is notable, I am just not sure how notable any individual piece of hardware is without the Parent to explain the context of why. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could agree to disagree for the duration of this AFD; I'd be willing to discuss a merge to GE wind turbines at its talk page afterward. Adding the 2.x and 3.x model info would take some time. As far as most widely used in the world, yes, that's probably not the best-sourced statement; I'll take it out of the article and replace it with this statement by the NREL, that "More than 10,000 now operate at commercial wind farms around the nation, accounting for about 50 percent of the U.S. market." [33]. They mention its market share as a reason for installing one at their Colorado facility. Novickas (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. An umbrella article on GE Wind Turbines is probably the better idea, with this article being a part of that. Admittedly the article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of portable computer games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Would appear to be original research, or WP:HOWTO: "Just copy the program's folder, everything needed to run is in there.", "You will need a NOCD file", "You need to add an install path to the registry", etc. Marasmusine (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I think the concept is important and alist of games makes a fine list article. Aside from that 'WP:How to' events can be easily fixed in this article by removing those lines. The article should have some sources, though to strengthen its verifibility though (some claims id probably disagree with myself pretty much since alot here seems to be original research (hence my weak keep point of view). Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive attempted to address the HOW TO aspect. Might not be enough though will concide that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if the entries have been verified for portability through independent sourcing, and not just through successful installations by our editors, then this will be a different matter. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive attempted to address the HOW TO aspect. Might not be enough though will concide that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete almost all early DOS and many early Windows and Macintosh games did not require installation. Many early PC games even came with their own operating system, which meant rebooting to run the game. In fact early home computers and personal computers didn't even have permanent storage devices like a hard disc. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the last AfD on this article resulted in a merge result. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true. But this discussion was about 4 years ago (2006). A discussion on merging was also opened shortly after but was closed shortly after as well. The article at that time also had references for each game if you check the refs and the list looked very different. nethertheless, the merge idea (with valid sourcing) would be acceptable to me (but again if theres nothing sourced, what can you merge? Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question. This seems to be a list of MS Windows-only games, where the concept might make sense (as opposed to game consoles, Mac, etc.) Perhaps the issue should be clarified in the article's lead and title. Pcap ping 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this would be a nice list once actually expanded. Nergaal (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the IP's rationale. If I'm understanding what this list emcompasses, then this would include nearly every early home computer (PC, Macintosh, Commodore, etc.) game made, which would be a tad too indiscriminate IMO. I also don't know if having a "list of lists" would work too well, but if you absolutely positively want to have a list for the sake of having a list, then perhaps that could also be looked into. –MuZemike 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathetic Delete -- even though I'm sure gamers might find this useful, it just ends up being an unmaintainable list that could never be verified. --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. An article about the Feiler book, as suggested, may be possible, but it would be very different from this. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moses as symbol in American history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (by title)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (by subject)
This article is, as someone on the talk page said, a how-to manual on creating a wikipedia article filled with original research, synthesis and amateur scholarship. This is not really an encyclopedic topic. Moses hasn't been used as a special kind of symbol in American history (beyond the way he's used as a symbol of law giving and liberation in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia). The article itself is filled with primary sources that recount the use of a moses metaphor at various points in time, then a whole bunch of synthesis by the primary author (who i'm sure will be along shortly) trying to "prove" the special symbolic meaning. There also appears to be some POV-pushing here having to do with a belief that the constitution of the United States is modeled after the 13 tribes of israel or something(yes, you may be asking yourself what such bizarre claims are doing with an article of this title; i asked myself the same question).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This came to my attention when the author moved on to the Ten Commandments, claiming that they were the source of democracy in the USA and using the same primary sources as in this article. There are strains of such revisionist history in this article too. I don't have a problem with the role Moses has played in liberation struggles (such as the Confederacy fighting off the yoke of Yankee Oppression (which somehow seems to be missing from this article!) or in the Civil Rights movement, but as Bali said, I doubt there's much that's specific to the US in this regard. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged into a revamped Moses#Symbol in American history (which suffers from similar lopsided claims), or if it's too much there, in an article on the symbolic role of Moses in X era of history. kwami (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lots of sources doesn't always equate to good article. What I see here is a list of instances where a wide variety of people in American history has been compared to Moses, usually by people who compared themselves to members of a persecuted race being led from slavery, through a wilderness, and to a promised land. Some of the Book of Exodus references are to other aspects of Moses (as foster child or as giver of laws), but most are to a leader of the downtrodden, described by reference to a story that most Christians and Jews were familiar with. In that respect, there's nothing uniquely American about that comparison. There's the basis for a good article here about Moses as a modern-day metaphor, but I don't see anything that would be described as a "symbol" of anything that might be considered uniquely American. As an analogy, I'd offer that Judas Iscariot is a metaphor for betrayal throughout history, but I don't see that Judas would be considered a symbol of America's enemies. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. How does a British author calling Walt Whitman an "American Moses", some reverend once describing George Washington as a combination of Moses and Joshua, or another clergyman mentioning the alleged prophet during Lincoln's eulogy translate into Moses being a notable symbol in American political history? If I recall the Bible correctly, Moses may as well be one of the most important characters of the Old Testament. In a country with a large Christian population, it's rather natural to expect that his name will pop up from time to time. But this claim that he somehow played a key role in American political events is a synthesis of published material for advancing a position not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
- In American political discourse, people often feel the urge to liken their political leaders to notable historical and biblical figures in order to make their point. Political activists, for example, have a nasty habit of comparing American presidents to Adolf Hitler. Just look at these Google News results: [34], [35]. Socrates, Sampson, Scrooge, Judas, Hitler, Stalin, Paris Hilton... Just because ABC News' Jake Tapper once compared President Obama to the Star Trek character Spock[36], does it mean that we need Spock as symbol in American history as well?
- P.S. If you have any doubts about the views and intentions of the page's sole author, please take a look the first revision of the page: [37]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AGF, "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's editing history is pertinent to nature of this discussion and I only mentioned your views in regard to this particular article. Please see WP:DUCK. — Rankiri (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AGF, "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Rankiri. An original research essay, most of which barely even seems to reference its own topic. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per COATRACK. I tried to get the wikiwatcher (the creator of the article) to explain the purpose of the article, but instead got a series complaints about removal of sourced material and 'inappropriate' POV tags. I then added a section about Mormonism, mostly as a test to see what he would do (since that seems to go against the fundamentalist christian slant of the rest of the article). as I expected he first deleted and then tried to minimize that section. I could speculate on the political agenda that lies behind the article, but I won't; let's leave it that I don't see a lot of encyclopedic value to it. --Ludwigs2 17:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comment: "I then added a section about Mormonism, mostly as a test to see what he would do," is that included in the WP:AGF policy? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no. but it is effective. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comment: "I then added a section about Mormonism, mostly as a test to see what he would do," is that included in the WP:AGF policy? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Personal essay totally lacking in focus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Religious symbols appear so often that it takes Christian Heritage Tours three days to show visitors all the biblical references on buildings ranging from the Library of Congress to the Capitol itself."[38] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we discussing Moses in architecture now? See United States Supreme Court Building#Sculptural program. — Rankiri (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Logic! I'll get started on the "Trees as symbol in American history" and "The color red as symbol in American history" right away. Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not to mention America as a symbol in world history... --Ludwigs2 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Logic! I'll get started on the "Trees as symbol in American history" and "The color red as symbol in American history" right away. Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is great if you are turning in a paper for your history class. For a WP article, it's WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete blatantly obvious personal essay, typical WP:COATRACK styled article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Coatrack, synth, orig research etc... Wish I had some sort of comment that hadn't already been made. It looks like a seminary student posted a research assignment. Nefariousski (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research / synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt(WP:SALT). This article is plain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CFORK. Similes linking Moses to various figures of the American history are not evidence of notability.--MaxEspinho (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR and synthesis. Sole Soul (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR and synth. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments and questions at Talk:Moses as symbol in American history --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to deletion: replacement
[edit]Alternative suggestion: How about a replacement article on Bruce Feiler's book, America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story.
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (excluded some publishers & vendors)
Notability is evident, with articles, interviews, TV appearances, and reviews in publications such as Huffington Post, Washington Post, New York Times (best-seller list), Fox News, Atlanta History Center, Glenn Beck, USA Today, and many more. As his book covers the same subject, and includes many more cites with a larger bibliography, there would be overlapping material. He also covers other topics not included in this article, such as the Constitution, Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, Supreme Court statues and cases relating to the display of the Ten Commandments. I was not planning on adding those additional subjects as I felt the article was long enough as it is, but an article on the book would likely cover many of those. If this article is deleted, being that no one has made suggestions on making it more acceptable, is there any obvious problem with starting a new one on the book? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: the article on the book would likely make reference to the symbolic aspects also:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Since there were some questions about whether "symbol" was a relevant term, commentors should note its use. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the book itself is notable (looks like it from the sources you refer to), then an article about it is appropriate. After that, the content of the article can be edited by anybody (put another way, what's there on one day can be taken out the next day). In any article about a book, it's important not to violate copyright. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First, it's not that clear that the book would pass WP:BK. The Washington Post and the Huffington Post articles were written by Feiler ([39], [40]) and NYT's coverage of the book is extremely trivial ([41]).
- However, if the book has received significant coverage by reliable sources, you'll still need to make sure the article won't violate WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:MOSFICT. If the author's personal views are repudiated by most "mainstream" historians, please make sure to mention it in the article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Rankiri; I'd like to add that creating an article about Feiler's book is a completely different beast than this article. That article should be nothing like this one, since it would only be about Feiler's book. And it would be much shorter, as it is consensus that WP does not rehash all information from a book, and should focus more on its impact than its plot and contents. So if someone wants to create the "America's Prophet" article, I would personally start from scratch; otherwise, you'll get more WP:OR and WP:SYN comments leading to another AfD. Angryapathy (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony of starting an article about the book, at least from my perspective, is that it almost requires adding material that by its nature is a "synthesis" of the author's "original research." That's what books are. But note that the existing article does not mention the words "prophet" as an "American story," the title of his book. While the book was briefly cited, it was my intention to focus on the most neutral, and easily provable, topic of "symbol." The least WP:OR or WP:POV way I saw to do that was simply adding primary WP:V sources supporting the "symbolic" aspect, as opposed to others making that assertion themselves. But calling someone a modern-day "prophet" could lead to more divisive editors adding their own sources and maybe some heated warring, something I don't like to see. So needless to say, the sudden conflagration from my simply starting an article on Moses as a "symbol," surprised me.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is free to do any original research. If that original research becomes notable, then it gets added to WP. What is prohibited is a WP editor adding extra material to the article, thus preventing the original research of the Wikipedia editor. The sources used in that article should refer to the book, not the subject of the book. So if you are writing an article about Feiler's book, then you can breifly paraphrase what is said in the book, and use sources that describe impact of the book itself. It is not allowed to add sources that are similar (i.e. mention Moses in relation to America) but do not mention the book itself. That type of research and addition is fine for academia or perhaps Google's Knol project, but not for Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This article will be just a large chunk of WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMOTION--MaxEspinho (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article on a fiction book, such as Atlas Shrugged is OK, even warranting an entire article on it's symbolism, this one with a myriad of hard facts should meet all requirements. How does one avoid words engraved on the Liberty Bell?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Literary critics have chosen Atlas Shrugged as a topic to write about, and chose the symbolism in the novel as another topic to write about. The vast majority of sources provided in this article tangentially mention Moses in relation to America. Now if you had as many books like Feiler's that discuss Moses/America as we do that discuss Atlas Shrugged, then there would be no question as to whether an article should exist about it. As it stands, however, very few sources actually 'discuss Moses as a symbol in American history. Comparing a situation or a person to the exodus or Moses does not qualify as discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Feiler's book has only been out about 4 months, where Atlas Shrugged is over 50 years old. In the current article, there are direct citations, i.e. Pilgrim John Carver being called "the Moses of the Pilgrims," and "a symbol of America." Other sources and quotes refer to the "symbolic" aspect through usage and by implication. It's not necessary to keep repeating the word "symbol" when something is being used as such by definition:
- "Something that represents or suggests something else. Symbols often take the form of words, visual images, or gestures that are used to convey ideas and beliefs. All human cultures use symbols to express the underlying structure of their social systems, to represent ideal cultural characteristics, such as beauty, and to ensure that the culture is passed on to new generations. Symbolic relationships are learned rather than biologically or naturally determined, and each culture has its own symbols." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still ignoring the fact that there are literary critiques of Atlas Shrugged that focus on the symbolism or certain aspects of symbolism. However, there is very little literature that actually has "Moses as a symbol in American history" as its actual subject. The fact that a writer uses a simile between a person and Moses hardly qualifies as a discussion of the subject like the literature for Atlas Shrugged. Angryapathy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Something that represents or suggests something else. Symbols often take the form of words, visual images, or gestures that are used to convey ideas and beliefs. All human cultures use symbols to express the underlying structure of their social systems, to represent ideal cultural characteristics, such as beauty, and to ensure that the culture is passed on to new generations. Symbolic relationships are learned rather than biologically or naturally determined, and each culture has its own symbols." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Feiler's book has only been out about 4 months, where Atlas Shrugged is over 50 years old. In the current article, there are direct citations, i.e. Pilgrim John Carver being called "the Moses of the Pilgrims," and "a symbol of America." Other sources and quotes refer to the "symbolic" aspect through usage and by implication. It's not necessary to keep repeating the word "symbol" when something is being used as such by definition:
- Literary critics have chosen Atlas Shrugged as a topic to write about, and chose the symbolism in the novel as another topic to write about. The vast majority of sources provided in this article tangentially mention Moses in relation to America. Now if you had as many books like Feiler's that discuss Moses/America as we do that discuss Atlas Shrugged, then there would be no question as to whether an article should exist about it. As it stands, however, very few sources actually 'discuss Moses as a symbol in American history. Comparing a situation or a person to the exodus or Moses does not qualify as discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) It seems that in a work of fiction like Atlas Shrugged, finding "symbolism" becomes a game for scholars and theorists. But in a new non-fiction book entitled America's Prophet I'd call defining "prophet" more of a "thesis." Some of the articles I've seen debate that thesis, for obvious reasons, but few of them debate the "symbolism" behind the biblical figure. Some say it had little impact in U.S. history, while others say it was important. The searches show hundreds of references to "Moses as a symbol" throughout American history. Personally, I doubt whether there can ever be proof or agreement that Moses was a "prophet" in relation to U.S. history. But the general qualifier of "symbol" is nowhere debated that I found (i.e. it's everywhere.) How does one debate the fact that since the Pilgrims, various leaders in America have been called a "Moses" of their people? He was a symbol to many, not all.
Again, that's why I avoided the term American prophet in the article, and stuck to primary sources where he was used as a "symbol" only. It seemed to be a fairly neutral term at first. I honestly don't relish starting an article based on a political-religious thesis, even if it's a best-selling book, but I, and I expect others, will find opposing viewpoints and cite them (a "thesis" will always have opposing views.) Would someone else like to start it?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think there may be enough to justify an article on the book. As well as the Wapo article (written by Feiler himself, true, but the Wapo is an independent publisher), there are 7 or 8 reviews at Google Books - none of them from national papers, it appears, but enough perhaps for it to squeak past WP:BK. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. I see no indication that this book has gained anything like academic acceptance (so it won't pass muster as a scholarly theory), nor is it a hugely popular text (which might pass muster on simple notability grounds). maybe in 20 years, but as of now it seems to fall in the 'minor pundit lit' category, which doesn't have a whole lot of oomph. --Ludwigs2 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly I think it would be marginal. I'm really not an expert on what qualifies for WP:BK, and if I had my druthers a book with such thin coverage probably wouldn't get in, but technically I think it might qualify. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. I see no indication that this book has gained anything like academic acceptance (so it won't pass muster as a scholarly theory), nor is it a hugely popular text (which might pass muster on simple notability grounds). maybe in 20 years, but as of now it seems to fall in the 'minor pundit lit' category, which doesn't have a whole lot of oomph. --Ludwigs2 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:HEY improvements. GlassCobra 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rihanna Believe Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable, third-party sources (WP:RS). ArticlesForRedemption 11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RadioFan (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Let me know if I'm doing this wrong, I've added a few sources I could find from the web. I think part of the problem is that the tour was referred to as the "Girls Night Out" tour, which presented sources when searched for. I believe that the sources (coverage came from People Magazine and CBS News) demonstrates sufficient notability. Think of it logically: although I don't like her music, I know that she is popular, and celebrities who run charity events are sure to get some coverage in the media. Thanks for your consideration! Revaluation (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree as per nomination 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Sockpuppet? SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. NJA (t/c) 11:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LACSH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Main issues Verifiability & Notability. A initialism (neologism) that shows no sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable and no wide spread use as a initialism can be found. Article contents seems to be pure original research blue520 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete – per CSD G3. Also WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. XXX antiuser eh? 11:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stem cell transplantation for systemic lupus erythematosus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Experimental treatment not even mentioned on systemic lupus erythematosus. No source to suggest that it is any way commonplace. JFW | T@lk 10:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FROM "UP TO DATE" a common reference used by Physicians: Copyvio text removed. Tyndall, A. Cellular therapy of systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2009; 18:387. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that Uptodate entry cites one fairly small (50 pt) study. That's not WP:MEDRS in my books. If that is all the evidence there is, notability guidelines are probably not met. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as noted on the stub page. Bearian (talk)
- Delete if not notable otherwise merge.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't mind merging the fact that this research is being done in systemic lupus erythematosus (perhaps in a "Research directions" section), but it's not really getting enough attention at this time to justify a completely separate article. The extant sources really wouldn't allow us to say much more than the fact that a small clinical trial happened in Italy, and... well, that's about it, really. Notability requires more than just existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Hammerschlag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meeet WP:BIO, no significant coverage about the subject. See also the request of undeleting the PROD and the PROD itself. Sources added since the PROD are either not reliable (inc documents hosted on personal website) or do not represent significant coverage of the subject. Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scans of Printed Articles Are Neutral
Things aren't online for more than a year or two, and many articles are older. Linked scanned photos of printed articles from newspapers- it doesn't matter if it's on his website, you can't do much better than that. Where would radio or TV talk shows be but on the guy's site- 95% of that is never online? Notability requires awards? Sarah Palin have any? - Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.63.62 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) aka 89.252.25.175 (talk)[reply]
The reasons for the original deletion were untrue, and it seems the deleter- Rclemons (and original protester Tracer9999)- had a political beef with some articles this author has written (he says the accredited NYT op-ed is just "a letter to the editor", that it was the only thing published when there are scans of 50 printed articles, that this guy was a conspiracy writer, when the truth was the opposite). This article has been up over 8 years. The subject is a journalist who has been published in all the newspapers listed, some quoted below, has questioned dozens of famous people, broken major stories, and has +100,000 hits on Google. Apparently it's easy for bad editors to rally other editors, but this deletion is obviously in bad faith, and the result of some political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.45.63.62 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) aka 89.252.25.175 (talk)[reply]
This Tracer has more in line with a blogger in coming up with some far-fetched notion that 25 years of scanned articles and many hours of audio are somehow faked- ignoring a mountain of evidence. http://tomhammers.tripod.com/menu.htm Hammerschlag is a fierce critic of the Republicans and Bush, and it's not surprising he would be targeted for deleletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.25.175 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently no depth of coverage of the individual in secondary reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BIO Polargeo (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Polargeo. JBsupreme (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Polargeo - No sources other then his own webpage. The scans from the webpage, half of them are broken into multiple pieces, the date, the title, and the actual content.. no way to verify its a legitimate scan as none of the newspapers (other then the NY times opinion piece) show him listed in there online archives. The article appears to makes him out to be a prophet with absolutly no legitimate sourcing whatsoever. They list him as a journalist, When all his articles I have seen are opinion pieces. He would be more inline with being a blogger. Most of the listed "newspapers" are the equivelant of the penny saver.. or monthly or bi weekly "newspapers" or free papers or "independent" (i.e. self/auto published) websites. The actual major papers that are listed are completely unsourced. Contrary to the assertions by 94.45.63.62 (who has had to be reverted by another editor for trying to remove the AFD template from the article and wont even sign his name to his post) I do not have any political beef with individual and would appreciate assuming good faith. I am not russian and could care less about russian news. I also have an edit history of a variety of a large variety of topics. The fact is, with all these alleged newspapers this journalist is in.. you would at least think someone could come up with a NEUTRAL REAL source instead of his personal homepage. Just click on the news link and see for yourself. Please also note.. ALL content related editing on this article has been done by IP address only editors who only seem to edit this TOPIC and virtually no other topic on wikipedia and are possible SPA accounts. Also the subject here seems to have a connection to Rhode Island based on his articles on the rhode island night club fire, claimed lecture there, claimed employment as a "correspondent" for the providence journal, and an arrest report for a Michael Hammerschlag listed as from from Warwick, Rhode Island(http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/BMAB/lib00795,10D888325CD53DA8.html) (who also seems to be politically active - http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20030331_world31.6775b.html , coincidently, warwick rhode island was the geolocation of the initial IP address that started this whole article and edited it thru the end of of 2006 and beginning in 2007 MOST if not ALL of the IP edits came from russia and the ukraine (starting in 2007..when the article subject claims to have relocated there - http://www.opednews.com/author/author56.html). Therefore Its likely the subject is the author of this article which would also violate WP:COI. please check the edit history of the article. -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no awards, no significant coverage of the person, despite his stated longevity in the field. Not notable. It doesn't matter what the reasons for the previous prod or the previous request for speedy delete were, this is an independent review based upon the current article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep"I've studied this site and Hammerschlag has an impressive collection of articles and audio about many different things. Tracers' argument that they are suspicious or faked needs to be proven -- does he have an agenda? Read the articles. He has some thought provoking content. I think all of us must consider what is lost by Deleting this and what is gained by Keeping it. 71.145.170.80 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a wether "you enjoy it so it should stay" issue.. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view ) its a notablity/wikipedia policy issue. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Megumi Kanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as a non-notable trombone player. JBsupreme (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am finding coverage in a number of reliable sources that seem to indicate she meets notability. This American Record Guide entry from 2005 discusses her style; she is mentioned in this book on trumpet technique and this one about classical music as a profession. She returns a lot of Google News hits, including this extended profile in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; though much of her other coverage comes from the same paper, she has also been profiled by several others: the Albuquerque Journal here, the Rockford Register Star, and the Daily Gazette of Schenectady here. This introduction as a "Midwest treasure" by the Japanese Consul General in Chicago, from a performance by her that he arranged there, also to me indicate prominence.
- I don't think it's open-and-shut: the book references are brief, and the newspapers are regional rather than national - I am not from the US and don't know how much weight to ascribe to regional publications. But there's a volume and breadth of reliable source coverage here that for me indicates notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP' Good net coverage on many things plus .... and a CD which seems to be purchased by a lot of people - Amazing Grace CD , and there's more if you care to look. (Milestokilo (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... just because some individuals have not heard of her that is not a reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2010
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clare Andrea Neilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete no evidence of independent notability. Neilson has been written about solely because of his mother's notability and large public interest in her. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created this on January 19 this year, intending to develop it, and borrowed the books I needed to do that. For some reason, Boleyn pounced on it. Within hours of its creation, he had added the notability and orphan tags, [42] then for some reason asked an admin to move it to a different (and incorrect) name. [43] Boleyn then added the PROD tag. [44]
I discovered all this when I came back online. I moved it back to the correct name, and removed the tags. [45] Boleyn reverted me. [46] I removed them again because I was emailing the sources to ask them to refer me to newspaper articles, and I was embarrassed to link to an article with a bunch of tags at the top, which I explained in the edit summary. [47] I also tried discussing it on Boleyn's talk page here, but it made no difference. When Boleyn added the tags for the third time, [48] I decided to stop working on the article and took it off my watchlist, because life's too short.
Two weeks later, Boleyn returned and add the PROD tag for the second time. [49] When another editor removed it, [50] Boleyn brought it here.
I'm explaining this so that editors know why the article is incomplete. I'd like to continue expanding it at some point—it's a very sad story about a boy left deeply disturbed by his mother's execution, and whose life touched even the men who had prosecuted her—but the books I borrowed are back in the library, so I don't have any source material I can use to expand it in time for this AfD. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and userfy article does not indicate any notability itself, but as the creator indicates he has offline sources, userfy to allow whatever time he needs to add those sources and expand the article enough to show potential notability. As it is now, the article doesn't even explain why he is alternately referred to as "him" and "her"? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't refer to him as her. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment SlimVirgin, please don't take this so personally. As I explained in my edit summaries, the notability and orphan tags were clearly valid (especially orphan, that couldn't really be disputed), so shouldn't have been removed until they were addressed. The article as it stands doesn't show why this person is notable, or why he would deserve more than a section in Ruth Ellis' article. I looked online to find sources to add, but found nothing that suggested he met the guidelines. I left it for a couple of weeks in the hope that it would improve, but as it hasn't and doesn't meet the guidelines, I'd recommend you edit the Ruth Ellis article (if you haven't already done so) to include info on her son and copy the article into User:SlimVirgin/sandbox where you can work on it and recreate it if you find sources which meet the criteria. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't proposers for deletion make helpful suggestions in the first place rather than push for deletion? And bear in mind a couple of weeks is no time at all for a busy person - or for someone who has taken time off from Wikipedia for annoyance management reasons or because they've been completely put off by the effort involved in trying to preserve one's own or someone else's useful work in assembling information that forms the basis of an eventually useful article. Opbeith (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - SlimVirgin made it perfectly clear at the Talk page that s/he was working on improving the article. So why nominate for deletion? This is why people give up on Wikipedia. In any case Andre McCallum was important as a campaigner on the death penalty issue. "Don't take this so personally"? Classic. The Christmas Humphreys article and the reference to Christmas Humphreys's words as taped by Andre McCallum are surprisingly relevant to the general attitude of Wikipedia "pouncers" (not just deleters). Opbeith (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Monica Weller who ghost-wrote "Ruth Ellis: My Sister's Secret Life" with Muriel Jakubait, the 11 year old Andre was a source of evidence about Ruth Ellis's involvement with Desmond Cussen and how he took her to a forest to teach her how to shoot a gun. The undisclosed relationship between Ruth Ellis's "victim" Blakeley and Cussen, whom Weller claims ws the real killer, was an important element in the campaign to secure a posthumous pardon. [51]. The campaign for a posthumous pardon for Ruth Ellis is a notable cause in the UK. Ruth Ellis's son, his evidence about Cussen, his taping of Christmas Humphreys and public discussion of his suicide establish him as an independently significant character in the context of the campaign for a pardon and discussion of the issue of capital punishment in the UK. Opbeith (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to source coverage already discussed, I am noting additional discussion in books Lady Killers and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [52], and discussion on truTV.com. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ruth Ellis may have a claim to notability but this person does not. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Ruth Ellis per JBSupreme. THF (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep BLP concerns don't exist. Dead for a long time. Primary concern, is there enough sourcing located just about the individual? SV makes a good case that the answer is yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Failes WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Lewis (slackliner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No credible sources provided to show that he is well-known. Links have been given to Youtube videos (not appropriate), web discussion forums (not appropriate), and a local about-town newspaper article that mentioned him in passing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Additionally, suspect user Georgewilliamupton is a sockpuppet of Gumby2386 due to account creation time and scope of edits. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see why you might think that I am a "sock puppet" of Gumby2386 based on the creation time of my account, however there is a perfectly logical explanation. I use Wikipedia regularly, but thus far, I have never found it necessary to contribute to any articles. Today, I saw that someone was contending the notability of Andy Lewis and knew that anyone who knows a thing about slacklining that was made aware of this would speak up like I did. So I created my account directly for the purpose of responding to you and providing more information as to Andy Lewis' accomplishments and notability. As for the "scope of my edits" I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean the fact that I know something about the topic at hand? I'm not really sure about the scope of your knowledge on the subject, to be perfectly frank. How can your opinion about Andy Lewis' notability be valid considering you've already shown your ignorance on the topic by claiming a lack of references to "slackjawing" in the first discussion? The article never once mentions "slackjawing"... and I'm really not sure what it is to be honest. As for the references, let me ask about youtube videos. Why wouldn't a youtube video be a valid reference if it actively proves something related to the person's notability (he was on Japanese national TV; he spoke and showed films at the most well known mountain film festival in the US; he took first place at an international slackline competition)? These are references showing he has done all these things plus two separate news articles (not one) and an interview on KGNU Radio. Let me also mention the fact that I am a current resident of Japan and through viewing Andy Lewis' performance on Japanese television in 2007 I have become a big fan of Andy Lewis' slacklining work. I think having fans all over the world should be a fair indicator of notoriety. (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Answers to above comment
- The two accounts do superficially look like a case of sockpuppetry, but the explanation given by Georgewilliamupton is quite possible, and I am willing to assume good faith.
- In answer to "How can your opinion about Andy Lewis' notability be valid considering you've already shown your ignorance". For very good reasons Wikipedia does not base notability on "I know about this and you don't, so you will have to take my word for it". We base notability on the existence of substantial coverage in reliable published sources independent of the subject. (You can read more details in the general notability guideline and in the specific guideline on notability of people if you like.) Someone who knows about a particular subject is, of course, more likely to be able to know where to find suitable sources, and since you evidently have some knowledge of the subject please do give us references to sources if you can. However, once sources have been given, someone with no knowledge of the subject is just as able as someone with knowledge of it to assess whether those sources contain substantial independent coverage. In fact, if anything, someone not involved in the subject is more likely to be able to look at the evidence from a detached, impartial, point of view.
- Sometimes a YouTube video may be a good source of information about particular facts about someone who has already been shown to be notable. However, a YouTube video is almost never of any value at all in establishing notability, because YouTube is not a reliable source. Anyone at all can post a video to YouTube, and so they cannot be relied on. In fact even when I wrote above that sometimes a YouTube video may be a good source of information about particular facts, that "sometimes" should perhaps have said "very occasionally", for the same reason.
- The facts which you state about Lewis ("he was on Japanese national TV" etc) sound quite impressive, but do not in themselves constitute proof of notability. For example, many millions of people have at some time in their life been briefly on television but are not notable. Clearly someone who has been a star of a long running show is likely to be notable, but "has been on national television" is very open ended: has he featured prominently in a long running series? has he been the main focus of a one-off feature? has there once been a single brief mention of him? or what? If the fact that he has been on television has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources then point us to those sources. Otherwise it is not evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have concentrated on television appearance as an example, but similar comments apply to the other examples you give.
- I hope this has helped to clarify what sort of evidence is needed to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answers to above comment
- I live in Japan too and can confirm that almost any foreigner with a funny trick can get themselves on TV. The site "Japan Probe" often posts YouTube clips of one-trick ponies being oohed and aahed over on morning variety shows. Thank you JamesBWatson for taking the time to provide that information. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough clarification JamesBWatson. It's clear that Wikipedia is more interested in text sources, which makes very good sense. How does Wikipedia plan on evolving to reflect changing forms of documentation and the demise of print? This article is documenting one of the foremost proprietors of a popular (and rapidly growing) sport, but one which so far is not well documented in writing. The Wiki "Slackline" article itself is supported by a series of blog posts and about five videos, plus the one New York Times article. There's a bit more evidence for "Yoga Slacklining", which, if you probe around, is an extremely minor portion of the slackline community. My post on Andy is supported by blog posts, videos, and two articles from small newspapers (admittedly less important than the New York Times). Furthermore, Andy is significantly more well-documented in Germany, but as I do not speak German, I have had difficulty recovering sources. I don't think everyone on Wikipedia should have to get into a major newspaper to deserve coverage, but perhaps this is simply a problem of different definitions. I understand that Wikipedia must maintain certain standards at the expense of greater information.
As to Simon-in-sagamihara: your tone is unwelcome. Georgewilliamupton is not my "sockpuppet" but a person who also thinks Andy deserves mention. His name is pretty apparent from his username - look him up. Additionally, your disdain for the culture of your resident country is a bit troubling. If you want to start over and treat me like an intelligent, well-meaning, interested individual, I'll listen to what you say. Until then, you're pissing in the wind and your commentary is not welcome here. Gumby2386 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No strawmen please, the sentence "your disdain for the culture of your resident country is a bit troubling" is a little thin on substantiation, much like a tissue. If you re-read my comment you'll find that I simply mentioned the criterion for appearing on a morning variety program here. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the sockpuppet comments, I have to agree with Simon-in-sagamihara that these accounts are related; if it's not sockpuppetry, it's meatpuppetry, which is hardly better. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Georgewilliamupton is a friend of mine, if that's what you mean by meatpuppetry. I fail to see how that affects his support for Mr. Lewis's inclusion in Wikipedia, which is unrelated to our friendship. From Wikipedia itself: "Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg puts "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "someone you disagree with"." So forgive me if I'm not moved by your commentary.
Would you like me to go on message boards and ask all the people who worship Andy Lewis as an icon of a sport to post here? It would only be too easy. Or would that be "meatpuppetry"? Should Andy Lewis's fan base have discovered this Wikipedia page in the 3 seconds it existed before being declared deletion-worthy? 99.186.40.89 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusion, that last post was me. Forgot to log in. Gumby2386 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After more closely reading the "notability" guidelines, I am even more convinced that Mr. Lewis deserves a Wikipedia page. Under "Athletes", No. 2 states that notability can be gained by "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Mr. Lewis was the victor of the only formal World Championship of slacklining so far convened, and is generally considered to be at the highest amateur level of slacklining. There are no slackline professionals yet (though Mr. Lewis is sponsored by numerous companies) but Mr. Lewis is probably the closest to being considered professional. Gumby2386 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to see some better references. Slacklining, just like tightrope walking, is not a widely known sport outside of its professional applications in the circus (which is where I know it through research for a character...). It may be difficult to find the references required, but if the article goes now - find them and try again. As it stands, there's definitely too much YouTube and not enough independent. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided for Andy Lewis (slackliner) do show significant breadth. His notoriety becomes apparent through many different types of sources: news, websites, radio interview, and video (although I understand that most of the time video does not prove notability, I do believe that in the case of Andy Lewis' showcase at the Banff Mountain Film Festival, this video does in fact prove his appearance at this event and his notability, considering that he was asked to speak and show films at one of the most prestigious outdoor film festivals in existence.) (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Curious about the notability required to deserve a Wikipedia article, I took a look at Andy Lewis (cricketer) by chance and was quite surprised. Andy Lewis (cricketer) has an standing Wikipedia entry, but only two sources. His notability is apparently derived from his cricket statistics from only two matches played, which are both linked from the same cricket website. I'm curious about how being a mere blip on the map (with only one website that shows his name/batting statistics as a source) proves notability. Why is someone who is a unknown player in a well known sport (that has a huge total number of players) considered more notable than someone who is widely known and at the very forefront of a relatively new sport that is growing rapidly in popularity? (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Upon reviewing the requirements for notability according to Wikipedia's standards again, I have found that Andy Lewis (slackliner) does in fact complete 2 of 2 of the notability standards for athletes listed in the notability of people guide.
Athletes 1. People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
- (He is a sponsored, professional slackliner that has competed at that level.)
2. People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
- (He not only competed in the world championships of slacklining, but also took first prize.) (Georgewilliamupton (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- He is not a professional. If he has been given some sponsorship that is not the same as competing "at the fully professional level". Besides, where are the sources for even that claim? Even Gumby2386 say "There are no slackline professionals yet (though Mr. Lewis is sponsored by numerous companies) but Mr. Lewis is probably the closest to being considered professional". Unfortunately "the closest there is to being professional" is not the same as "fully professional", nor even near it. If a sport has not reached the level where there are professionals then nobody is notable for being a professional at it.
- When I was a teenager I made up a card game. I invited some of my friends to take part in the "world championship" of the game. Yes, it was open to all the people in the world who knew how to play the game, so it was a real world championship. It would be absurd, though, on the basis of that to claim that I had a level of notability equivalent to that of Olympic competitors. If Lewis did indeed win the "world championship" for slacklining then we still need to establish that slacklining has a status sufficient to justifying taking that as equivalent to Olympic standard, or world championship in a more recognised sport. Besides, where is the evidence that Lewis did win such a "world championship"? I can only assume this refers to the international section of the UK Slackline Masters Competition, but not even the source cited describes this as a "world championship". Finally, the only source cited for this is a forum post. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note two new sources added to the main page. One detailing his first place win at the Natural Games in France (note: this is a separate competition won by Andy Lewis, not to be confused with his International Slackline Masters win) and one discussing his participation and highline setting in the "Petzl Roctrip". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewilliamupton (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the 'Notes' section, the YouTube links and the slacklining forum do not count as reliable independent references. This is how Wikipedia views it. I don't think the external links help much, either. I quote from the Colorado Daily:
"Slacklining's popularity has boomed, but it's not a sport to go pro in -- yet. Andy Lewis, 23, one of the competitors for the Saturday competition, is about as close to pro as you can get. He has traveled to Europe for events and works at the Boulder-based U.S. distribution center for Gibbon Slacklines. He also teaches slackline lessons. "There's not really a pro slackliner stage yet, but we're getting there," Lewis said. "I'm trying to at least create a stage for myself." Lewis is going to do demos and help instruct slackliners after all of the competitions end Saturday night. But he'll be teaching close to the ground. "Slacklining is not only my hobby and my love and my passion now, it's my job." To me, that's not very in-depth coverage. It's a base line to be built up from. The other links look to me like mentions even briefer. I've been seen on Japanese TV too, but don't claim any notability from it. Please listen to what is being said here. Going on and on does your case no good. Read the relevant policies. I do agree about some of the other sports persons - please feel free to tag any you consider badly referenced or not notable. And please could someone explain how the 'achievements' of Lewis differ from things I've seen in pro circus performances, apart perhaps from not taking place over limestone gorges? Please note also that I am trying to help you. As is often the case at AfD, this is not easy... Peridon (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete in case anyone gets this far down. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:N, or WP:BIO. THF (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Concerning the suggestion of sockpuppetry. I have examined both the content and the timing of the edits by the two accounts involved, and I now find the evidence much more persuasive than I did when I said above that I would assume good faith. I now believe we do have a case of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite attempts by myself and others to clarify what is needed, the one or two editors (depending on whether we have a sockpuppet) arguing for "keep" have failed to provide any independent reliable sources establishing notability. Even if we accept their/his interpretation of "world championship" and "as near to professional as any", without reliable independent sources we could have no article. Many of the sources given in the article do not support the statements to which they are attached at all. For example, the statement "He was the first slackliner to successfully land a backflip back on the line (and later, the first to land a bi-axis slackline aerial)" has a reference to a YouTube video, which simply shows someone (presumably Lewis) slacklining. It does not state that he was the first to do anything. Note that this is in addition to the fact that a YouTube video is not a reliable source. Likewise the statement that "his films were also showcased at the Banff Mountain Film Festival in 2009" is referenced to another YouTube video. This one shows Lewis standing on a stage talking to an audience, and then showing a video clip of himself. Does this mean that "his films were showcased", or does it mean that during the festival he hired a hall in which to do a self-presentation, or what? Again, this is quite separate from the fact that YouTube is not a reliable source. I have searched on Google and can find no evidence at all of any support for "his films were showcased at the Banff Mountain Film Festival" in anything that could possibly be considered a reliable independent source. Very similar remarks apply to other "sources" given in the article: all but one of them is either not reliable, not independent, or does not support the statement to which it is attached, or some combination of two or even all three of those. The only reliable independent source cited is a "Daily Camera" article, which, in the course of several paragraphs, quotes a few sentences from Lewis. The only assertions in the article which are supported by this article are that Lewis works for Gibbon Slacklines, and that he "advocates for the legality of slacklining" (or, to quote exactly what the source says, that he is involved in "lobbying the city of Boulder to relax its rules"). The rest of the article is effectively unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the timing of the "Request for Speedy Deletion" to be a bit odd. User Gumby2386 created the page on 05:09, 18 February 2010. Then less than One Minute later (05:09, 18 February 2010), user Simon-in-sagamihara tags it for speedy deletion. Gumby continues to improve the article, and less than two hours later (06:48, 18 February 2010) Simon nominates it for deletion. Why pray tell are articles being put up for deletion the same minute/day/week they were created? This was not a salted topic. The nominator had opportunity to mentor the author rather than try and shut down his article. I question the nominators motivation. AWhiteElk (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Simon came across the article at New Page Patrol. While very fast speedy-tagging of new articles can be discouraging to their authors (and in this case I personally feel that the initial article didn't meet A7), the fact that he spotted a new article and tagged it quickly does not necessarily betray anything about his motivation. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was done within one minute of the articles creation!?! The author mighta/shoulda worked on it in the userspace and then submitted the article for listing. But the fact that the nominator jumped on the deletion bandwagon instead of allowing/helping the author to improve the article, makes me wonder if the nominator had any constructive motivations at all! The author continued to improve the article and less than two hours later the nominator put it on the AfD list and work on the article halted. Seems like a destructive waste of time, energy, and talent to me. There are more constructive routes to take other than deletion. WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion AWhiteElk (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore; how could the nominator possibly have had time to do the due diligence required before nominating an article for speedy deletion? Even had the nominator found the article within one second of its listing, could the nominator have had time to make a proper judgment in less than one minutes time? (with enough time left over to tag the article for deletion) Doesn't seem proper to me. Seems hasty. And taking the deletion route while the author is clearly in the process of improving the article, seems misguided. AWhiteElk (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Improve A Google search came up with Many pages of info verifying Andy Lewis's role in the creation of this sport. His role, and notability to the sport is clearly evident. I leave the "experts" to debate which ones are "credible". For now though, this is a new article; I say give the author time and assistance to improve it. Put all this deletion energy and debate to better use by assisting the author to write a better article! AWhiteElk (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — AWhiteElk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaggy (radio personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've tried searching on a number of variations of names and words associated with this radio personality ("Shaggy" and "Hawaii", "Shaggy Jenkins," etc. etc.) and am not coming up with much of anything. Does indeed seem to have a radio show in Hawaii, but there does not appear to be much of any discussion in reliable sources, so seems to fail WP:GNG. Note that this gentleman should not be confused with Shaggy (musician) who is indeed notable. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I also do not find much to suggest notability, though the name(s) make searching difficult. (One of his monikers is "Producer Shags", but hits for that are mostly on the lines of "Producer shags actress"). JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Valid arguments made to both keep and delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Figma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable line of "action figures". No significant coverage found in any books, nor in any news sources. Only news coverage found is minor mentions in ANN reports that X series has a figure or Y box set comes with one, some of which is included as "refs" in the article to confirm a specific toy was released. Most of the other references are just sales listings in stores and official blog/site content. The one review quoted was a guest review for ANN, and the author, who runs a toy review site, has not reviewed any other nor posted that review to his own site. The parent company has no article, so no merge target available. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I looked, but could find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tisane (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks any coverage by reliable third-party sources and fails WP:NOTE and WP:PRODUCT. 5 of the 8 sources are all first party sources, the sixth one is simply an image form someone's blog, and the last two are a reviews of individual figurine, but not the toy line. —Farix (t | c) 12:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair that "someone" could possibly be a reliable source for other articles (I may raise the discussion at a later date, it requires further investigation first), but not enough to prove notability with a photo.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Okay, I need this explained clearly in order to get it through my pointy little head. If a company's products are multiply reviewed, and so are notable, how does this not imply that the company has some notability? I note by way of analogy that per WP:CREATIVE, an author of works that are multiply reviewed is deemed notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author one is disputed (as a side note), however, if a company has multiple notable products, then it might is notable (same as said author might be notable, not is automatically notable). However, the question here are these products notable (do not appear to be). The making company might be notable, but that isn't the question for this AfD as it has no article to begin with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a article for the company was created, I have a book source to establish notability. I thought I could do the same for figma, but the book only briefly mentions the range. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author one is disputed (as a side note), however, if a company has multiple notable products, then it might is notable (same as said author might be notable, not is automatically notable). However, the question here are these products notable (do not appear to be). The making company might be notable, but that isn't the question for this AfD as it has no article to begin with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly the range is popular among fans, but coverage by reliable sources is hard to come by it would seem. However there is likelyhood this could change in the future. I'm tempted to userfy this on the off chance. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google news search [53] shows quite a few results on Japanese sites. Some are self-published blogs but there appear to be some from legitimate news sites. Most (I just looked through a handful) look like announcement of releases of figures of specific characters. Has anyone looked through these Japanese sites to see if any of them has more meaty info? Siawase (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contrary to what Collectonian says, Rob Bricken was the regular writer of ANN's Astro Toy column, not a guest reviewer, and has reviewed two Figma products as part of the column, not just one (both reviews are currently referenced in the article). Though both are of individual products, in each review he makes statements about the product line as a whole. I would consider coverage of this nature from at least two sources enough to show notability, but I don't know if it would be enough given that the coverage is only from a single source (ANN). Are there any Japanese magazines or reliable source websites that regularly cover figures like this? I would expect there to be some reliable Japanese sources covering this product line, since it sounds like one of the main product lines for this sort of figure. Calathan (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The review linked to from the Figma article gave that impression that he was only a guest reviewer. Agree, though that even if he did do two reviews instead on one, it would not show notability as its one person and one source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So now multiple articles by a RS only count as one article? Could you link to the diff where guidelines were so changed? --Gwern (contribs) 19:20 19 February 2010 (GMT)
- The review linked to from the Figma article gave that impression that he was only a guest reviewer. Agree, though that even if he did do two reviews instead on one, it would not show notability as its one person and one source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The existing sources seems adequate to me, Siawase points out still further sources, and Figma announcements & releases are highly news-worthy by dannychoo.com nor is coverage limited to just English & Japanese sources, and the brand highly considered enough that editors of things like tomopop.com run articles like "Five franchises in need of the Figma touch". --Gwern (contribs) 19:20 19 February 2010 (GMT)
- You cannot make your own notability by publishing press releases and announcements, which is what most of those sources are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are hundreds of news sources and so the topic is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And these are where? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Gwern linked to some. Another 306 can be found in Google news search. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Every site that talks about a series, always mentions its Figma. Plenty of news coverage as well. Dream Focus 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is this review from a reliable source [54]? It is apparently from a podcast carried by an Internet radio station [55] (and was mentioned on a list of good anime podcasts [56]), but I don't know how significant that Internet radio station is. Would it be something that would have the editorial oversight necessary for its broadcasts to be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? Calathan (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @961 · 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of film series with two entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two hardly constitutes a series and this is random inclusion criteria. I would nominate the other articles in this series, but I'll see what the feedback is for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete as random inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as I didn't realize we also had a precedent for similar lists for films with three or four entries. That, and I don't think the criteria could be any clearer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the inclusion criterion is well-defined and there is a limited number of possible entries given that there are only so many films that meet our notability test. Tisane (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The feedback was negative in two nominations. How come some people can't leave a list alone that doesn't hurt anyone but is interesting to some film-maniacs? Is it sheer lust for destruction? — That was my opinion. The arguments are:
1. Two does make a series and if not it were a case for renaming not deletion.
2. Nothing is random about this criterium. In contrary, it's specific and well defined.
You really need to come up with better arguments to convince anyone beyond a few hardcore deletionists
Keep —PanchoS (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. This is pointless and trivial, not to mention two make a pair not a series. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I really don't like these pages, and always try to keep an eye on them as they are immensely flawed, and it seems sometimes subjective as to what should or shouldn't be included. However, given previous nomination attempts, and familiarity of these pages, I'd suggest that WP:SNOWBALL applies here. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that WP:SNOWBALL applies here, I hope you know that. JBsupreme (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm - maybe I used the term the wrong way round. What I meant was that it seems a foregone conclusion that no matter how hard we try, we'll never get these pages deleted. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that WP:SNOWBALL applies here, I hope you know that. JBsupreme (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agreed with PanchoS, I would think two would make a series/franchise, though, without a doubt I think this article needs improving, I'm kind of sparing it for now. I probably won't if I see this in deletion nominations again. But I'm sparing it for now. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets the requirements for a stand-alone list and is part of a collection of lists that are clearly defined by number in a series. There are complimentary lists for 3, 4, 5 through the more than 10 list, that work together to classify film series by a clearly defined, discriminate set of criteria. I do not argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather point out that merging all of these into List of film series would be far too large for our purposes, and would be the end result of deleting these seperate lists. None of the delete arguments specify policy-based grounds for deletion, and given the existence of a systematic classifaction among multiple lists, the inclusion criteria here are clearly not random in any way. Nothing has really changed since the last AfD that would provide a basis for a different result. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It serves the same reference function as list of film trilogies or List of film series with four entries, etc., which is that people would consult such a list to see which films had sequels to a film. Nominator probably should include others if the complaint is that we should not have such lists. The only argument that I see for deleting this list specifically, and not deleting others, is to the effect that "one sequel isn't as notable as two or three sequels", which I don't agree with at all. Films that have moderate success at the box office will often be followed by a sequel, which is either successful and leads to a "(Movie Title) III", or unsuccessful and brings the franchise to an end. Failure is as notable as success. If there were a list that combined all films that had the further adventures of their characters (whether it happened II, III, IV, V or more times), then this would be section of that list. But to paraphrase the poem "If All the Seas Were One Sea", "if all the lists were one list, what a big list that would be". If someone has made individual 2-3-4-5-etc. lists of films that had sequels, keep 'em all or delete 'em all. But this list should be treated no differently than the other multiple lists. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. How about a change in the title? It was called List of films with one sequel once. — Rankiri (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then someone would make the prequel argument. At least this way it's consistent with other similarly named articles. Please see previous title discussion here. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a suggestion. I have no strong objections to the current title. — Rankiri (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All suggestions for improvement of an article are welcome. In this instance, I agree with Rob that it's best to have consistency in the names of these lists. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is an integral part of the "film series" series of articles. A series starts with two films and grows from there. If it stops at two, then it belongs on this list, but if it gets bigger, then add it to another list. LA (T) @ 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments made here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (2nd nomination). There is recognition of this list's usefulness; no need to be destructive here. Erik (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Blow it up and start over another classic example of "List of A that is also X" Why not have one single list and break it out into sections by how many installations in the series? Nefariousski (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was, at one time many many moons ago, a singular list of film series. However that got extraordinarily large. Because of that, it was broken into several lists according to series size. There are now hundreds of film series on all of the lists which would make a singular lists unwieldy not only to view, but also to edit. There are probably over a hundred legitimate series on this one list alone. (I haven't looked at it since the titles of the lists were "simplified.") There are more than likely an equal amount of trilogies. Remember, there is a suggested page size limit for a reason, and to try to stay as close to that size limit as possible, the lists were broken up. LA (T) @ 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This and its fellow "film series" lists are useful encyclopedic resources for many people, including myself, and does not violate Wikipedia's policies in any way, as precious attempts to delete them has shown (and I'm getting sick of them frankly). Sure, the lists are incomplete, and maybe even flawed, but many would argue that that is the case for Wikipedia in its entirety. Oh, and yes, a series starts with two. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - potentially unmaintainable, and arbitrary. Two items does not make a series. It's entirely possible to have a series which contains two films but contains at least one of something else (a TV miniseries, for instance), but someone making a sequel or a "re-imagining" doesn't magically make a "series" of films any more than I have "a series of legs". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct, remakes are not part of a series, so are not supposed to be on this list. Sequels and prequels within the same do count, however, remakes do not. Reimaginings and reboots are just remakes trying to sound better than what they really are. There is also a list specifically for remakes. However, there are enough legitimate series of two films which merit inclusion on this list. LA (T) @ 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can find nothing here to suggest that a series can't be two. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That definition also contains nothing to suggest that a series can't be one or zero. What's your point? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A category would be a more suitable form of organization, if any. All these flms have in common is that they have sequels, which is a tenuous basis for a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A category does not allow for the proper listing of series of films. There are series of films where the titles do not look at all the same. Sure Sister Act and Sister Act 2 have titles which would be back to back, but Once Upon a Christmas and Twice Upon a Christmas would be listed under two different letters of the alphabet. LA (T) @ 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the titles are similar is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not a film had a sequel. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A category does not allow for the proper listing of series of films. There are series of films where the titles do not look at all the same. Sure Sister Act and Sister Act 2 have titles which would be back to back, but Once Upon a Christmas and Twice Upon a Christmas would be listed under two different letters of the alphabet. LA (T) @ 09:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial intersection. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There seems to be no point to have this article (if you could call it an article) when a category would easily suffice. There isn't anything on this page that says "notability", it's just a list of films that have a sequel. Why exactly can we not have "Category:Film series with two entries"? There isn't a reason why, because if there is a legitimate reason to not create a category for such a topic, then clearly that would also apply to an article that circumvents said policy against any category. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see my above comment to WesleyDodds. Also, that category would be for articles on the series but not the individual films. So, if there were articles such as Sister Act (film series) and Once Upon a Christmas (film series) then those articles would go into your proposed category, however not the individual films. LA (T) @ 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per User talk:TenPoundHammer. And even if there was a category, as some have suggested, per WP:LSC that would not make this list inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @961 · 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Club de Radioaficionados de Guatemala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits for Spanish name including a Guatemalan newspaper and nothing in English [57]. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a national nonprofit organization that is its nation's representative in the International Amateur Radio Union. I don't know how much Guatemalan media is online, so in this case I would AGF on its notability. Warrah (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what? no evidence of significant third party coverage, therefore this meets WP:N and WP:GNG? WP:AGF does not apply to assuming there is coverage when none can be found. 02:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's also not forget WP:BIAS. Warrah (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask you consider a MASS AFD rather than put them all up one by one, since you are using the same rational and I am using the same !keep argument. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as at least minimal stub on national affiliate of notable international organization, all such affiliates should have a stub, it greatly simplifies the encyclopedia project. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per previous comments, membership of IARU should be adequate for notability. Although a small country as far as amateur radio is concerned, it certainly deserves its own page in WP. Dsergeant (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MobileReflex(Mobile Framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per prod of other user: adspam No concerns addressed, writer used an argument that is shot down by WP:CRYSTAL I moved the page to mobilereflex, but it got moved back. Summarily, it's an ad. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as g11 (ad) and g12 (copyvio) from http://mobilereflex.com/engineering/About%20US.doc and http://www.mobilereflex.com/resources/brochures/Karya%20Corporate%20Brochure.pdf VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advert. . .Flint McRae (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spectra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New journal, has not even been published yet. Prod removed with justification 'The Journal is not "notable", because it hasn't been published yet. The first publication will be in April 2010. Please do not delete". Article creation premature per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:Notcrystal and NN. It may in the future, but not yet. (GregJackP (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete, per nom. The journal does not exist yet and does not satisfy either WP:N or WP:NJournals. Not indexed anywhere, no subscriptions or library holdings, no ISSN number, no coverage by independent sources, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Earhart's Heirloom/Ancient Greeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely consisting of a plot summary and trivia section, there is nothing here which meets inclusion guidelines. Plus it is unreferenced and fails to demonstrate notability. I42 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Angela Anaconda. Nothing here worthy of a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing here worth merging. [List of Angela Anaconda episodes]] already has an appropriate short summary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no significant coverage by reliable sources. Since it is all plot and trivia, there's nothing worth merging that isn't already listed elsewhere (like the summary already covered in the list of episodes). TheTito Discuss 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arne Fahlstrøm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Didn't do anything of note in his life. He was a passenger on the Titanic, ok, but I can't see how every passenger of that ship are notable. This is already covered at a fansite, Encyclopedia Titanica. He should be mentioned in the articles of both his parents, of course, but note WP:INHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable person. Arsenikk (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I LOL'd at the "Encyclopedia Titanica" comment and then I realized you weren't joking. So yeah, it can go there. Whatever floats your boat. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodmusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability in question. Article only contains a couple of external links to OUP and MPA, but no sources about the company. Searching for this company is difficult, as there are several other companies and sites with this name, but as far as I can see, there is no significant coverage to be found on Google Web or News search. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - CSD removed by IP, prob creator. Cannot find notability. Smappy (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No claim to notability is asserted, nor are any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - WP:A7. Unless simply being a company is a claim to notability, this should be speedied. Even if it doesn't meet A7, it won't pass WP:CORP, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leading For a Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book, 71 hits on Google. Nominated for an award but I don't think it's a notable award. Ridernyc (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of this book that would show it being notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, per lack of proper sourcing to show notability and BLP concerns. GlassCobra 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wade R. Meisberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't currently claim any sort of notability, but it used to state that the subject was convicted of murder until this was removed by the subject (and original author of the article). Very few references out there, and while the article used to cite some they were vague in the extreme. Fails WP:BLP1E. Hut 8.5 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep/rewrite As the article stands, it doesn't even claim notability and could have been speedied. However this appears to be because all the significant information was removed by someone with a conflict of interest. The person does actually appear to be somewhat notable per Google search, because of his lawsuit (with a co-plaintiff) against a prison policy forbidding inmates to receive porn, soft-porn, and explicit materials. The case is called Wade Russell Meisberger v. State of Indiana. See [news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/topedon71106cmp.pdf findlaw], CNN, etc. If the subject doesn't want this stuff on Wikipedia, he shouldn't have made himself famous by bringing this lawsuit. --MelanieN (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest the lawsuit doesn't look notable either. Even if it was notable the article would have to be about the lawsuit and not him. Hut 8.5 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but an article on the legal issues mentioned above might be okay. I don't think articles on criminals are a good idea generally. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with User: ChildofMidnight that an article on the legal issues may be more appropriate. This subject is at most notable for only one event.--PinkBull 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Bernick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. To be honest, I was a little surprised to see that this resume-like article was not created by an SPA, the account actually had edits to almost one dozen other articles. JBsupreme (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - found several sources - see [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62]. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Those above sources don't indicate any notability. The second link, for example, merely quotes the guy. ("The more people move around you're going to see wages fluctuate," said Michael Bernick, former director of the California Employment Development Department.") The first link, is the same. The third is his staff bio, the fourth is an article written by him, not an indication of notability, and the last is a book back-cover-style page. The last one is the best indication of notability, but that falls short. The the first four demonstrate no more notability than many professionals would have. Shadowjams (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Shadowjams; the sources don't cut it, nor is there any real taste of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sources provided to establish notability are not sufficiant to establish significant notability to worth inclusion. When establishing notability one hs to keep in mind that it is about encyclopedic notability we're talking about. -RobertMel (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Diving in Ko Tao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this list, (which was split from the island article) violates Wikipedia's policy of not being a directory, guidebook or an indiscriminate collection of information, and should be deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lonely Planet's Diving in Thailand book devotes ten pages to dive sites around Ko Tao and states that 3% of the world's divers are certified here. This is one of the world's most popular dive sites, so the article could be expanded easily. A split allows the Ko Tao island article not to be swamped with tourist-related content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks about as notable as anything else in Category:Underwater diving sites. It also looks more interesting than Square Lake. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure about the merits of this list, but if it is kept something ought to be done about the inappropriate external links in the article. ThemFromSpace 21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: per Lonely Planet's Diving in Thailand book which devotes ten pages to dive sites around Ko Tao. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Athenaeum, BBlessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable compilation of previously published stories with new illustrations; no claim to ntability; does not meet WP:Notability or WP:Notability (books). PROD was declined, but the article was not substantially revised to meet requirements. TJRC (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add'l comment from nom: for your convenience, this diff shows the limited changes made by the article's proponent in the week or so between the deletion of the PROD and this nomination. I don't see that the issue was actually addressed. Also, please see the dialog with the article's proponent on the talk page Talk:Athenaeum, BBlessing. TJRC (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, fails WP:BK VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DDelete per nnom, does not meet GGNG requirements. JBsupreme (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Machree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first google link is their myspace, but I don't see other links on there. Nothing on google news that I can find that relate to the band. Not listed on Amazon.com either. CynofGavuf 06:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The news piece linked from our article appears to be literally the only coverage of the band known to Google News (based on a search for the name of the band and its lead performer). Nothing relevant in GBooks or GScholar, so I've seen no evidence the band meets notability requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely fails notability. JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dirty Gaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band dose not pass WP:Music or WP:N could not find reliable sources a MySpace page and a website dose not establish notability Kyle1278 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Non-notable with clear WP:COI. Also need to remove their Tricks and Favours (album) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom -- clearly not notable. Also agree with earlier comment about removing album. B.Rossow · talk 04:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No convincing arguments for notability have been presented. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrangthan Chhungi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Non-notable scholar. Fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At first sight the article would seem to have a few independent sources. I haven't dug into this subject yet, but it would help if the nominator could explain how those sources fail to meet our notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the links are just to things Chhungi has written, but these are not "highly cited" in the sense of Note 1. The three other footnotes are: a quotation in a news report, a "welcome aboard" note in an in-house newsletter and the mention of her name on an organizational website. None of these remotely approach notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability. The statements in the article are all well-referenced, but only make the following claims:
- She is a member of the India Evangelical Lutheran Church (1)
- She has a doctorate (2,4)
- She is or has been treasurer of the Society for Biblical Studies in India (3)
- She is or has been secretary of one of the National Council of Churches in India committees (3)
- She has written four articles (5, 6, 7, 8)
- This is completely insufficient for notability as an academic under WP:Prof (academics usually have doctorates, and usually write dozens of papers). More generally, under WP:Notability, there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (in contrast, for example, to D. S. Amalorpavadass, who did receive such coverage). To put it another way, there is no evidence given of anyone outside the Society for Biblical Studies in India and the National Council of Churches writing about this person.
- Under WP:Notability (people), there is no evidence of "a notable award or honor" (doctorates are not notable), or of making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." Senior churchmen (such as Samineni Arulappa) are generally notable, as are people who found new religious movements (such as Geevarghese Mar Ivanios), or people who have written multiple widely read books, but nothing notable in the Wikipedia sense is included in this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On checking, it seems the original author has created a large number of articles on Indian Christian theologians -- a surprisingly large number, given the relatively small size of the Christian community in India. It would probably help if the author would draw up some guidelines as to what makes an Indian Christian theologian notable, get agreement on those guidelines, and then help assess the articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- I would have thought she was just about notable. I would also contest the remarks about the size of the Christian community in India. It is true they are only 2% or so of the population, but that does not prevent there being over 30 million Christians. That is more than some European countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see how she can be notable. What criteria of notability do you think she meets?
- My comment on population was meant to indicate that, just by going on population, the number of notable Indian Christian theologians I would expect would be about the same as, say, the number of notable French Christian theologians. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Do we take a policy not to allow Women Theologians on Wikipedia. --Pavani (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do indeed have female theologians on Wikipedia. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, is a female theologian. She was the first woman elected as president of the Society of Biblical Literature, a major society. Her book In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins has 386 citations on Google Scholar, and her other books are also widely cited. She is notable. I don't believe, on the basis of information presented so far, that Hrangthan Chhungi is notable, but I'm sure we would all be very, very happy if you presented some evidence of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Comme on folks, she's basically a treasurer of some organization, even had she been the president, the article would still fail to show she'd pass the notability test. It does not suffice to show one can find secondary sources, notability worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia should be what is required. Imagine, I would have to go there and be the treasurer or the secretary of that organization or even found my own since that would make me enough notable? That, of course, would be ridiculous. -RobertMel (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone comes up with something that makes her bio meet the guidelines. Wikidas© 10:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SALVO! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any reliable sources through google searches. A look for Salvo! film led me to a Slovokian film studio website but I don't think it's the same thing.
There is a youtube video about the song, but that's the only reference point I found. CynofGavuf 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Key words for me in the article are "will be," indicating that this musical does not yet exist except perhaps as a future project. B.Rossow · talk 04:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @958 · 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asociatia Radioamatorilor din Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews and google mainly reveals mirror sites of WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here's a news item about the group under its English name (search for Moldova on the page): https://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/08/22/4/?nc=1 There are interesting snippets at a Google Books search: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Amateur%20Radio%20Society%20of%20Moldova%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp This is a national association, not a local one, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the google books search typical verifies its existence as a national organisation. hardly in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I recommend expanding this afd into a summary judgement over the whole Category:International Amateur Radio Union member societies (98 pages). Articles like Amateurs Radio Algeriens or Unió de Radioaficionats Andorrans are no better then the Moldovan suspect, and I presume few of the rest are any better. Redirect them all to International Amateur Radio Union (the list of leagues is already there). That said, lack of editor interest in radio leagues is disappointing; I suppose hamheads haven't yet recognized that novel fad called internet. There's more than enough RS to expand every big radio league into a FAC-grade article but who would care to? NVO (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - what is the point of deleting stubs for subjects that clearly have equivalent notability to Anglophone community equivalents. Deletion and concomitant destruction of potentially useful information reinforces the Wikipedia bias channelled by the unwillingness of many English-mother tongue users of Wikipedia to acknowledge the importance of of foreign institutions that are not routinely reported in the Anglophone media. Opbeith (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide sources in Moldovan and I will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument/request is getting old. You should be aware by now AFD is not cleanup! Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide sources in Moldovan and I will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Signs point towards this being able to meet notability guidelines, if sufficient references aren't provided in a couple days, my !vote will change to delete. RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree with Exit2DOS2000. This series of AfDs, without waiting for a decision on the earlier forays, is unfortunately abusive, some overall decision should be made at International Amateur Radio Union as to how to deal with member societies: list in the main article, separate "List of" article, or series of stubs, perhaps in addition to the former. I favor the latter because, from time to time, independent reliable source may appear on a local club, and if the stub exists, there is a place to put the sourced information, more easily accessible to new and IP editors. In any case, because of the inherited notability due to being a national-level affiliate, the stubs should not be deleted, even if a decision is made against individual stubs, they would be redirected. --Abd (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Membership of IARU is sufficient for notability. A small article, and it could usefully be expanded, but that is not reason itself for deletion. Dsergeant (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Silent ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable children's game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surprisingly, it exists. Whether these mentions would be enough to confirm it as notable is another matter: [63]; [64] Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd say Mandsford has clearly established notability. The LA Times, the San Jose Mercury-News, several newspapers in Florida - the verification and notability are there. Some of these citations should be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, those citations all appear to be subscription-only or pay-per-view. But I added one link at the article, from Iowa State University teacher education. Most Google hits are blogs but they are as far away as Australia, this is clearly a widespread and well established game. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of legit references to the game in mainstream media. B.Rossow · talk 04:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brossow. Tisane (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable children's game. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Missing (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable children's game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's real [65]. Whether it's "real notable" is another matter. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The game can be listed under "Children's games" or antoher article and delete this one. Is heads up seven being deleted? Or Mr. President?whicky1978 talk 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It only took me a minute or two to find these three sources, which are enough to demonstrate notability, and I'm sure that if anyone wants to spend a bit more time they'll be able to find plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Once again I found an academic reference and added it to the article. It's clear the game is both real and notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per previous references listed by Phil Bridger and independent verification. B.Rossow · talk 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dax johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable local musician, only a single article in a local paper as a reference. Contested prod. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I don't see any indication of notability. But a preliminary search shows listing on Rhapsody and lastfm. I don't think that designates notability, but it does suggest something. On the other hand, there are just myspace, blog, and primary source pages that I can find otherwise. Would be convinced otherwise if someone can find some other references. Shadowjams (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also comes up as an NME artist: http://www.nme.com/artists/dax-johnson as well as receiving extremely high praise from David Nevue (a wikipedia worthy musician who felt "honoured" to perform with Dax. http://davidnevue.blogspot.com/2005/11/in-memory-of-dax-johnson.html Xervish Flydd (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of sufficient notability. -RobertMel (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bekka Eaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. IMDB reveals a non extensive acting career. passing mentions in gnews but not enough in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage meeting WP:GNG for her many diverse works over at least 28 years. Yes, the article needs to be cleaned up and better sourced... but sources are available for such and surmoutable issues should be addressed through normal editing, and not by deletion because someone else has not done the work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article needs wikification, but she is modestly notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Barely passes WP:GNG. Tisane (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to American Idol (season 9). Too early to create. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jermaine Sellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is non-notable, with his only "accomplishment" thus far being not winning on one barely notable reality show on a cable station. See WP:BLP1E. --B.Rossow · talk 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just redirect it to the main American Idol 9 article until if and when he becomes a finalist. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 03:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anyone who watches american idol knows that Jermaine Sellers is going to be a huge star and you must keep him!! Even my aunt agrees. Just kidding--apparently he made the top "24". Agree with Woohookitty on the redirect, not sure we even need the AfD unless it keeps getting restored?--Milowent (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now at least. I am about to redirect all the other red links as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Chambers (Boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cant seem to find this person on Google, it may seem to fail WP:Notability. What should we do? Written by GeneralCheese 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @958 · 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Army of the Southern Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally prodded as, "Unreferenced possible original research". I'll also add that this is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT as the article is nothing more than an extensive plot summary. Also fails WP:NOTE for not having significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:V (for over a year). If there were sources for it, I would say keep. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per my original prod, article lacks references. Saying "there are plenty of similar anime pages throughout Wikipedia" is not a valid reason to keep. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Anything useful/sourcable add to The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross#Southern Cross Army, then redirect. This doesn't appear to be a notable topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is where do you find someone who knows enough about the subject to choose what important stuff to merge? The article has been unsourced for over a year now as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and dabify is a plausible search term for Robotech and The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross - so it should be a dab page for both, and merged into both, since some information is for both. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lots of third party references exist. I'll find and add some and/or tag for rescue. Major element of a notable fictional franchise which has been portrayed in anime and novels. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than 3rd party sources this article has been unsourced and tagged with being primarily in-universe since 2008. Wikipedia can not be used as a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of an article is not a criterion in deletion discussions. Rather, the discussion is based on its (presumably unreached) potential. The reason there aren't any sources is because I haven't added any yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-primary sources include...
- various Google Books references, including
- various news articles, over the past 20 years, mostly industry press referring to adaptations of the material.
- The problem with these and tons of other sources is that the commentary on the "Robotech" and "Super Dimensional Cavalry" instantiations of the series, so there's certainly a challenge to appropriately source an article on one vs. the other. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is there enough stuff among the coverage to warrant a spin-out article for this fictional military organization? --KrebMarkt 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Given that the organization exists in two slightly different incarnations, I'd rather that it was dealt with here, with the differences between the two series' take on the ASC in this article. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment'. I'll note again that I find it strange to accuse an article simultaneously of being plot summary and OR; they are obviously mutually exclusive problems, and accusers ought to at least make it clear that they are not contradicting themselves but the accusations refer to different parts of the article.
- Notability is a little difficult for in-universe elements. There's no shortage of material to work from in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Army+of+the+Southern+Cross%22 and karridian.net alone (used in 11 of our articles) seems to source most if not all of the plot material; but I will leave it to others to decide whether all the hits redound not to the Army's but the series' or franchise's benefit. --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 18 February 2010 (GMT)
- Keep Normally I would say merge, but this time there seem to be sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't trim and merge, replace with a redirect, or mass delete either. Plenty of valid information in the article of use to someone wishing to know about it. And sources have now been found establishing its notability. Dream Focus 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is sourced from the Robotech television series and the novels. Robotech is one of the most famous anime-adaptations in North America. It should be kept as is.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @957 · 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Edward Said memorial lectures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing another broken AFD that NO ONE ELSE COULD BE ARSED TO FIX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (downsized huge font size above) Please don't shout! Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: No criterion for deletion. I don't see the problem with this. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was prod'ed with the comment "Clearly not notable enough for its own page. Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia of all information. No reliable secondary sources are used." The lack of secondary sources seems correct, but it seems likely that ones exist. I'm neutral for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This memorial lecture is not a recognized phenomenon that merits its own article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I was the one that submitted the prod and I also attempted to submit it for afd but it somehow got messed up along the way. This article violates WP:Notability as well as WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia not a directory/listing/encyclopedia of any information. Beyond that, this article ONLY uses primary sources and no reliable secondary sources, meaning it also violates WP:Reliable sources. This article adds no value to Wikipedia. A listing of Nobel Prize winners makes sense; a list of minor Said events does not. The fact that memorial lectures for Said take place should be placed in his own article, given that reliable secondary sources exist and is not given undue weight. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can't claim to be an expert on lists, but I was surprised to see how many universities (including major ones) have a lecture series in honor of Said. These are mentioned in our Edward Said article, and a split-off list article naming all the specific lectures that have been given might indeed be interesting to folks reading about Said (one can assume that all of the talks in some way explore themes or topics with which Said himself was interested, and thus in a sense they extend his work). I really have no problem with this list, which would not be the case if it was just a list of a few talks given at Columbia University after Said's death. It's also important to point out that Edward Said, whatever one thinks of him, was one of the major academic thinkers on the planet in the last few decades, so having a list of lecture series done in his name is not as odd or frivolous as it may sound. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're not directly address the violation of WP:Notability, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Reliable sources. You just have a vague sense of it's importance. Nevertheless, I can't see a need for an entire separate article. Please address those violations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep If this list was embedded in the Said article, would the content be deleted? - doubtful because it is sourced. These memorial lectures are no different than listing the various mountains, lakes, buildings and rivers named to honor famous people in their articles. It is just much cleaner as a standalone list and IMHO I don't think a case has been made that these memorial lectures in toto aren't notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, it's not the same as a listing of various mountains, lakes, etc. because those things are important in and of themselves and have their own articles. That is not true of Said memorial lectures, which in and of themselves are completely insignificant. This means this article violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY which nobody has successfully countered. The phenomenon may be notable, but that would belong is his own article and does not require a listing.Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- * Pretty broad brush - Which of the seven (7) specific WP:NOT criteria does this violate?--Mike Cline (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least to give it more time. Better as a separate article than merged. Material is sourced for verifiability (i.e., the memorial lectures exist and are as categorized, presumably, but notability should be better established); sources in the article show that a Memorial lecture was scheduled or held, but discussion of the series, I did not see. If that cannot be sourced, which could be in the article on Edward Said#Edward Said memorial lectures, then this does fall down. If not keep, then userfy for further work. I'd accept it in my user space. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I've added to sources to the series as references on the section headers. I'd like to find sources for the establishment of each series, which would be deeper. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Said was an important 20th century scholar and ideologist (whether or not you agree with his views) and the large number of established lectures and their many distinguished lecturers reflect this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Regardless of how you feel about Said, it still violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please consider Wikipedia policies and not your views of the individual. In and of themselves, these lectures are insignificant. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lecturers are certainly not insignificant. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The LECTURES, which this article pertains to, are NOT significant. It doesn't matter who's in the lecture. There are many annual series of lectures in every university. They don't deserve a whole article listing each one for every year. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the lecturers are notable of themselves as they have their own BLPs in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The LECTURES, which this article pertains to, are NOT significant. It doesn't matter who's in the lecture. There are many annual series of lectures in every university. They don't deserve a whole article listing each one for every year. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am still not entirely sure about this, but I find Plot Spoiler's many arguments unconvincing. I do not see why it violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As Mike Cline asks, which criteria does this violate? "This memorial lecture is not a recognized phenomenon that merits its own article" is just a "I do not like it argument", as is "The LECTURES, which this article pertains to, are NOT significant". The real question is whether the lectures as a whole have been noticed. I would be very surprised if they had not. That is what those who wrote this list should be looking for. Given all the other references I think this can be kept to give more time to find such a mention or indeed until the lectures as a whole receive more notice. There is no strong reason here to delete useful material. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. An external source that lists or mentions all of these lectures together is needed to demonstrate that this compilation is not the product of original research. Although I have read Said's Orientalism, that is not a free pass for inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Enough reliable sources have made this notable. (X! · talk) · @956 · 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Kade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arthur Kade still does not meet notability criteria. Kade is said to be an actor, yet has had no acting roles of note. Despite the occasional reference to Kade in the media, none of these references describe what he is notable for, other than notoriety deriving from his blog. The first deletion discussion also failed to find evidence for inherent notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I agree. This is just getting out of hand. Addionne (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill it with fire per above; deleted at least twice and still doesn't make the cut. Also throw some salt on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above (GregJackP (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Supreme delete the individual is plainly not notable. Add some WP:SALT. JBsupreme (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The subject meets the notability criteria by being the subject of multiple instances of coverage in reliable and notable media outlets (Danny Bonaduce, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the feature article in Philadelphia Magazine). As much as I hate it... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Sources in the article show the man meets the WP:GNG. Whether or not we like the man is irrelevant to whether or not the man is notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are ample sources indicating it meets the general guidelins for notability. RFerreira (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage from Philadelphia (magazine), Philadelphia Enquirer, WPSG and the multiple pieces in Gawker are all significant. The nom's "other than notoriety deriving from his blog" borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People can be notable because of a blog or anything else. I don't like this person either, but he passes WP:GNG whether we like him or not. --Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. That someone got himself mentioned in the daily "Hey, isn't that wacky" story a few times in a few publications doesn't rise to WP:N when he doesn't meet the entertainer criteria he strives for. See also WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE; Wikipedia aspires to be more than a catalog of every newspaper story. THF (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Philadelphia Magazine doing a feature article on him is not "NOT#NEWS". The dude now even has a bit on Da Ali G Show, here. It is possible for a person to become notable because they don't shut up, precisely if people start giving him more and more attention. That's the point of notability -- significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Wikipedia aspires to be more than a catalog of every hey-isn't-that-wacky magazine story. That's why we have WP:EFFECT. The Philadelphia Magazine story is entirely about how he is not notable. THF (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's getting this coverage, not because he was already notable, but because of the [laughable] means he's going about trying to become famous -- and the magazine article's discussion of his fame or lack thereof should not be confused with Wikipedia's notability. If there hadn't been any coverage of him, then he'd just be another individual trying to become famous. He's gotten noticeable coverage, which meets Wikipedia's standards, and he most certainly has had an effect online. I agree that this is a threshold case, but regardless of what you think it means for Wikipedia to 'aspire' (and I like how you changed "every newspaper story" to "every magazine story" -- very clever), Wikipedia's standards, even applied intelligently here, don't automatically exclude Kade. If anything, it should intensify the discussion about notability, and hopefully generate a more intuitive definition of notability that doesn't come off as prejudicial to those subjects affected by it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Wikipedia aspires to be more than a catalog of every hey-isn't-that-wacky magazine story. That's why we have WP:EFFECT. The Philadelphia Magazine story is entirely about how he is not notable. THF (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - ridiculous and annoying as he may be, his numerous mentions in reliable sources meet WP standards of notability. It's as simple as that. --CliffC (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I would like to remind the people who wanted the article to be kept that notability is not inherited, and reliable, third-party sources must be found in order to establish notability. (X! · talk) · @955 · 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Magyar Rádióamatõr Szövetség (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews in Hungarian. [66]. 3 hits in English [67]. If you want to keep this, please supply evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Non-profit organizations operating on national level are notable per WP:CLUB. PanchoS (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it does not meet criterion 2 of WP:CLUB. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "MRASZ is the national member society representing Hungary in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a lack of third party coverage? some of these clubs have a low a membership as 11 people. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem ... WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, the number of members is irrelevant. AFD is to discuss probable notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do concede that it is not easy to find valid secondary sources – finally, amateur radio constitutes its own media cosmos. We need to take into account that Google News doesn't seem to properly cover Hungarian news sources, so it is no argument that it doesn't give any results. Probably we need to refer to old school books in old school libraries. Still, some additional sources would be nice, even if this wouldn't considerably add to the reliability of the facts we have.
Also, please note that "some of these clubs have..." is no valid argument. Even if it were such a small organization, "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" WP:CLUB. But in this case, the organization even has 20+ national officials plus 16 regional branches. We also need to take the longevity of the organization into account and the fact that it is the single national association of amateur radio in Hungary and not one of an arbitrary number of associations.
PanchoS (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a lack of third party coverage? some of these clubs have a low a membership as 11 people. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "MRASZ is the national member society representing Hungary in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "old school books in old school libraries" it is a current organisation that currently exists, it therefore should get current coverage. Google news includes Hungarian coverage, see this search on the Hungarian President. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails General Third Party sources. WP:GNG -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PanchoS. See other International Amateur Radio Union national members currently listed. These are stubs, in general, notable by virtual of being national organizations and members of the IARU. Third-party coverage would ordinarily be local and difficult to find on the internet. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- google news includes Hungarian coverage. it's a weak argument to say "there exists coverage but can't be found". LibStar (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every newspaper in the world archives itself on the internet. Dream Focus 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same cookie cutter rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Again, I point out that your using the same request/argument for cites is moot, AFD is not cleanup. AFD is to discuss probable notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep all These articles are fine, nothing gained by destroying them, they all part of a notable club. Dream Focus 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this is only a AfD for one article. WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG as there are no independent sources on it. And I don't how see the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio organizations has any bearing whatsoever on this AfD. Just because that list squeaked by, it does not mean that each org it includes needs it's own article. Yilloslime TC 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the List of amateur radio organizations is a red herring, I apologize on behalf of those who brought it up. This organization is qualified for a stub on the basis of being recognized as a national member of the International Amateur Radio Union, and it is the list there that will be seriously affected. All the organizations listed there are national in scope, and their notability is supported by the independent international recognition of the IARU, which will only recognize one organization per nation. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability. The Hungarian national society is not a small one like some of the others in this deletion attempt. Amateur radio is very active in Hungary. The article deserves expansion, it should not be deleted. Dsergeant (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @953 · 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Association Royale des Radio Amateurs du Maroc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG . nothing in gnews [68]. If someone can find actual coverage in Arabic I'll reconsider. rather than saying there must be foreign language coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Non-profit organizations operating on national level are notable per WP:CLUB. PanchoS (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it does not meet criterion 2 of WP:CLUB. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "The ARRAM is the national member society representing Morocco in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a complete lack of third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "The ARRAM is the national member society representing Morocco in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLUB also states Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did you read what you copied? This is according to the article, the national organization, which is not an individual chapter. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PanchoS. This is a stub supplemental to International Amateur Radio Union, standard information that is better in a linked page than on the IARU page, it would be excessive detail there. Searching Arabic newspapers would be difficult for me, my Arabic is very poor, but the minimal information that is there is sufficiently verifiable for usage, and notability is established by being the national member society. Deleting stubs like this only makes it harder to grow a deeper article. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maroc-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability. Dsergeant (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Krupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has obviously led a fascinating life and even wrote a book about, but I am not finding sources that discuss him. I'm also having trouble finding book reviews. If anything, assuming we could find reviews, it might make more sense to have an article on the book, which would obviously entail discussing the details of Krupa's life. Does not seem to be notable enough for a standalone bio though. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Really hard time with sources (WP:V). Also, other people come up under this name. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Aside from the mention in Recently Published Works in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, I really don't see much in the way of sources. Tisane (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original spelling of his name was presumably "Michał Krupa" - various hits come up for that name, but can't immediately find anything of significance. Seems not to have a Polish Wikipedia article,
though is redlinked in the Polish equivalent article for National Military Union. He's also redlinked (as Michał) in our article Cursed soldiers (which might be a possible merge target).sorry, that seems to have been a different Michał Krupa, who died 1972 --Kotniski (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete while possibly interesting the subject is not actually notable as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no evidence provided, particularly secondary sources, which would suggest that he is notable enough. -RobertMel (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New York New York: His Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a non-notable compilation album. None of the tracks listed are original to this album, and the album is not listed as an official compilation album by published Sinatra discographies. There are hundreds of minor compilation albums such as this for Sinatra. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unofficial compilation, nothing significant found besides Allmusic. Notability isn't inherited from the artist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Allmusic link on the page is wrong as it refers to She Shot Me Down. The real link is this [69]; it has not been reviewed by allmusic and is just a tracklist. It is one in a long list of other compilations and isn't notable enough to justify inclusion per WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 07:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I hate to agree, but it is simply not notable. I found one article from The Age in 1983, but that hardly cuts it on its own. Addionne (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn, although the unreferenced bit still has to be dealt with. NW (Talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Miguel Medina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Plays for a second division football league, which does means he fails WP:ATHLETE. NW (Talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — in the current season, Medina's club Sport Colombia plays in the first league, see 2010 Paraguayan Primera División season. PanchoS (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric Schembri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Plays for a second division football league, which does means he fails WP:ATHLETE. NW (Talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had forgotten that clubs change what division they play in with more regularity than they do in the United States. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this AfD then. NW (Talk) 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately there's one delete !vote, so I can't close this as withdrawn at the present time. See if the user is prepared to strike out his !vote...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — Schembri played in the Maltese national team, and his club Gżira United used to play in the first league back in the 70ies when Schembri started his career there. PanchoS (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is not enough reliably published information about this player to base an article on. The few news mentions I found were passing mentions only, a sentence or less in every case. Kevin (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news is no adequate benchmark for a 1970ies-1980ies sports career. It is warranted that there is secondary literature on a national player in soccer - one needs to dig in Maltese old school libraries. PanchoS (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article confirms he played at international level. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, but it does not give us enough to write an article from. Kevin (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is a little pet peeve of mine, but when you find such an article, can you also add it to the page so that the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP? Thanks. NW (Talk) 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Soccer players who have played on national teams are usually considered to meet the appropriate notability guidelines, even if only a stub can be produced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: International caps means that the player easily passes WP:ATHLETE -- BigDom 09:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above. Since played for Malta, he clearly passes WP:Athlete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ↑. I've added a couple of refs. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep It is amazing what some people put up for deletion on here, this guy played international football for Malta, honestly, all you have to do is look at these things before you put these articles up for deletion and then end up looking a clown when everyone tells you what you should have spotted yourself Stew jones (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added a few more sources which confirm his notability as a Maltese international. Jogurney (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal Union of Belgian Radio Amateurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews in English, 3 hits in Dutch, nothing in French and zilch in German . look forward to someone saying there must be non English sources. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Non-profit organizations operating on national level are notable per WP:CLUB. PanchoS (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it does not meet criterion 2 of WP:CLUB. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "UBA is the national member society representing Belgium in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a lack of third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is definitely third party coverage, but I'm having difficulties because it's all in Dutch or French. Working on translating some of it. ManicSpider (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a lack of third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you kidding? "UBA is the national member society representing Belgium in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PanchoS. [!vote copied from another IARU deletion nomination today] This is a stub supplemental to International Amateur Radio Union, standard information that is better in a linked page than on the IARU page, it would be excessive detail there. The minimal information that is there is sufficiently verifiable for usage, and notability is established by being the national member society. Deleting stubs like this only makes it harder to grow a deeper article. --Abd (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Deleting stubs like this only makes it harder to grow a deeper article" it is almost impossible to grow this article due to a complete lack of third party coverage. please provide such evidence and I will withdraw the nomination. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, I will mention that AFD is not cleanup. AFD is to discuss Probable Notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not probable, actual notability, you and no one else has provided any evidence of significant third party coverage as required for WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing you may be overlooking is "Notability is not temporary" - On line archives of news or other coverage will only go back as far to the early 1990's at best. It is reasonable to assume that at the point the organisation became 'Royal' there would have been coverage in some printed form. If your point however is one of WP:V that may be different Codf1977 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not probable, actual notability, you and no one else has provided any evidence of significant third party coverage as required for WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- provide evidence of coverage then. google news goes back to pre1900 in many instances. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately (at least 5 in today's AFD list alone)). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My original view of this was that LibStar was correct in that it fails and it does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of third party coverage. But if a group or organisation has a membership of 3,000, has been going for some 80+ years, is clearly 'national' in it outlook and operation and has had at some point in it's history some sort of Royal patronage (as implied by it's title) then I feel it does scrape over the WP:N bar without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of the coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- age and membership is irrelevant. WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ORG must be met. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:ORG says that age can be considered, if sources considered it. For example, if there are sources that celebrate it's 80th anniversary, then we can consider its longevity to be a notable feature for both notability and WP:DUE purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as was pointed out to me in another AfD - WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are all guidelines - there is no must be met about them.
- I believe it does or can meet WP:CLUB :
- The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. - It is
- Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources, including at least one secondary source. - this is one - I am sure there must be others but am hampered by the fact I don't read French. However it does backup the clubs biggest claim to notability. Codf1977 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Codf1977 that it is a notable organization, that has been around for over 80 years. Part of a notable group, the International Amateur Radio Union. Dream Focus 15:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the directions. I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to please actually read the recently updated WP:ORG, and especially the WP:CLUB section, instead of relying on third-hand rumors about what someone once thought it said. Practically every assertion on this page about this notability guideline is completely wrong. WP:NRVE and WP:ORG do not ever accept zero-source claims of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "zero-source" claim of notability here. There is, rather, at least a single high-quality source, the IARU recognition as a national member, as independently published by them, and there is the practical certainty of the existence of other sources, which are difficult to find. If someone has an archive of QST it would help. The "recently updated" guidelines were "updated" by WhatamIdoing, and those changes were reverted, by me, and this is under discussion there, as I noted above in smalltext. --Abd (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @952 · 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- B.Boy Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure Vanity Page XLR8TION (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pure vanity page. No references.--XLR8TION (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While of very poor quality, I cannot see the vanity in this article. The guy exists, has had an article in the New York Times, is cited by at least one book author (quite extraordinary for a hip-hop artist, I daresay) and has developed and conducted a city tour which someone else found interesting enough to make a movie from. All that is referenced, albeit syntactically poor. Article needs work, not deletion. --Pgallert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might just pass notability guidelines, but this low-quality article was created by the WP:SPA Orlando galos(contrib log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orlando_galos), which is clearly the same person as the rapper in question since the article states that as the rapper's real name, which constitutes WP:AUTOBIO. The anonymous IP address that did all the other edits only has contributions to this particular article, making it very likely that it belongs to the same person. Smocking (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article may be of poor quality b/c not everyone is versed in wikipedias standards, but the fact is that this is a real person who does have an article in the New York Times, Vibe Magazine and is quoted by a book author; that has to stand for something. Many of the other sources are I believe up are up to standards and are still being developed. Lets be paitent and give it some time. If you can add to the objectivity of the writing than please do so. Lets not be so quick to deleate and catagorize something as "vanity" when it indeed may be legit.
- Comment The above !vote was also left by 146.203.126.241, as was the one below. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This person should not be catorgized as a rapper but as a journalist and historian but the references make it noteworthy of a stub nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.241 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article was created 16 days ago. And had been in existence only 10 days before the nominator put it up for deletion. The AfD policy is being misused here! More appropriate options are warranted. AWhiteElk (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.