Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 4
< 3 February | 5 February > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Terry Lydell Bowser, Sr. (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)
Was tagged for speedy deletion, however this subject has written a book and has material on commons and on wikiquote. Taking here for further discussion before any deletion decision is made. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was the speedy tagger (G11 Blatant Advertising) and I was a bit on the fence so AfD is probably a better approach. I'll just throw out some information and let the rest of y'all use it. For starter, the one book he has written, From slavery to the Presidency, is a self-published work via CreateSpace (on demand publisher purchased by Amazon). Using Open WorldCat I can find no library that owns it. Searching Lexis-Nexis Academic for the last two years turns up zero reviews. Searching Lexis-Nexis Academic for the last two years for "Terry Bowser" or "Terry L. Bowser" or "Terry Lydell Bowser" turns up a single false drop. A Google search turns up a number of hits, but none seem to come from authoritative sources. On Amazon.com (where the book can be purchased), there is a single
reviewglowing review from one reader. The Amazon sales rank is 3,828,994th most popular book. I can't see this person as being notable enough, nor his one self-published book being of any real note. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as paid-editing WP:SPAM originating from this posting on elance dot com. The posting is from the name "bowser52000" and reads "I need someone to create a Wikipedia article about myself. I will provide you with all the descriptions and etc and you have to make sure the description is formatted in a way that it can get past the "autobiography" filter in Wikipedia. I have a book that need to be described in the article in a neutral way so that it won't seem like you are advertising for me. The goal of this is for me to have my own Wikipedia page with details about myself, career, book, goals and etc." I've had this link on my paid editing watchlist for some time now. ThemFromSpace 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also notice User:ValerieBock/Dr. Terry L. Bowser, Sr., which was also likely created from the spam request. Although that would normally have to go through MfD, I would suggest taking care of them both at once in this AfD, through IAR. ThemFromSpace 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should probably be deleted and salted. -Quartermaster (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - paid autobiography for which there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Essentially vanispamcruftisement, and please nuke the userspace copy too. MER-C 09:07, 9 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Foursquare Badges (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 list of 'badges' for the social networking website Foursquare is not suitable content, listing each and every badge is indiscriminate. It's total trivia. Fences&Windows 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agreed. This is useful as a help document, but all of the "cited sources" are just graphic files hosted on the Foursquare web site. Some of the badges (e.g. the ones sponsored by Bravo) have been the subject of external articles, but that can be covered in the main Foursquare article. White 720 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Gamecruft; WP:NOT#MANUAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - WP:NOT#MANUAL Under bullet 3, states, "should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Precedent for this type of content seen at Monopoly_(game). WP:CHANCE - Image files were used as sources to substantiate the claim of existence - would instances of application be more appropriate? example: http://foursquare.com/user/db/badges/22786 Tonyfelice -- (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article does not have any sources to indicate why any of the badges are notable. This article just describes a set of features of the Foursquare service, and as such the relevant bits (not a complete list of badges) should be merged back into the main Foursquare article. White 720 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, then Delete - Agree. -- Tonyfelice (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is - I disagree. If this article were to be merged, it would make the original Foursquare article unnecessarily long and that is why this page was created. Listing the Foursquare badges is like listing each individual episode of a TV series. For TV series that usually have over 10 episodes, this is done on an external article. In addition, many times, these articles do not necessarily link to yet other articles talking about the episodes; they merely list the episodes with a short description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyocolumbia (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Of the badges listed in this article, none is individually notable — there are no reliable sources that have commented about them independently. White 720 (talk) 21:47, 9 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) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes (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)
Unencyclopedic article about a downloadable mixtape with no sourced notability. Previously prodded, but prod notice was removed by an anon with no explanation and no improvements to make notability more apparent — and I think it likely that we'll need to watch for inappropriate removal of the AFD tag, too. Technically also a BLP violation as it names the website's whois registrant for no particularly compelling or non-original research reason. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can find no coverage of this site, the article offers no detail on the site's achievements, impact or historical significance, fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. fails notability, appears to be promotion containing illegal download links. May even qualify for Speedy . This is taken from the edit summary of the page creation: "(←Created
page with 'Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes, aka Exclusive Tunes, is a highly popular illegal mixtape available through various pirate sites and torrent sites like [http://www.mininova.or...')" which says it all right thereAlan - talk 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this gets deleted, Exclusive tunes is nothing but a redirect created for the name that should be deleted as well. Alan - talk 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also note, this article has been deleted via Speedy once before, in April 2009, making it a recreation of a deleted article for the same reasoons. Alan - talk 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. WP:CSD permits speedy deletion on those grounds if there was a discussion previously, not necessarily if it was previously speedied. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the speedy would be for the illegal content the article is linking to. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia hasn't changed it's policy on this Alan - talk 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True - and you can recommend a Speedy Delete here on those grounds. Better, I think, to give it the full seven days and put it to bed. Once an AFD has closed on an article, recreations are deletable outright under CSD G4; someone who wants to re-do the article would need consensus at DRV, which - given the content - would be long in coming. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My only reason for not going the speedyroute is there are rare instances where such content may be notable, even though I can't find anything on this stuff particularly, AFD will do fine with it. Alan - talk 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; you just seemed to be recommending that we could speedy it just because it had been deleted before. The legality of the topic is a better reason, admittedly, but that didn't seem to be what you were alluding to. My apologies if I misunderstood. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *not a problem. It's a diffacult issue these days witht he amount of bootlegs, illegal filesharing going on, plus song and album leaks, which usually aren't notable, but again, on rare occasions they get enough press to make them somewhat notable (sad, isn't it?). No one who's really up on this DJ seems to be able to bring forward any sort fo notability thus far.. so our original hunches about it seem to be correct Alan - talk 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for these downloadable pirated mixtapes. Joe Chill (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Get jiggy with it and delete, illegal download links? Really? JBsupreme (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per the above. No notability is evident. The use of alternative distribution channels isn't a deal-breaker, but it sure doesn't speak to the importance of the subject. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, after reading the edit summaries of this article, added to the fact that it's a recreated article after a speedy delete (due to illegal download links and such), recommend salt with delete to prevent recreation Alan - talk 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at Talk:Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes too, if you haven't already... Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and what does that prove? you could rob a bank, say 'I didn't rob it, i only borrowed'... fact is, you still robbed the bank.
- Take a look at Talk:Biggy Jiggy Mixtapes too, if you haven't already... Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these people just make me laugh Alan - talk 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously, numerous problems, most significantly fails WP:NOTE as lacks multiple independent reliable sources demonstrating notability. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 5 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 sources provided in discussion Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walk of shame (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 more like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. Article has multiple problems which have been tagged for several years but not dealt with. As a phrase it may warrant a Wikictionary entry, but not an article. LukeSurl t c 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom without prejudice against someone, someday finding suitable sources and creating a real article. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete move to wiktionary. Anyone that feels that this article should be kept should probably read this. Nefariousski (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Having problems for several years is not a reason to delete. Wikipedia has no deadline and it is our editing policy to keep articles in mainspace awaiting attention. The article already contains several good sources including a book of this title which discusses the topic in detail. The topic is therefore notable and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable expression that needs an article. When searching for "Walk of shame", Google news gives 2,380 results, Google books gives 636, and Google scholar gives 366. Google itself shows 261,000 places where the expression has been used on the internet. Dream Focus 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. The book of this name is, according to its Amazon listing, a work of humor or satire, rather than a serious discussion of the subject. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree with ReverendWayne and Nefariousski's arguments. This article has been languishing long enough for people to find respectable sources, but haven't been able to. Time for this to go. Reyk YO! 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article just needs to be re-written. Almost everyday I hear this term in college. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a phrase, yes, which is why it should have a Wikictionary entry. But all this article has the potential to do is define the phrase, which isn't really enough to be encyclopedic. 87.112.155.103 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Let's set aside many of the arguments above: "I've often heard this phrase," "It's a notable term because it has many Google hits." Well, there are plenty of words I often hear or read, but dictionaries, not encyclopedias, are for looking up words. By the way, shocking even to me, Google only returns 802 unique hits for this phrase. Besides which, WP:GOOGLEHITS and all that. On the other hand, to say this article has "languished" is not a particularly good reason for deletion. But what do we have in terms of sources for this article? A college paper sex column and references in books to people doing a walk of shame? I've struggled to figure out what sort of encyclopedic (i.e. non-definitional) information this article could contain if it were actually well-written, and I'm not finding it. It would look like, "According to one author, the walk of shame for males is characterized by poor or frowsy hair-styling, such as 'a bad gay-hawk.' Another states that a walk of shame performed 'with head held high' is in fact a 'walk of fame.'" In other words, all this article could amount to is a dictionary definition, followed by the opinions and anecdotes of various authors, most likely with a healthy dose of OR and "in popular culture." There's no encyclopedic content to be had here. I'm not saying there never will be—this is a newish phrase, after all, and some researcher could decide to do a study—but there isn't now. It's one thing to say we'll keep a bad article because there's no deadline on making it better; it would be another thing entirely to say we should keep an article on a bad subject because there's no deadline on it becoming encyclopedic. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to One night stand. Best for all concerned. Abductive (reasoning) 07:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think; the phrase 'walk of shame' can mean many, many things, rolling home after a one night stand, a player's walk back to the dressing room after being sent off in a game of football, a player's walk back to the dressing room after being out for a duck in cricket, etc etc blah blah. All these have in common is walking and shame. There's no clearly-defined, universal (or even generally accepted) meaning. pablohablo. 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alright, I can't let this go unsaid; there are secondary sources that address the topic. Here, in The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: College, there is a lengthy discussion of how to do the walk of shame, how to make it less obvious, how to avoid having to do it, and safety for the young ladies who intend on hooking up anyway. Here is an entire 245-page book entitled The Walk of Shame: A Survival Guide. Here and here are the kind of weak, humorous coverage that might make people think the topic isn't worthy of a "serious" encyclopedia. Seriousness is not a stated goal of Wikipedia. Here is an abortive attempt at considering why it is considered shameful. In Slang & sociability: in-group language among college students there is a scholarly analysis of the fact that it only applies to women. Now, this is the kind of coverage in secondary sources that means the article can't be deleted. But I cannot find coverage of the origins of the phrase, which is why I said to merge to one night stand above. Abductive (reasoning) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I was wondering about the origin as well, perhaps some source on that will turn up, as similarly happened in the recent Guido (slang) AfD. Whilst adding a few more references to the article I found a newspaper reference from 1992 that shows it is already established on college campuses at that point. I also added a reference to a 2008 in-depth journal article that analyzes the term.--Milowent (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try the keyword "attested". Abductive (reasoning) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand you, joking or not. Anyhow, the first news references to the term "walk of shame" via google news are from newswire stories in 1980, when the addition of a star to the Hollywood walk of fame for Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was said to turn it into a "walk of shame."[1]. References through the 80s deal with the decaying status of the Walk of Fame, and then to decaying sidewalks generally in 1989. I see college paper references to the term in March 1991, though that may be when Google started coverage of those papers. I realize this OR is not helpful unless a source corroborates.--Milowent (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Attest or attested is a term used by linguists for identifying occurrences (usually first occurrences) of a word in a language (or region). For example, see these Google Scholar results for groovy attested. Abductive (reasoning) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. Good to know.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the info provided by Abductive, meet WP:GNG. BTW I went to college in the 80s and used the term. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Definitely a notable expression. It wouldn't take that much effort to clean this article up. Swarm(Talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As I didn't !vote in my discussion above, I shall now, based on the existence of real sources analyzing this amusing term.--Milowent (talk) 22:16, 11 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 snowball keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable film article. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. Single brief article in the LA times is not significant coverage[2]. Prod removed by article creator with boilerplate statement that "it is notable" without evidence of notability given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just google it and you will find tons of info on it.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Google is not a determiner of notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. Please provide them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a relevant-looking article or two here, but I can't get behind the paywall for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The movie is obviously notable as it is covered in detail in numerous books such as Serial killer cinema: an analytical filmography. See WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I respect the nominator and her work, but for her to dismiss the numerous available news sources and then demand someone else provide them does not serve to improve the article nor the project. All that WP:POTENTIAL asks is that they BE available and that the article has a reasonable chance of being WP:IMPROVED... not that editors who have looked and then comment a keep at AFD do the work that the nominator might not have. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding bad faith snarkiness does not indicate any respect at all. I checked the sources with the film title and the director name, which gave the single source indicated above. Many of those news sources are purely press release/announcement type things, but there may possible be more that apparently found the director so unnotable as to not bother mentioning him. nor is your response a valid reason for a "speedy" keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I was trying to be civil, no matter how you took it. I have just in the last few minutes seen nearly a dozen painfully bad nominations by you. Please stop, as demanding others do the improvements of which you are yourself capable is not at all helpful and indeed acts as a disruption. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say so. I don't see you talking to the article creator for now following A single sentence article and Wikipedia:Your first article, but then you never do. The only thing you throw out is BEFORE, yet you never bother asking other editors to follow the equivalent BEFORE for creating articles. Not very neutral to me. At least I do as I say and would not a create a one line article, and certainly wouldn't create one I never had any intention of expanding (as the creator has admitted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure I would have handled the situation far differently than did you. If I were aware of a newly created and needy article, I might've (and in the past I have many times) offered the editor advise and assistance in improving the article, rather than assuming in bad faith that he was going to create a half-dozen mini-stubs and abandon them. I would have done a quick search to make sure it had potential and might even have expanded it and added a source or two to show by example, or at the very least have suggested what the article needed and where the editor might look. I figure it's always better to give something a chance to grow, as Wikipedia is a work in process, knows that it is itself imperfect and encourages improving articles through normal editing... and NEVER demands such be done immediately. Creating a battlefield mentality is never any good for anyone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say so. I don't see you talking to the article creator for now following A single sentence article and Wikipedia:Your first article, but then you never do. The only thing you throw out is BEFORE, yet you never bother asking other editors to follow the equivalent BEFORE for creating articles. Not very neutral to me. At least I do as I say and would not a create a one line article, and certainly wouldn't create one I never had any intention of expanding (as the creator has admitted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I was trying to be civil, no matter how you took it. I have just in the last few minutes seen nearly a dozen painfully bad nominations by you. Please stop, as demanding others do the improvements of which you are yourself capable is not at all helpful and indeed acts as a disruption. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding bad faith snarkiness does not indicate any respect at all. I checked the sources with the film title and the director name, which gave the single source indicated above. Many of those news sources are purely press release/announcement type things, but there may possible be more that apparently found the director so unnotable as to not bother mentioning him. nor is your response a valid reason for a "speedy" keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this article from the Los Angeles Times (titled: Giving New Meaning to the Term 'Final Cut'), which I have added to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did note that same article in my nomination. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not consider the article to be trivial coverage. It provides several paragraphs of coverage about the film. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NF specifically notes two FULL-length reviews, not a single article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Full length reviews and articles would be a cincher, but guideline also accepts multiple less-the-in-depth coverage as long as they are not simply trivial mentions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far, all sources found are trivial. Thanks anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Cunard and MQS Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep -Sour attitude by the nominator in regards to the creator. Worse still is the stubborness to even want to discuss it rationally before sending a tirade of articles to AFD before the nominator didn't get their own way. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The LA times article is obviously notable, there more than just passive mention of the film. Other news sources are available. Dream Focus 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep Another in a long string of bad faith noms. Anyone spending 5 minutes on google can find clear evidence of notability. Just because someone doesn't like the (admittedly poorly written) article doesn't justify deletion. Nefariousski (talk) 18:15, 5 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 Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's notable, expand it.. doesn't seem notable enough to me and fails wikipedia quality guidelines Alan - talk 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [3]. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This seems to be a disruptive nomination contrary to WP:POINT, WP:BEFORE and WP:HOUND. The movie is covered in numerous books, as is its director. There are numerous good alternatives to deletion such as improvement of the article but these seem to have been ignored in the rush to wage war over a template. AFD is not cleanup and should not be abused as a form of editorial conflict and coercion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF is your friend. Most of that "coverage" is simple directory listings of films and not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this article from the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This Google search link confirms that the article is a review about this film. The article can be expanded and sourced with this Google Books link. Additionally, the film was nominated for an International Film Award at Fantasporto; this is confirmed by this Google Books link. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantasporto does not seem like a very notable award, and a single review is not enough for notability. The book you list has a single brief paragraph giving a three sentence review. Not sure how that can be used to expand the article significantly. The AJC review is also just a 3 line thing? None of that is significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and close per diligent BEFORE showing this article has terrific WP:POTENTIAL for WP:IMPROVEment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to do better quoting. Almost none of those are about this film (or any film) and Christian.[4] gives more valid results...all four. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep -Bad faith nomination. Reliable sources exist to expand it and claim notability. New editors who are clearly trying to enhance wikipedia's coverage should not be treated in this way. They should not be barked at and bullied into submission but should be supported and instead encouraged to develop their stubs. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Music for the film is by Tony Banks of Genesis Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has reviews, although all negative. I search Google news for "Starship" and the name of the first leading character mentioned, but all that stands out is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution review calling it a Star Wars ripoff. Sources found by others listed here in the AFD, and what's in the article, establish notability. Dream Focus 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and Close It appears that the submission of this AfD was a mistake. Warrah (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:41, 6 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 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Siam Sunset (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)
Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep Admittedly Bad Article but there are CLEARLY enough reliable sources to warrant an article even if, in its current state the article is only one sentance long. Maybe you should try to google the movie name before you bring up WP:N? When you nominate an article for deletion based on Notability you don't judge notability based on the state of the article but on the available material covering the subject of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reliable sources are? Google a film name does not establish notability. Please point to these reliable sources before claiming an article is notable (particularly when you are making the same statement in multiple AfDs). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The burdon of proof is on the NOMINATOR (you) to back up your claims that WP:N isn't met first and foremost bad faith deletes are clear examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I'm pretty damn confident that the results of these AfDs you created will help you better understand how this all works. Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reason it should be kept: It was nominated for 8 awards and won 6 of them: [5]. --TheMovieBuff (talk) 23:28, 4 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 Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at the contribution history. This article and the others which appear in the same template were all nominated for deletion at the same time - within a minute. There's an uncivil comment about the template, then a rapid-fire series of prods. Then, soon after, a rapid-fire series of AFDs. Every one of these AFDs is crashing and burning so it's a clear case of disruption due to a lack of due diligence. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep Admittedly Bad Article but there are CLEARLY enough reliable sources to warrant an article even if, in its current state the article is only one sentance long. Maybe you should try to google the movie name before you bring up WP:N? When you nominate an article for deletion based on Notability you don't judge notability based on the state of the article but on the available material covering the subject of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reliable sources are? Google a film name does not establish notability. Please point to these reliable sources before claiming an article is notable (particularly when you are making the same statement in multiple AfDs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N for films states that only two full length reviews from a nationally recognized source are required. You can find both here [6]. Do some of your own research before you make obviously bullshit notability claims. It's pretty obvious that you have some sort of agenda here trying to delete all of these film articles. I agree they're short and provide little to no information but last I checked that wasn't a criteria for deletion. How about you take the time you spend trying to make bad faith deletion postings and redirect it towards adding a paragraph of meaningful information to these articles. Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why don't you go read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before attacking folks for no valid reason. I do not have some sort of "agenda". One editor made a huge glut of single sentence articles for films most of which were not notable. FYI, the Variety review is not a "full length" review. Two of the others don't exist anymore. So we now have ONE full length review. And just two reviews alone does not mean instant notability. It says having two full reviews "generally indicate[s], when supported with reliable sources..." which we now have one RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N for films states that only two full length reviews from a nationally recognized source are required. You can find both here [6]. Do some of your own research before you make obviously bullshit notability claims. It's pretty obvious that you have some sort of agenda here trying to delete all of these film articles. I agree they're short and provide little to no information but last I checked that wasn't a criteria for deletion. How about you take the time you spend trying to make bad faith deletion postings and redirect it towards adding a paragraph of meaningful information to these articles. Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination contrary to WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Film was reviewed in Variety [7]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. That is not a full-length review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant; a short review does not equal "trviial coverage", and the venue (Variety) certainly confers notability -- there are plenty of films that never rate a Variety review at all, long or short. No one is going to argue that this is one of the most important films of the last fifty years, or even of the year it was released in, but Wikipedian notability has clearly been established.
It's also, in MHO, quite bad form for the nominator to revert other editors' attempts to flesh out an article while the AfD is underway, especially considering that a number of people have been disturbed about the quality of the nomination - if the adds are as bad as you make them out to be, other editors will certainly remove them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant; a short review does not equal "trviial coverage", and the venue (Variety) certainly confers notability -- there are plenty of films that never rate a Variety review at all, long or short. No one is going to argue that this is one of the most important films of the last fifty years, or even of the year it was released in, but Wikipedian notability has clearly been established.
- Speedy keep of a film by an academy award winning director which has critical review in numerous reliable sources. Variety, Sun Sentinel, Los Angeles Times, Variety, El Universal, etc. While not understanding the nominator's current stub hunt, sending them to AFD and making them someone else's problem is a bit Pointy. WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE anyone? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NF - needs two FULL-length reviews. Neither of the two reliable ones there are full length, only brief ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- False. As long as the coverage is not trivial, the coverage may act toward notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is trivial. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You you are incorrect. The coverage may not be in-depth, but it is not a trival mention. Close this please and stop the pointy nominations. FORCING others to the work you might have is much more disruptive than helpful. You are better than that. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found more reviews, interviews, wrote at least a stubworthy article and provided the sources and wikilinked some of the notable stars. There's a hell of a lot more info to expand the article in the last reference if anyone cares to do so. Nefariousski (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The one you added to the article is clearly not a reliable source, nor is IMDB which you added to the article. Also, please review WP:MOSFILM - listing the MPAA and runtime in the article is unnecessary and the former is inappropriate as it reflects systemic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look like this AfD nom has Snowball's chance in hell. How about we work on expanding the articles instead? Nefariousski (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The one you added to the article is clearly not a reliable source, nor is IMDB which you added to the article. Also, please review WP:MOSFILM - listing the MPAA and runtime in the article is unnecessary and the former is inappropriate as it reflects systemic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is trivial. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- False. As long as the coverage is not trivial, the coverage may act toward notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NF - needs two FULL-length reviews. Neither of the two reliable ones there are full length, only brief ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above rationales (Nefariousski and Schmidt). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep -Obviously notable. Sour attitude by the nominator in regards to the creator. Worse still is the stubborness to even want to discuss it rationally before sending a tirade of article to AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable reviews found. Dream Focus 13:04, 5 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 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ride a Wild Pony (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)
Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. According to WP:NF, a film is notable if it has "is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". This film easily meets that criteria. See here for a list of well more than two such reviews. The problem with older films - particularly non-American, non-classic - is that the internet didn't exist back then and reviews of the film at its release weren't published online at the time, or put there afterwards. But, existance before the internet doesn't preclude notability! The reviews mentioned above were published in print (remember that?) and are from independent and reliable sources including the LA Times. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its usually best to include some more terms, like the director's name, and not the word review (as it is often in a book without relation to the text) in Google Book results[8]. Almost all of the results appear to be only directory type listings of his films, with only a few seeming to specifically say anything about this film. Those results seem to indicate that this article is factually incorrect, as most seem to state the film is Australian, not American, though some also claim it is a Disney work...hmmm -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It is an American film - my mistake. It's based in Australia, but it's a Disney production. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its usually best to include some more terms, like the director's name, and not the word review (as it is often in a book without relation to the text) in Google Book results[8]. Almost all of the results appear to be only directory type listings of his films, with only a few seeming to specifically say anything about this film. Those results seem to indicate that this article is factually incorrect, as most seem to state the film is Australian, not American, though some also claim it is a Disney work...hmmm -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. You've stated that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, yet had to rely on a non-reliable fansite to source its plot? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The point I was tried to make above is that it's difficult to find reliable sources online - they all appear to be in print (and only online as links to archive catalogs), which makes referencing anything difficult. My edits to the article weren't an attempt to rescue thearticle, simply a good faith attempt to give it some flesh. The references were merely where I sourced the information and their poor quality probably underlines my earlier point. I did, however, manage to find a 1976 NY Times article republished online, which served as a good replacement for the less-than-satisfactory fansite and, perhaps, lends some credibility to a keep position. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. You've stated that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, yet had to rely on a non-reliable fansite to source its plot? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep for an easily improvable article per numerous available sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for speedy keep to claim that "before" is somehow an available source. Provide actual evidence of sources please. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Film was reviewed in the NYT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone else reviewed it? One review is not enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Yes, the LA Times in a 1976 article which is included in Film review digest annual, Volume 1 at page 270. You can see that here (first on the list), but to read the whole review, one would have to buy the book or get a copy of the LA Times edition of 25 December 1975. Also looks like it was reviewed in Variety's Film Reviews: 1975-1977 (fourth on the list) and The Monthly Film Bulletin in 1976 (third on the list), although I don't know if these were significant publications at the time. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone else reviewed it? One review is not enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 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 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fourth Wish (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)
Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple fact that it is not humanly possible to nominate all these articls for deletion and do research to see if they are notable in a matter of about 30 seconds.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found a short review [9], but that's not enough. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep of award wining film per Sydney Morning Herald 1, The Age 1, The Age 2, The Age 3, The Age 4, Sydney Morning Herald 2, The Age 5, The Age 6, and dozens of others. To User:LessHeard vanU... perhaps the nominator did see these articles in her diligent WP:BEFORE.... but that assumption of good faith would mean she purposely ignored them and the stub's WP:POTENTIAL for WP:IMPROVEment through WP:ATD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Film was nominated for four Australian Film Institute Awards, including for screenplay, and won one.[10]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 4 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 reasons given for keeping have not addressed the basic reason given for the nomination - lack of sourcing and not substantiation of notability. I'm happy to userfy this somewhere but this standalone article hasnt been demonstrated to passs the gng at this time.... Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of IWW union shops (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 WP:NOT: This is just a short list mirrored from a single source, WP is not a mirror. WP is not a directory. A list with three entries by no means warrants its own page. Include information on main Industrial Workers of the World page and delete this page Nefariousski (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. but include what little content in other articles Alan - talk 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as the original creator. The IWW is an organization whose activities span 105 years, and which has had many, many shops which have not only been notable, but been part of the actual recorded history of several nations. The problem is not that such shops don't exist, but that these shops have not (yet) been recorded on Wikipedia, largely as a result of the bias for recentism on Wikipedia and that a great deal of the IWW's history predates the Internet by 70 years or more. I created the list as a jumping-off point for the addition of more union shops as they are added to Wikipedia's record. I am greatly concerned that people who will be voting on this list are unlikely to have the knowledge of labour history required for proper judgement of the issue. SmashTheState (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't preemptively create a list page for things that don't yet have articles in the hopes that some day there will be enough articles to justify a list page. List pages link related articles much in the same way categories do. Nefariousski (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that at 14:11 you took high offence to a comment I made at talk:Angel_Falls and just 11 minutes later you nominated an article I created for deletion. The two occurances wouldn't happen to be related, would they? SmashTheState (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also replied to one of your comments on an RFC this morning and I've previously visited the city in which you live. Maybe there's a conspiracy? I'd suggest you try to Assume Good Faith and not jump to some sort of conclusions that there's a witch hunt afoot. Nefariousski (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that at 14:11 you took high offence to a comment I made at talk:Angel_Falls and just 11 minutes later you nominated an article I created for deletion. The two occurances wouldn't happen to be related, would they? SmashTheState (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP there is a lot that can be added here. Give it a little time. Richard Myers (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The history of the IWW extends back to 1901. They have a vast history and yes, their popularity surged in the 30s but they are as relevant today as they were then. There are hundreds of shops of this union and just because the article might be a bit small right now does not mean we should rush to judgment and delete this article. If the right people put some work into this article it could be a very thorough history of the current and past shops of the IWW.Mundilfari (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Concur with the statements on the historic significance of the IWW. I understand wiki has a tendency to discourage lists, but there are of course a lot lists that remain and are relevant. One way to deal with this issue might be to rename the article IWW Union Shop (which would then actually describe what a union "shop" is--given it is US English, not something a lot of readers might actually understand) and then the article could be used to describe important/significant IWW shops, historically and in the present and the article could include a list of union shops. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Comment Nobody is disputing the historic significance if the IWW. Nobody is saying that the IWW isn't notable or that the article on the IWW is in question here. The issue at hand is that this article which is merely a list of the three remaining IWW union shops is nothing more than a misc list / directory which doesn't serve any purpose and is a good example of WP:NOT. Please read the nom a little more clearly. I'm not suggesting anything be removed from the IWW page (very well written IMO), just advocating the removal of a useless page that list links to other articles that could be easily wikilinked or added to the main page. Nefariousski (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IWW] article is already too large, and they've been forced repeatedly to split parts out of it. The last time someone who wasn't familiar with the IWW tried to shoehorn an article into it to justify its deletion, the overwhelming consensus was to keep it out. The IWW has more than a hundred years of complex history which weaves through the entire history of labour and in many cases the history of the United States itself. SmashTheState (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of noting the "historic significance" of the IWW is that it is unlikely that one article can possibly deal with the many issues related to the organisation, hence support for related articles. Nefariousski's basis for deletion seems to be purely content related, something which can be remedied easily. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IWW] article is already too large, and they've been forced repeatedly to split parts out of it. The last time someone who wasn't familiar with the IWW tried to shoehorn an article into it to justify its deletion, the overwhelming consensus was to keep it out. The IWW has more than a hundred years of complex history which weaves through the entire history of labour and in many cases the history of the United States itself. SmashTheState (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Comment Nobody is disputing the historic significance if the IWW. Nobody is saying that the IWW isn't notable or that the article on the IWW is in question here. The issue at hand is that this article which is merely a list of the three remaining IWW union shops is nothing more than a misc list / directory which doesn't serve any purpose and is a good example of WP:NOT. Please read the nom a little more clearly. I'm not suggesting anything be removed from the IWW page (very well written IMO), just advocating the removal of a useless page that list links to other articles that could be easily wikilinked or added to the main page. Nefariousski (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Keep but Rename A "union shop" usually refers to a specific unionized employer. This should be renamed List of IWW locals or List of IWW divisions. Not much content here to argue over (although I added a tad to it just now), but the list has potential.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IWW is organized into IUs, but there are dozens of them. It makes more sense to arrange Wikipedia articles by shop rather than by IU, which would mean little to people outside of the IWW. The equivalent of the "local" for the IWW is the GMB, the General Members Branch, and these are quite separate from both shops and IUs. For example, the OPU (Ottawa Panhandlers' Union) is part of IU 630 but also liaises with Ottawa-Outaouais GMB -- but is its own shop with its own customs, rules, and bylaws. SmashTheState (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe we can add a little one or two sentence introduction explaining what a union shop is in the IWW context.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IWW is organized into IUs, but there are dozens of them. It makes more sense to arrange Wikipedia articles by shop rather than by IU, which would mean little to people outside of the IWW. The equivalent of the "local" for the IWW is the GMB, the General Members Branch, and these are quite separate from both shops and IUs. For example, the OPU (Ottawa Panhandlers' Union) is part of IU 630 but also liaises with Ottawa-Outaouais GMB -- but is its own shop with its own customs, rules, and bylaws. SmashTheState (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending future improvement. The list can and should be expanded to include notable historic IWW union shops (and such an expanded list would indeed be too unwieldy for the already-lengthy IWW article). The list has only been around for 3 months; that's not a lot of time for improvement. Jd4v15 (talk) 07:51, 6 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 06:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Murder of Amy Leigh Barnes (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 notability of this article has been called into question on the article's talk page by two users, namely myself and THF. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE. THF (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reluctant) keep. The consensus on notability of criminal acts, as set out in WP:N/CA appears to be less demanding than notability of other subjects. According to the policy a notable criminal act is one that "receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope." This particular event received significant media coverage in 2008 ([11]) in sources with wide national spread in the UK. I personally think the guideline is too broad but, as it stands, this event is notable. Perhaps someone can mount an argument that WP:NOTNEWS modifies WP:N/CA, but is there consensus around such an argument? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. per THF, appreciating Wikipeterproject's argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this really falls into WP:NOTNEWS, she was the 28th teenager (not person, teenager) stabbed to death in the UK, the only reason this stands out is because she modeled in some magazines and played a minor role on a popular TV series (in fact so minor that her presence does not show up on IMDB [note there is an unrelated character named Amy Barnes on the show, which skews search results], and she isn't listed at all on our previous Hollyoaks cast listing, or on any of the Lists of minor Hollyoaks characters, of which I searched back to 2005). In my opinion the murder/trial getting press because of that doesn't meet encyclopedia notability. While Wikipeterproject makes a good point, I would say that NOTNEWS does trump WP:N/CA. --kelapstick (talk) 18:40, 10 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (disambiguation) (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)
Disambiguation no longer needed with new game announced with this precise title. None of the entries in the disambig would be confused by anyone. Sonic1986 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. --Yuefairchild (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 4 like it was before. I only changed it back from a redirect because I figured there should be a discussion on the talk pages (however this AFD was made before said discussion could take place). SNS (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have thought keeping a redirect served much purpose, as no-one is going to land on the disambiguation page from a search or by typing it in directly. Sonic1986 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (I can't really think of anything else to say.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G6 criteria -- page has zero use, time to axe it. --Teancum (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A pirate cart and several games that some people[who?] incorrectly refer to as Sonic the Hedgehog 4. Not needed. Since the game seems to be episodic it's not inconceivable that someone could expect a disambiguation page to cover all the episodes, so I think a redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 4 may be appropriate. Reach Out to the Truth 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But how would you end up at the disambig link in the first place? --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By making an assumption that there would be one. I don't know if someone actually would make that assumption, but it's a possibility. My initial !vote was going to be to delete, but I reconsidered when I thought about what someone might possibly expect a disambiguation page to contain. I don't really care either way though. Reach Out to the Truth 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article's purpose could be rephrased as "What's the next game in the series after Sonic 3?", which has multiple answers. The series order is potentially confusing; from what I understand some games are thick with continuity ties to previous ones while other games ignore continuity entirely. Also, I've done a lot of lurking on Sonic fansites and this is the first I've heard that Sonic Crackers was never legitimately thought or expected to be Sonic 4. --DocumentN (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the best of my knowledge, the Sonic 4/Sonic Crackers connection was due to HIGH SCORE! The Illustrated History of Electronic Games having an article on the history of Sonic games, wherein they presented an image of the Sonic Crackers proto and labeled it Sonic 4. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As DocumentN stated above... it took Sega sixteen years to do a proper sequel to S3K... what's happened since 1994? Windows 95 came out, the internet burst onto the scene, the millennium caused many people to worry about the Y2K bug, September 11th and the subsequent wars started by it... Besides, many games were either considered "sonic 4" or even had that name within them (like sonic crackers, the Knuckles Chaotix prototype). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your first point, but with regards the second, someone has integrated the more important games that could conceivably be mistaken for Sonic 4 into the Sonic 4 article itself, thus rendering this disambig. unnecessary. 212.225.113.32 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that information was moved to the article by cut & paste, doesn't this mean by default the history needs to be retained because of GFDL? There's a reason why this[12] template exists SNS (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delayed delete — an amalgamation of fandom and people's own ideas of what "Sonic 4" means; once the game is released, there should be little confusion. DKqwerty (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I don't see how 3D, Adventure, or Triple Trouble could really be confused with Sonic 4. They're known by the own names, especially in the case of Triple Trouble, which is Sonic & Tails 2 in some areas. A passing mention of S&K and Crackers in the main article, S&K in the intro even, would be appropriate. The Speedy Gonzales pirate could be mentioned in a trivia note. But not a redirect. - MK (t/c) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't imagine anyone making those mistakes as to what Sonic 4 really is. It's existence probably confuses more than it helps. Sergecross73 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems like it would be best this way, and most of those games seem like just a fans conjecture rather than useful information. Also I think anyone searching for Sonic the Hedgehog 4 will be looking for Sonic the Hedgehog 4, not any of these other games.
- Delayed Delete As above. Let's not rush things. Gatemansgc (talk) 01:38, 12 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) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JP Fund Services (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 company; tone is borderline advertising, taken in consideration with the fact that it was placed on an unrelated Hedge fund startup "how-to" article. Has not been covered in any news stories or even industry publications I could find. Has 15 employees and was founded less than three years ago also suggests it isn't yet notable. DMCer™ 20:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable under the guidelines of WP:ORG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" of the organisation. This is not the case with JPFS. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 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) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JXtension (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 was contested in an edit that saw the Features section expanded. Software with no assertion of independent coverage by reliable third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered mention of JXtension when Joe Smith posted a bit about it on this article at Smashing Magazine. It seems that the developer is currently working on improving JXtension and also using Sizzle in order to make it usable for all developers. In addition, JXtension seems to provide a lot of functionality that is missing from other JavaScript libraries, such as the specialized color functions, concatenating functions, using the map function, etc. As of right now, I am not going to say that I am an expert in JXtension but it does seem to be a great way to make add dynamic content to your site without having to use jQuery which is considerably larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendingsender1 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not address the central issue of this discussion. The reference you posted from Smashing Magazine is more like a catalog than anything else, so it asserts nothing more than the existence of this software package. What we are seeking here is whether it currently meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline or any other relevant notability guideline, that is, has jXtension been the subject of devoted articles in reliable sources independent of its developpers? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insuficient coverage. One mention in an article about something else is not enough. Pcap ping 09:19, 5 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 consensus would seem to indicate that regardless of whether the software is notable or not, the author of that software is not, as there is insufficient evidence at reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Karsten Obarski (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. This is, in effect, an unsourced WP:BLP article. There are lots of links and such, but most of them do not even substantiate any of the claims being made, and the remainder aren't really what one would or should consider reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, and to boot, I don't think his greatest achievement, The Ultimate Soundtracker, is notable enough to warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per above; nothing in Google's news archives either, and as mentioned, the links don't indicate notability, as far as WP:Note is concerned.—DMCer™ 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The author of a pioneering musical program [13] is surely notable. RFerreira (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but that is pretty weak as far as WP:RS is concerned. JBsupreme (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I don't think he passes WP:ANYBIO for Ultimate Soundtracker, itself a software hardly covered in any WP:RS. Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile so. The interview are all on obscure scene sites, too little for WP:GNG. Pcap ping 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Karsten Obarski was never notable composer but Ultimate Soundtracker was for sure notable software. At its time it was the most popular music editor on Amiga until it was replaced by more advanced NoiseTracker and ProTracker derivatives (which looked like SoundTracker but had different authors and more features. Later FastTracker and other even more advanced derivates appeared on the PC but it all started from the SoundTracker. SoundTracker modules were used in many demos and games at its time but mainstream (Amiga) magazines didnt pay much attention into it or into scene at all. The SoundTracker would for sure deserve its own wiki article but Obarski, well, the software is more famous than Obarski himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorxos (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 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) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JYNXT (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)
very unlikely to meet the notability guidelines, Oo7565 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even though I created this article a few years ago, I am not apposed to deleting it (and I am an inclusionist). JYNXT has since disbanded. --Thorwald (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Famous dad ≠ notability. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:55, 6 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) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul's Pastry Shop (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 deleted an earlier version of this as being about a non-notable corporation. I restored it to a sandbox page yesterday and it was remounted this morning. Essentially I am concerned that this is being used as a form of advertising. This company apparently claims that it invented the "New Orleans" style of king cake. The background of King cake (which bears directly on this article and is useful to examine) is such that there are a number of different kinds of king cake, some of which predate this company, including what appears to be a New Orleans style that predates this company; none of the references seem to me to exercise much, if any, editorial control and are pretty much press releases; the article's creator is pretty much a SPA concerned only with this company's presence on Wikipedia. I merely ask that the community make a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there are other types of king cakes, the kind that we eat down south is the type that this company created, which is now sold by other bakeries as well. I realize that people from other places may have trouble understanding our history and culture but things of this nature bring great sentiment to the local folks, especially since Hurricane Katrina when we now struggle to hold on to any little bit of normalcy. In addition, the owner is well respected by the community and viewed as a great business woman with an incredible story. Also, I fell that I must clarify that I am not an employee or relative and have only met the owner a couple of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdevology (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assist me in writing this article so that it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.--Webdevology (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul's is a commercial bakery with a large mail-order business in a certain style of king cake which they claim to have invented. It is mentioned in local newspapers and guidebooks. I don't think that rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. The contributor's user name is Webdevology, which is also the name of a web site in Mississippi (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/webdevology.com?p=tgraph&r=home_home) -- perhaps the developer of Paul's Pastry web site? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages for the Web.... --macrakis (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just happen to teach web development at a local community college. --Webdevology (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@macrakis If you want to delete the article go ahead because obviously you are unable and unwilling to understand the historical importance. This is not important enough to subject myself to rude wiki nazis such as yourself.--Webdevology (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really know how to make friends and influence people: "rude wiki nazis", eh? Have you read our WP:NPA policy? --macrakis (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ignoring most of the above, the organisation is not notable under the criteria set out at WP:ORG. It has not received"significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and, therefore, it is not notable. (I must, however, remember to try out one of those king cakes filled with fruit and cream cheese next time I am in Picayune, Mississippi :-) ) Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're very good...we just drove an hour both ways to get a Saints king cake for tomorrow (all this talk about kings cakes made me want one). Too bad shipping is so expensive.--Webdevology (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this commercial bakery is notable. --macrakis (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is not developed or sourced. USchick (talk) 04:14, 10 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaime Martínez Tolentino (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)
Totally unsourced bio of a questionably notable living person who really really dosen't want it on wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See WP:BEFORE - using the search link above, there are plenty of sources out there. Most appear to be in Spanish and I don't have any skill in that language to be able to cite them appropriately. The subject certainly appears to be notable per WP:PROF, it just needs sources. BLP concerns are minimal as there appears to be nothing contentious in the article. ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ...as per above!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreferenced and marginally notable at best. Also the subject is requesting deletion and has been treated pretty badly by overly-officious wikipedians. He doesn't want this, and Wikipedia will not be weaker without one questionably notable BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See the article's talk page and the user's talk page - I have bent over backwards trying to help the guy understand what we need. Officious? Please, I help out new users all over the place. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have done a lot better, and this is officious. He was not pushing a POV, but you publically and visably accused him on his own googleable biography of biasing his own article, when he objected to the tags, you replaced them. The worst experience anyone can have is to find themselves a BLP subject and edit the article and get slapped for not knowing the rules. A bit more empathy here would have been good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be many sources available that need looking at and adding if appropriate by a Spanish speaker which I am not.Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a few refs..however most i find are not in English..If anyone can understand them pls add them!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i will let the person that added this tag to the article take it off/or some one else (since i add the refs lets someone else see them first)...All is ok now..well still need refs for awards section but its a keeper now!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Sorry did not realizes there's a process..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete barely notable BLP with subject requesting deletion. ViridaeTalk 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Viridae. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I'd help myself, if my Spanish was better. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject seems notable for sure; the very unfortunate incidents with the article subject have nothing to do with the appropriateness of the article on WP. I see nothing overly officious but for sure the subject got comprehensibly confused and it could have been handled better. I suggest the subject to be contacted, to make apologies and ask him to help us get the article on him right. The subject seemed to like the idea of the article in first place, he was only disappointed by later interaction with editors. --Cyclopiatalk 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is requesting we get out of his life. Wikipedia didn't have an article on him until 2 weeks ago, and did just fine. There's probably about another 800,000 more notable people we don't have an article on him. But you don't give a toss about him because you want to play the inclusionist game. I mean, what reasonable person doesn't want a biography that any malicious fool can edit? Stop it. This is unfair and irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest to stop the moral panic, calm down and discuss rationally on the issue. There is nothing unfair and irresponsible in honestly attempting to have coverage of notable subjects. I understand we disagree on how to treat BLPs but this doesn't mean I "don't give a toss about him": quite the contrary, I just left a message on his talk page apologizing for what happened to him, among other things. --Cyclopiatalk 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not notable. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable to anyone but a wikipedian.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is currently discussed by this AfD: I respectfully disagree. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable, absolutely: again, I respectfully disagree about satisfying it. It seems also that the subject is simply distressed by the interaction he had with editors. He gave references about himself on the article talk page. He then was distressed by the COI tags etc. and changed his mind, but to me it simply seems an unfortunate case of WP:BITE. --Cyclopiatalk 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the reason, the subject doesn't want to be on Wikipedia - and we have no reason to insist that he must be. There is no loss in granting his understandable request. To do otherwise is not respectful or empathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) There is, in my opinion, the loss of encyclopedic information about a notable subject. That's the reason to insist that he must be. One thing is being respectful and empathetic, another is accepting every subject request. I really understand why the subject wants the article deleted, and empathize with the situation: I simply happen to think that it is not a good enough reason. Do we have to consider subject requests? Of course. Do we have to accept all of them? No, we as a community debate it and decide what to do. I understand that you disagree, but please let's keep rational and cool, and let's see. --Cyclopiatalk 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impression that the subject wrote almost the entire article himself, so he could have it deleted under WP:CSD G7. However, I think he was just upset about the COI tag and being treated with suspicion. Notability is still unclear though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) There is, in my opinion, the loss of encyclopedic information about a notable subject. That's the reason to insist that he must be. One thing is being respectful and empathetic, another is accepting every subject request. I really understand why the subject wants the article deleted, and empathize with the situation: I simply happen to think that it is not a good enough reason. Do we have to consider subject requests? Of course. Do we have to accept all of them? No, we as a community debate it and decide what to do. I understand that you disagree, but please let's keep rational and cool, and let's see. --Cyclopiatalk 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the reason, the subject doesn't want to be on Wikipedia - and we have no reason to insist that he must be. There is no loss in granting his understandable request. To do otherwise is not respectful or empathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is currently discussed by this AfD: I respectfully disagree. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable, absolutely: again, I respectfully disagree about satisfying it. It seems also that the subject is simply distressed by the interaction he had with editors. He gave references about himself on the article talk page. He then was distressed by the COI tags etc. and changed his mind, but to me it simply seems an unfortunate case of WP:BITE. --Cyclopiatalk 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not notable. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable to anyone but a wikipedian.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest to stop the moral panic, calm down and discuss rationally on the issue. There is nothing unfair and irresponsible in honestly attempting to have coverage of notable subjects. I understand we disagree on how to treat BLPs but this doesn't mean I "don't give a toss about him": quite the contrary, I just left a message on his talk page apologizing for what happened to him, among other things. --Cyclopiatalk 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is requesting we get out of his life. Wikipedia didn't have an article on him until 2 weeks ago, and did just fine. There's probably about another 800,000 more notable people we don't have an article on him. But you don't give a toss about him because you want to play the inclusionist game. I mean, what reasonable person doesn't want a biography that any malicious fool can edit? Stop it. This is unfair and irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if we can stop putting scary templates on the article and let him point out any inaccuracies, the subject will not have a problem with the article existing. I just wonder who wrote this article in the first place, and where he or she got all the information. I found this source, but I cannot even tell if it is the right person. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Viridae and the fact that until a compelling/notable reason appears from out of somewhere to keep this article, the simple decent right thing to do is to respect the subject of the article's wishes.radek (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is marginally notable, if at all, and has requested deletion. UnitAnode 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, hardly any citation in google scholar, nothing but a dab page links to his bio from article space, and he requested deletion. Pcap ping 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per this message on my talk page, Mr Martínez Tolentino's request to delete the article has been withdrawn. - bold for emphasis so folks don't miss this. – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is a prolific writer who has been cited in Spanish-language literature, including these books: [14] and [15]. Since the article's subject does not object to having an article, it would make sense if a Spanish speaking editor could seek out further references. Warrah (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - somewhat prolific published writer. Article has sources. Why would we want to delete it? Yworo (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. GoogleBooks gives 249 hits[16], a few minor awards, so looks like passing WP:AUTHOR. No controversial or negative info has been brought up, so no particular BLP concerns here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ethical thing to do on a person of marginal notability who doesn't want his biography here, where it can be edited by 13-year olds, haters, fools, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that you will find that the subject has changed his mind. Not that him not wanting the article should ever have had any bearing on this discussion. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has in the case of no consensus. --Cyclopiatalk 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that you will find that the subject has changed his mind. Not that him not wanting the article should ever have had any bearing on this discussion. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ukexpat, and generally per WP:AUTH. LotLE×talk 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He appears to be notable enough to pass our guidelines, and does not want his article deleted, so I see no reason to delete. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Marginal notability. Claims that subject does or does not want the article have yet to be verified through proper channels. Wikipedia will not suffer if this article does not appear. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, cleanup, and indef semi until flagged revisions comes online Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Ukexpat. I'd be happy to stick the article in indef semiprotection though, if that would help allay the concerns of the subject. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep and semiprotect per Lankiveil. I fear opt-out is part of a slippery slide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It does not seem to me that the subject meets the rather stringent notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Other than the books themselves, I can't find any evidence of third-party reviews, notable awards (minor awards dont count in WP:AUTHOR]] or movie adaptations, etc. My limited Spanish may, however, mean I have missed such sources in Spanish - but he doesn't look like he meets the notability requirements for inclusion in WP. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What about WP:PROF? – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
- - To fit WP:AUTHOR#1 "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors", see: he gets 7 pages in a book called "The fantastic stories in Puerto Rico and Cuba: theorical study and its application to several contemporaneous stories" pp. 81-87, his analysis of other authors being used in a footnote in two university press books [17][18], a dissertation in the university of Nebraska about Puerto Rico literature[19], one of his books in the bibliography of a Spanish literature course in a French university[20], in volume 30 of Review Interamericana he gets cited as one of the more famous Puerto Rico authors of the 80s generation[21]. At least two of his books have been published by the Ministry of Culture of Puerto Rico[22][23].
- -Awards. One major award is listed in the article: the "Honors Certificate for Literary Merit and Contributions to Puerto Rican Letters" from the Puerto Rico society of authors.
- Note: he asked for deletion because of the COI tag in the article, not because he wasn't famous. That tag is no longer there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I find it amazing that anyone above could possibly be citing notability as an issue against having an article about this prolific and important author. Even a very cursory reading of the subject outside Wikipedia would show him to be a notable creative talent. I'm glad that my first experience of wanting to help with editing wikipedia was not as an introduction to my own page (MYOB) but simply an edit of a spelling mistake with the thought "Ooh, being able to do this is quite fun, if I ever get some time I must have a poke around", and now when I actually do have lots and lots of time with the thought "Where did all those articles go".
If trying to clean up my own article had been my introduction to editing then I doubt I'd have continued.
When I first came across Wikipedia several years ago I thought it was a remarkable idea and have since used it as both a reference and an enjoyable read to broaden my knowledge of both the important and the trivial. In the first AFD discussion I took part in I was pointed to the notability guidelines. However since I enjoy knowledge, I continued reading, the talk pages for those guidelines, the 10 pages of archived discussion, the general discussion of those guidelines elsewhere. After having read I learn that the nobility guidelines are not in fact the set in stone policy, that in fact they are the rather contentious result of a massive number of revisions that as far as I can make out have only ended up at the current revision through people arguing the same thing over and over again till reasonable people give up and get to tired to keep arguing it.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with deleting articles that have almost no informational content and that are not sourced and that no one has been easily been able to source after looking, after-all people with an interest in the subject can always add an article that does have informational content and is sourced if they ever feel so inclined. Deleting longer articles, that are true, that are properly sourced, that people have put time and effort into creating is much more deeply problematic. It lessens this great idea of Wikipedia to have people sitting in judgement on creative talents that have actually contributed to the sum total of human knowledge like some Kafkaesque auditing board, applying their own internal scale of importance and shifting the bar of that importance ever higher and higher.
What should be looked at is informational content, truth, verifiability. The whole notion of a notability scale is deeply flawed when applied to people who have actually created something.Amentet (talk) 03:31, 10 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) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lauren Benoit (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:ENT. Only real claim to notability is being one of several women in a music video, which isn't much. No hits on the Fashion Model Directory or Models.com. The article's only "sources" are photos of Jessica Simpson (one with the subject, presumably) and Gnews doesn't turn up anything. Mbinebri talk ← 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every notable current model (and plenty of non-notable ones) is in the fashion model directory. If you're not there you're not notable. Also did some google searches, didn't see anything significant. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this model. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 6 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 G12 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ali Muhiddin Hacı Bekir Confectioners company (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 Turkish company has no reliable secondary sources to support either its extraordinary claims or its notability. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete clear advert, no sources other than company's site, none readily found on google to support claims or bolster article to make notable. Nefariousski (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio from here. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Healthcare.com, Inc (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)
- Co-nominating:
- Healthcare.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Non-notable website. Alexa ranking above 11,000 in the US and above 45,000 worldwide. No significant independent coverage found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability can be readily proven with Google news archives. Check here [24] ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of those sources came up when I performed my Google search. Clearly I need to learn to use Google better!! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNot much at the moment, but looks to be notable and source-able from the gnews search. I'd recommend a withdrawal. Jujutacular T · C 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On closer inspection, the gnews hits do indeed look to be mostly PR type stuff. Does not constitute significant coverage - does not pass WP:ORG. Jujutacular T · C 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Under WP:ORG, an organization is notable if it receives "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..." What I see online in news searches is a fair amount of self promotion and advertising (including press releases where the company quotes itself), but not much independent coverage where others are quoting or referring to the organization. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Alan - talk 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly spam in intent; no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Denver Business Journal, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News [25], Washington Post, CNET news, another CNET news [26], Atlanta Journal [27], The Inquisitr [28], Medical marketing and Media [29], Atlanta Business Wire [30], Rocky Mountain News, TransworldNews [31], Georgia Court of Appeals case (see #17 case) [32]. And all this in a five minute search on Google News using the same link I provided above. Strong Keep and strong improve. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That link to the Denver Business Journal led me to an article about a different company, including the following "Marietta, Ga.-based Healthcare.com, another software company" which was the only mention of this company in the entire article. Googlehits like that don't constitute substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of the articles listed above are paid content in online newspapers (i.e. advertising), one is a stock quote and another is a reprint of a press release by the company. None of these prove notability in accordance with WP:ORG. It's important to do some analysis and argue a position here. Simply finding web hits of a name proves absolutely nothing either way. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising, no content, and no context. The entire text of the article: Healthcare.com, Inc serves millions of searches every month to internet users looking for health insurance products, healthcare providers and information. There is no better version in history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Orangemike, probably you've got it wrong. You might wish to revisit the link of Denver Business Journal. It has eight mentions of healthcare.com. And generally, when companies merge/get acquired/taken over/de-merge, their head offices change. The company, healthcare.com, per se, has remained the same.
- Wikipeterproject, I appreciate your viewpoint. But maybe your analysis is incorrect to a large extent. Paid content doesn't at all mean advertising. [Google lost a case with newspapers and magazines two months ago (led by the Murdoch brigade) where they cannot show the direct links to all newspaper sites - but only to newspapers that allow - and ergo, google can show only paid content.]. And as our RS policy accepts very clearly, it's not necessary whether the RS is accessible through paid channels or unpaid channels, but as long as the RS is there, the article is notable.
- Smerdis of Tion, I understand that a one line article may well result in a speedy delete you're mentioning. But if we improve the article, or there's a chance of notability - which is present here - we cannot CSD it. Would love your inputs within the article too. I'll try to improve it. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect please. I just checked and found this site already existing on our project -- Healthcare.com. Clearly, we've been investing our time on the wrong article. Request a speedy redirect to the mentioned page. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article was created on the same day by a spam only account with the same first paragraph. Yes, one of the articles should be redirected, but we should debate here whether to keep/delete both.
- Oh, and you've voted twice. Which is it? MER-C 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for that confusion. I've changed my 'vote' to a 'redirect' And I don't believe you can discuss both articles out here 'unless' you tag the other article for AfD. I'm not going to tag that article as I do believe it's a notable site. However, do feel free to tag the other article. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as someone has tagged the other article too for AfD, it's logical to continue discussions out here. I have already shown multiple non-trivial reliable sources which have a significant mention of Healthcare.com. This is the requirement of WP:ORG and I believe that both articles should be allowed to continue. The main article surely needs to be improved. But irrespective of that, it qualifies under WP:ORG. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and you've voted twice. Which is it? MER-C 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also Healthcare.com. Clear attempt by said company to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Healthcare.com. The other, Healthcare.com, Inc, can be redirected or deleted. As shown by User: Wifione and links within the article, the company is a notable. The article does need some wikifying and de-promoting, but the company is clearly a notable company and deserving of an article. --PinkBull 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clear self-promotion Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delet - I can't even see that the article has much to do with the title. Deb (talk) 12:55, 9 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 Rutherford (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cubana de Aviación Flight 310}}|2=AfD statistics}})
Per WP:AIRCRASH, most crashes are not independently notable. Per WP:NOTNEWS, aside from crash databases, this crash got little coverage, and was not notable for the people involved, nor their numbers (only ten passengers on the plane; small plane crashes are commonplace).
It is possible that this crash is notable within the context of the airline; if this was the first or deadliest crash by this airline, per WP:AIRCRASH, it warrants a note in the airline article, not its own article. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there were 22 killed (not 10 as per nom). Cubana de Aviación are not a small operator, and the Yakovlev Yak-42 is not a small plane, it is an airliner capable of seating 100 or more people. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 10 was the passenger count. The other 12 were crew, which doesn't make it less tragic, but doesn't help with notability. The scale of the operator is irrelevant. I'll acknowledge that I don't know the stats on the plane itself, but a big mostly empty plane isn't much more notable than a small, full plane. Read WP:AIRCRASH. The bias is *strongly* against creating articles for run of the mill crashes. This crash shows no evidence of being atypical or otherwise notable enough to disregard that; there was no hijacking, no bombing, no indication that it was anything other than a typical "accident". Now, per WP:AIRCRASH, if it was the first crash for that airline, a particularly nasty crash, or illustrated something about the airline itself (e.g. if the crash was determined to be caused by poor maintenance, it would indict the airline), it might warrant mention on the airline's article. But the guidelines (both for news in general and airline crashes in particular) are clear on this: An airline crash of limited scale, with no unusual details, doesn't get it's own article. I'd highly recommend following the approach used for other airline crashes, with a perfect example linked directly from WP:AIRCRASH: All_Nippon_Airways#Incidents_and_accidents. Assessing unwarranted notability due to deaths is understandable, but it's not a rational interpretation of the guidelines. Read the examples on WP:AIRCRASH. I've long since given up on people actually reading the guidelines when I ask, so here is every criteria mentioned there which would warrant an article (as opposed to a section in an existing article on the airline, airport, cause, etc.):
- Significant, analytical coverage (British Airways Flight 38 happened at a major airport and received a lot of coverage). The key is that the coverage doesn't just say what happened, but that many different sources analyzed the crash and went beyond mere perfunctory reporting of facts. In the case of Flight 38, it was also the first 777 to be totaled, and led to a subsequent high profile, high coverage lawsuit. From our article as it stands, there was no level of coverage approaching this scale (and no coverage at all has been provided as a reference beyond air crash incident databases).
- Deadliest at XXX (American Airlines Flight 191 was deadliest in U.S., Japan Airlines Flight 123 deadliest in history, etc.). I doubt our article is covering the deadliest crash for the airline or the country.
- Extremely unusual cause or outcome; if not extremely unusual, it goes in an article on the cause (e.g. Bird Strike). The only example I can find of a cause making the crash notable without it also qualifying due to the "most deadly" qualifier is Iran Air Flight 655, which was shot down by a U.S. missile and caused a major international incident. There is no indication of cause given in our article.
- First at XXX. Like deadliest, the first crash in a country or airport, or most significant (usually defined by consequences to the airport). However, this criteria is a relatively weak one; by and large, they don't seem to be getting articles unless the incident was also the deadliest in some way. I'm fairly sure there have been air crashes in this location before this one.
- Military (doesn't apply)
- Notable person or group, only if killed, significantly injured or deeply involved, and only if more than just the group is involved (otherwise it would be a section on the group's page). Clearly doesn't apply.
- Awards or criminal prosecution (US Airways Flight 1549 for the former, every crewmember was given a medal, 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident for the latter, where criminal charges were brought for gross negligence). No indication of either in this case
- That's the entire list of qualifications (WP:AIRCRASH goes in to more detail, but this summarizes it well enough, given that people probably won't read it). Keep in mind, this is not a vote; we're trying to reach, by consensus, a conclusion as to whether this article qualifies for inclusion based on Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, in this case WP:NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. If one of you can provide an argument for this page's existence within the framework of WP:AIRCRASH, I'll retract my nomination, but without such evidence, you aren't actually contributing to the discussion. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, have you looked at the article since you nominated it, particularly did you look at it before you posted the above? WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, it is not policy. As the accident occurred in Venezuela, it is likely that most of the sources for this accident will be in Spanish, which is why I've posted a plea at WT:SPAIN#Cubana de Aviación Flight 310 for help in expanding the article. A hull loss of an airliner should be sufficiently notable to sustain an article, regardless of the number killed. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I base my argument on past experience - hull losses resulting in 22 fatalities, be they crew or passenger, tend to meet the notability requirement, I've found. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mjroots - the number of dead is significant enough, in my view, to make this acceptable. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per mjroots. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- WP:AIRCRASH is rather stringent on what can be considered notable. The number of dead is somewhet subjective - even a single fatality death is tragic and, for those affected, it would be hard to not believe the event is not notable. But WP is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, so the definition of "notable" is not the same as "terrible" or "tragic". WP:AIRCRASH limits stand-alone articles to trhose that have had a significant follow-on impact on, for example, the aviation industry (eg the grounding of an aircraft type) or society as a whole (eg a terrorist-related incident). For this particular article to be notable, we would need to find independent, verifiable sources discussing broader effects of the incident and not reports on "just" the incident itself. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per mjroots. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with mjroots. It's a major jet crash where unfortunately all passengers and crew were killed. As this occurred in a Spanish speaking nation on a flight originating in another Spanish speaking nation, Spanish language sources are most likely to be even more thorough.--Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 5 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) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PodWiki (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 evidence of notability - there's nothing online to indicate that during the lifetime of this application (looks like around 2004-2007), it received any press coverage, or significant usage. Yaron K. (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are few books about wiki software that have pretty extensive lists, and this one isn't even mentioned there. Pcap ping 09:17, 5 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 WP:CSD#G4 recreation of a page previously deleted by deletion discussion. Page was substantially similar to the previously deleted version. ViridaeTalk 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alec Powers (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)
Gay porn performer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. An earlier article was recently deleted at AfD on the same grounds. Note that the awards alluded to in the article are for the individual films not for this performer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He meets the ARTIST notability requirements, point 3 and in addition 4(c). PORNBIO has become a mantra for purging Wikipedia of gay porn actors regardless of the size of their contribution to the field or this fact being supported by reliable sources. Not in question is that he has had top billing in several award-winning films and has a significant body of work ("work" as defined by performing in over 50 films), this nomination relies on nobody yet finding a specific well-known pornography award specifically won in his name as opposed to being for the films he has been a lead performer in. As stated on the talk page before this article was renominated, This is a new article, not based on the previous version deleted over six months ago, and quite different in terms of sourcing (see comment on the new version by previously deleting admin). He is a notable model and porn star due to his significant body of work, consequently meeting WP:ARTIST. Though the awards included are for films, these are films where he has starred as a lead character and these are internationally recognized awards (Revenge of the Bi Dolls, for example); making his body of work significant. He has featured as an adult model and cover model for many gay erotic magazines (most examples from the 1990's will be lost due to a lack of archives, however some references have been included). He became one of the earliest stars in the specialist genre of erotic wrestling. If a film actor in almost any other genre was credited with over 50 films, a number being award-winning, and with this level of reliable sourcing, there would be absolutely no question about the validity of a BLP. Ash (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nominator and rationale of first nomination. I feel, whether it be straight porn or gay porn, that PORNBIO criteria 1 applies to subjects who directly wins an award rather than appearing in films that wins an award. What I am surprised is that the subject has not been nominated for awards in different years or are archives of nominations for awards not easily found? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Records about pornography in the 1990s before pornography producers relied on the internet are elusive or incomplete. In particular there is no consistent archive of gay erotic magazines of the period, so contemporary reviews and interviews are scarce. As the article stands, I agree that it fails PORNBIO, in recreating the article my rationale for notability is the more generic ARTIST. It is likely that further research may find suitable references that fits the PORNBIO criteria. If judging Powers as entirely non-notable seems marginal, then we should defer to the guidance of ATD and mark the article for improvement, particularly as nobody is suggesting that this article represents a blatant BLP violation (his official website backs up any biographical information in line with WP:SPS). Ash (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:49, 4 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. While one or two dubious but passable sources do seem to demonstrate that this individual had a charting single in France, there has been no success sourcing any other statements in the article. There is clearly very little enthusiasm for keeping this article around, and ultimately it seems to me that it will remain a basically unsourced BLP unless someone magics up some sources nobody else can find. Hence, this article is getting deleted at this point but, due to the fact that this individual probably does pass the arbitrary notability threshold, I have no particular objection to the article being recreated at any time if adequately sourced for verifiability. ~ mazca talk 10:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J-five (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 rapper has (apparently) had a song or two hit the charts in some European countries, so arguably he passes WP:MUSICBIO based solely on the second criteria. However he does not meet any of the other criteria, and I cannot find any discussion of "J-five" when searching under that moniker or his real name. Searching under J-5 or J5 is basically impossible, plus in hip hop circles "J5" is generally shorthand for the vastly more well known group Jurassic 5. This is a basically unsourced bio (chart listings don't count), and I cannot find any secondary sources which discuss J-five and which we could use in the article. He seems to fail the GNG, and there are problems of verifiability as well, unless there are sources I'm missing. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more sources and claims for notability can be presented. All the claims in the article are not sourced or sourced improperly. McMarcoP (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep apparently had a single chart in 3 major countries, although I'm not certain if "top40-charts.com" is a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Cleaned up article. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, as the single "Modern Times" featured on music charts and was certified in France. Mattg82 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit better, but all of the sources are still links to web pages (which may or may not be reliable) that mention something about his song(s) on the charts. Remember that WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." J-five clearly only meets one of those (which is telling) and meeting one does not guarantee his notability. My argument in the nomination is that he fails the general notability guideline ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") simply because I do not see any coverage of this artist in reliable sources, which is why nothing is sourced in this article except for the chart positions (if anything the song Modern Times is more notable than J-five himself, and perhaps we should only keep that). I think those in favor of keeping need to address the contention that the subject fails the WP:GNG, because having one or two songs chart in a couple of countries in Europe is not necessarily sufficient to keep a bio, and if we are unable to source the basic facts about J-five's life and musical career then all we'll be left with is "had a popular song in France", which we can cover at Modern Times (song). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I gave (1&2) are reliable according to WP:GOODCHARTS but ref3 does need changing to a more reliable source. I have no strong feelings to keep or delete, but it seemed to justify been kept using WP:MUSICBIO as a guide so I said keep, but I do agree that general notability is a problem and reading WP:Notability (music) further it says articles could still be deleted even if it passes MUSICBIO criteria, so on that basis I have changed my vote to weak keep. Mattg82 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit better, but all of the sources are still links to web pages (which may or may not be reliable) that mention something about his song(s) on the charts. Remember that WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." J-five clearly only meets one of those (which is telling) and meeting one does not guarantee his notability. My argument in the nomination is that he fails the general notability guideline ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") simply because I do not see any coverage of this artist in reliable sources, which is why nothing is sourced in this article except for the chart positions (if anything the song Modern Times is more notable than J-five himself, and perhaps we should only keep that). I think those in favor of keeping need to address the contention that the subject fails the WP:GNG, because having one or two songs chart in a couple of countries in Europe is not necessarily sufficient to keep a bio, and if we are unable to source the basic facts about J-five's life and musical career then all we'll be left with is "had a popular song in France", which we can cover at Modern Times (song). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 27 January 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) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure. The WP:GOODCHARTS page cites, in reference to lescharts, "While this chart appears to have been archived correctly, there are problems surrounding this archive site that make it questionable. Further use of this archive is discouraged, and people are encouraged to change links to this site to point to other sources." So I don't feel compelled to vote !delete, I'm on the fence if this really warrants being kept, too. JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 4 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) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upstream Marketing and Communications Inc. (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 was not able to verify that this organization meets the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unambiguous advertising: ...portfolio of companies that helps businesses make the most of opportunities.... Fits the profile: Services include public relations, on and off-line marketing and corporate communications.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant news or third party coverage; solely advertising. Company has been renamed Hameldon Resources, btw.—DMCer™ 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 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 consensus is clearly to keep the article, although from the comments it is obviously in need of expansion, probably by doing off-line research. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnny Doran (actor) (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 child actor, one mention in the NYT's doesn't really indicate a significant contribution to the genre. MBisanz talk 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Probably notable, based on second billing in The Pinballs, third billing in From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler (I added a reference for that film), fifth billing in Treasure of Matecumbe and extensive list of other credits. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is mentioned in 'The Moving Picture Boy, An International Encyclopaedia from 1895 to 1995'. [33] Cst17 (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And expand the stub. Was notable for his work in film and on stage spanning a decade, child or no... and notability is not temporary. Time to start diging through pre-internet news archives, rather than toss an article because of the difficulty. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep borderline notable, could use some expansion.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 02:37, 11 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. While I do agree that having an Erdős number of 1 is a nice claim to fame, the general consensus here is that it is not enough to meet the notability threshold in itself. This individual has, otherwise, had a fairly small and poorly-cited publication history, and hence is insufficiently notable for an article. ~ mazca talk 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P. Z. Chinn (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 papers with high citations except a survey article,...Erdos number should not play DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We ought to have an explicit "Erdős rule". Anyone with an Erdős number of one should have an article! Fleshing article would be nice too, but the underlying notability is sufficient for this alone. LotLE×talk 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree. It is likely that many of the people who have EN=1 are independently notable, but notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GS cites give an h index of 6 which is not so hot. Info from other databases would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Subject does not appear to meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WoS gives similar results, 6 papers with citations: 140, 4, 4, 1, 0, 0 (h-index = 3). I think the highly cited paper would possibly give an overall pass were it to be original research, but this is a review paper "The Bandwidth problem for graphs and matrics – A survey", so it's mostly an exposition of others' work and thus tends to get cited disproportionately (see h-index). The remainder seems to have had little impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. There is no reason to talk down the highest cited paper because it is a review. Being selected to write a review paper or having a review paper accepted is a good thing. But the h-index's job is to weigh a scholar's work in total, and it works. Having said that... Abductive (reasoning) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, few papers, most with low or no citations. Abductive (reasoning) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one find those statistics? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- View history, click "Page view statistics". This AfD has been viewed 105 times in the last four days. Abductive (reasoning) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- View history, click "Page view statistics". This AfD has been viewed 105 times in the last four days. Abductive (reasoning) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one find those statistics? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anders Blixt (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)
Looks like a non-notable game designer, article makes claims of notability by association and I'm not seeing unique coverage on this individual on google. MBisanz talk 14:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I willing to change my mind on this, but the only reference is an interview on a totally obscure site, according to Alexa anyway. None of his achievements seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. Pcap ping 16:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep. An interview hosted on Sverok's site was posted in the mean time, so I assume he is indeed notable in Sweden for his games. Pcap ping 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete supposedly designed one game we don't have an article on, and one we do but he was co-designer with 5 other people on the 2nd edition. Bottom line: no measurable notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recreated this article when I saw it mentioned on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sweden#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sweden.2FCleanup_listing.23Unreferenced_BLPs. I would not lightly recreate an article lightly if I wasn't certain that it should be. . A good example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. In this case there's is no doubt whatsoever about his notability. Not having article about him would be like not having an article about Gary Gygax. Drakar och Demoner was in Sweden what Dungeons and Dragons was in the English-speaking world. Casual role players didn't play D&D, they played DoD. Dungeons&Dragons was for hardcore gamers that'd play anything and everything. It sold in 100,000 exemplars, that's rather a lot for a market of 8 million people; and that's not counting export editions. That confers wp:notability to its main author. Further, he did just didn't "one game" that we do have an article on, he was involved in almost every RPG that was designed or translated and adapted in the 1980s. This may be the source of our problem; sources from the 80s are not as googable as comtemporary stuff. But there's no problem in finding them, because there was about just as much brouhaha in Sweden as with dungeons and dragons; you just have to go to the nearest library and check the newspaper archive. I also note that Pcap has misunderstood that it is about paper and pencil games, and emphatically not computer or video games, so that the deletion sorting is incorrect. walk victor falk talk 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I believe he achieves notability, if only barely, and primarily from his pioneering involvement (although it was a group effort and acknowledged as such) in Swedish-produced role-playing games. As noted above, Drakar och Demoner was the major domestically produced title of its time, and had wide name recognition even among a lot of those who had never played an RPG. Oh, this brings back memories - a number of times in the 1980s, Swedish tabloids cited all RPGs as products of a secret sect of satanists intending to drive innocent teenagers to suicide, and called for appropriate action from the authorities. :-) Can't remember if they specifically targeted the game authors as well or just the games, and this was before newspapers had websites - Swedish newspapers seem never to have back-added older material to the web. As noted above, this article was part of the recent mass unreferenced BLP deletions, which were based purely on "unreferenced BLP" tagging rather than any notability assessment. Tomas e (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see any exception in WP:V or WP:RS for sources that are hard to find. If and when someone finds a source online or in paper archives, then that will show notability and an article can be created, but until then I don't see how simple assertions can withstand WP:NOR. MBisanz talk 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is not our job as editors to presume notability when third party coverage is lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It is our job to look for third party coverage, JBSupreme, something I yet have to see you're doing. I added two refs, he appears to satisfy WP:CREATIVE #1 or #2, or both (in Sweden). Power.corrupts (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't tell me what my job is until you start putting cash in my wallet. JBsupreme (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, you forgot to add "delete with prejudice" ;) Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't tell me what my job is until you start putting cash in my wallet. JBsupreme (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is it with notability in a Swedish vs International perspective. Blixt is definitely a notable guy in Swedish gaming. But I don't think he made any sort of waves outside of Sweden. Is that relevant? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in one country, notable in the whole world, that's wikipedia's policy. That's why Åland politicians like Runar Karlsson or Idol contestants like Johan Palm, Danny Saucedo have their own articles. See WP:BIAS. walk victor falk talk 10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in one country, notable in the whole world, that's wikipedia's policy. That's why Åland politicians like Runar Karlsson or Idol contestants like Johan Palm, Danny Saucedo have their own articles. See WP:BIAS. walk victor falk talk 10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable figure in Swedish Gaming history who did a lot for role playing games in Sweden. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable in Sweden is notable in Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maker of notable things is notable himself. I checked the Google news search, and ran the first of 15 results through the Google translator and it turned out to be about a communist with the same name. But he is notable for his accomplishments, even without searchable news being found. Dream Focus 12:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete his Swedish article is poorly referenced and some Swedish articles refer to a different Anders Blixt who is a church pastor [34]. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Author of first and largest Swedish RPG is notable. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. WP:NOTINHERITED JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon, his RPG isn't his parent, it's his work! A writer of games most certainly gets notability from his games, the same way that a writer of books gets notability from his books, or any other worker can get notability from his notable job. We'd have the deuce of a time proving J. K. Rowling was notable if we couldn't mention her books, and this Barack Obama person would be no one if not for that little Senator+President thing... :-) It's also not a case where he wrote just this one game, so anything that could be said about him could be said in the article about the game. He wrote several, Drakar... is just the most famous. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. WP:NOTINHERITED JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Decent sourcing considering the language barrier and time. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply, the subject is notable for their accomplisments. Edward321 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others. I found it to be an interesting article for me, and therefor encyclopedic material as far as I am concerned. But the image File:Drakarochdemoner.jpg should need to be removed because it is not fair use in this article. / Fred-J 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ...or we could forgo cauterizing the problem for more of a mend & repair approach by just claiming fair use for this article too. It certainly is being used in a fair use context despite the lack of a written rationale. The use is educational/research-based and not commercial so fair use would apply equally here. Personally I'd rather only remove the image if a suitably superior one was proposed (like a picture of the artist himself) but regardless, whether or not it's particularly relevant or whether or not it's the best image for the article's topic is a non-IP matter that should be taken up in that article's talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Referenced to meet all notability requirements now. I removed all unreferenced material to the talk page for future referencing. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:16, 11 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) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sovprime (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)
WP:MADEUP, unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, not a trace of it online. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Search gives no evidence of the word's existing outside Wikipedia (ignoring hits for "SOV prime", etc, with no connection at all with the meaning given here). The article actually states that the term was made up by a "trader at Delaware Investments" on February 2nd 2010. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete Brand-new, recently invented neologism, no evidence on Google that it has passed into the language, or ever been used by anyone other than its inventor. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Delete - "A phrase coined by Sean Simmons, CFA, an FX trader at Delaware Investments on Tuesday, February 2nd 2010," - looks like a Wp:NEO (with shades of Wp:OR) to me. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 4 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
- Although the comments here seem to indicate that this Ferris Wheel may perhaps be unusual, or even unique, no reliable sources of information have been located by the commenters. The concensus is therefore that this article be deleted, especially since mention of this one has been added to the Ferris wheel, which appears all that can be justified by the sourcing available. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hablützel Ferris Wheel (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 notability. Tagged as unreferenced since November 2008. Prodded. Prod removed by Arbus Driver, who posted on the article's talk page "This is a large (60m diameter), transportable, Ferris wheel; clearly notable. The article is no longer an orphan and has several references. Removing Prod". Clearly the size and transportability have nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Secondly, Arbus Driver had added "several references", but all but one of them have been removed as not being proper references for various reasons (one was a Wikipedia mirror; one was another unreliable source and in any case merely showed a photograph of the wheel, without confirming any of the statements about it in the article; and so on). The one remaining reference contains one brief mention of the fact that a family by the name of Hablützel operates a Ferris wheel, but confirms nothing else in the article. Web searches have produced passing mentions of the wheel, Wikipedia mirrors, a photograph with no accompanying text, etc etc, but no substantial coverage and no confirmation of the statements made in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60 m fixed wheels seem to be considered reasonably notable, so transportability suggests an added feature. This one qualifies for an image at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstlauer . If you look under Hablützel Riesenrad there are rather more references.Opbeith (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable on Google using either Ferris Wheel or Reisenrad; links mostly lead to Wikipedia mirrors or to the generic entry "Ferris Wheel". This one does sound interesting as being both large and transportable; maybe it could be mentioned in the article Ferris wheel even if it is judged to be not notable enough for its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Comments Yes, there are more hits for "Hablützel Riesenrad": thanks to Opbeith for pointing this out. I agree with MelanieN that most of them are not such as to establish notability under Wikipedia standards, but some of them are of some value. I think there is enough to justify a mention in the article Ferris wheel, as MelanieN suggests, and so I have added a few sentences there, with a reference. I think a mention there is as much as is justified by the available sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 5 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) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eirtakon (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)
Does not appear to meet any notability criteria; single source which doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, can only find a single source, that is the event holder itself. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: couldn't dig up much in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=eirtakon . A few possibly RS blogs mention it, and ANN mentions some VA going to it. Too bad; you would think the Irish media at least would cover 'the largest con in Ireland'. --Gwern (contribs) 17:03 31 January 2010 (GMT)
- @Gwern Those comics/manga RS critics & essayists blogs may be used only within their scope which doesn't include anime convention. --KrebMarkt 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Incidentally, I'm in Ireland and have heard of the convention, and know a few people who go to it. It definitely isn't the largest con in Ireland (that's Warpcon, in all likelihood). Stifle (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article gives no independent sources at all, and searches have failed to produce anything that could remotely be considered substantial coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unnotable event; fails WP:N by lacking significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:33, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mickaël Vendetta (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 was tagged to be speedily deleted, however it does appear to me that there might be some claim to notability here. Taking to AFD for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the one who created the page not long ago (and yes it's my first article!), sorry if it took me quite a few edits to make it as it is now! Thanks for opening this page. I explained my point of view on the discussion page of the article, and I don't know if it's appropriate to copy paste it here. I don't claim that the world can't live without this entry, but I believe there's some notability aswell (see discussion page). Regards, Plop256 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is copied from the article's talk page. It is the part of Plop256's contributions where Plop256 sets out reasons for regarding Vendetta as notable.JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vendetta is no more just an internet phenomenon. He is managed by a production company, has a web-TV, has been seen on air in the French national TV and radio in various shows, and more importantly, has ACTED in commercial for Pringles and is now part of the cast in the french version of The Farm. The Farm this year has 6 969 000 people watching it, (and 30% total audience), France is 60M people (plus, he is the one making the most audience in the show, measured). It's safe to say 6 969 000 French people know who he is, reality is likely above. Just as a note, Google for Mickaël Vendetta yields 6M+ hits, David Charvet(also present in that TV show) yields less than 300K hits. Plop256
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - there are lots of sources here (and more available on Google), but I'm not sure any of them are sufficiently reliable for our purposes - blogs usually aren't. Having said that, there are definite claims of notability here, and I don't know French very well so it's possible I'm missing something obvious in the sources. Robofish (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm french and i've just discovered his existence like 30 minutes ago. IMHO you can delete this article.
This mickael vendetta is a young blogger, probably only known to teen bloggers. Now he's in a reality TV show like big brother but in a farm. IMO you can assume he'll be back to complete anonimity in like 2 month. Moreover, I also bring to your attention, that the french page about him is also marked for deletion. The fact the french wikipedia community questions the legimity of this page means it isnt even obvious for french people it makes sense to have it... So, for having it on the en wikipedia... If some of you want to check the french deletion page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Micka%C3%ABl_Vendetta/Suppression As of today (2010-02-06): Delete = 44, Keep = 33 88.175.74.22 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete even if we can keep his french article, he hasn't an intenational height. -- Xfigpower (yak yak) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete It is unlikely that he is, nor will be, a person worthy of attention by French standards, let alone international standards.--DragonFly31 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per meeting WP:GNG as shown by coverage in numerous sources... and apparently most of them in French... so it seems he does indeed seem to be a person worth note to them. International standards? Wikipedia is not just for some subjective "international" fame or note. Notable in France is plenty notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Kudos to the author for its creation. Far better to encourage the author to study WP:RS and WP:CITE in order to add better sources and in the correct format, rather that have him think his work is somehow not worth improving. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This guy is rather famous on french media. To my point of view be famous is enought to be on wikipedia. Tognopop (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep numerous press coverage Moez talk 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Strong media coverage (french nationwide TV channels and radios). Please do not take into account french AfD on wp:france, where people do not like biographies of people which are not related to "serious" subjects. HDDTZUZDSQ (talk) 11:02, 12 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. Jujutacular T · C 05:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Police corruption (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 article is a sparse essay, a rant and a ramble composed of original research. There are no facts to back the article up despite it's being online for ages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - just redirect to corruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - not appropriate to redirect to corruption, which is a dab page. I'm an idiot for suggesting this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The whole thing is Original Research at best, and consists only of vague comments, with no substantial information content. I would have no objection to creating a redirect from "Police corruption" to "Corruption", as suggested, but is there any good reason not to delete this inadequate article first? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no concerns... but is there a reason to remove the work? Might as well be in the history... but it might as well not be also. It would be interesting historically to see what happened on the article, but no really big issue I suppose. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article stands, even throughout its history, the value is negligible. But a simple redirect will preserve such value as there is. Is redirecting to a disambiguation page valid, though? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I'm a bit of an idiot really. Definitely not. Delete. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see a way of rewriting this in any meaningful manner either. That corruption exists within any public body is a given, but corruption is the article, not Police, nor Coast Guard, nor Customs Corruption. And yet corruption is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article. If we had an article that documented substantiated and substantial episodes of notable and verifiable police corruption that is an article I would support. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I'm a bit of an idiot really. Definitely not. Delete. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article stands, even throughout its history, the value is negligible. But a simple redirect will preserve such value as there is. Is redirecting to a disambiguation page valid, though? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no concerns... but is there a reason to remove the work? Might as well be in the history... but it might as well not be also. It would be interesting historically to see what happened on the article, but no really big issue I suppose. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is simply a short essay, unreferenced and generalized. The list of links is interesting, though; maybe a different article could be created along the lines of "List of police corruption cases"? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Keep. While original research can be moved to talk or edited out, it seems fairly obvious that the subject itself is quite capable of supporting an article, without regard to this one's inadequacies. Look at the Google Books and Scholar hits: entire books have been written about this subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added a "further reading" section including some of the more promising leads I found in searches. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. The subject is clearly worthy of inclusion as a distinct form of Police misconduct, it's too widespread and has too many unique traits to be reduced to just another form of corruption, and the "See also" section already links to a ton of other articles about "substantiated and substantial episodes of notable and verifiable police corruption." Some good work has already been done on improving the article in other ways. Still needs more work, but there's lots of potential here. Jd4v15 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that ton is a set of wikilinks to other articles. Wikipedia may not reference itself in that an internal link does not of itself substantiate notability nor verifiability. Your argument, if based upon those, means that this is a list rather than an article. If the article can be improved to save it then please do so with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying the links in themselves establish the notability of police corruption. I'm saying all those links show that there are notable instances of police corruption which can be used to improve the article along the lines you suggested in one of your earlier comments -- meaning this is a case where improvement, rather than deletion, is the best solution to the article's problems (and yes, I'll do what I can to improve it). My other points don't depend on those links at all. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that ton is a set of wikilinks to other articles. Wikipedia may not reference itself in that an internal link does not of itself substantiate notability nor verifiability. Your argument, if based upon those, means that this is a list rather than an article. If the article can be improved to save it then please do so with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nomination I recognise that the AfD process must run to completion and that my withdrawal does not stop the process. However I see improvements to the article sufficient to preserve it here. I do not see the improvement as finished by any means, but I see sufficient to withdraw my nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- pablohablo. 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable topic for an article. Google news search has 23,200 articles about "police corruption", Google book finds 1,638 books about it, and Google scholar search has 7,270 results. Dream Focus 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, fleshed out now. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whole books have been written on this subject, so it's clearly notable. If our treatment of the topic is poor, this should be fixed through editing. Yilloslime TC 03:00, 11 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) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chudai (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. Wikipedia is not a multi-lingual dictionary. Anna Lincoln 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following similar article created by the same editor for the same reason:
- Desi randi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had nominated this for a speedy; then withdrew it as I realised it didn't qualify for the same. Was going to Afd it myself. I agree with Anna Lincoln's pov on both articles. Can we have a WP:SNOW clause active here? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree, there is little hope of an encyclopedic article on this subject. Only other thought would be that this might work as a redirect - but do we redirect from non-english translations of common terms? I dunno. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see no point at all in keeping it. I see no point in the redirect either: this is English Wikipedia, and it is not reasonable to start creating redirects for vast numbers of foreign language words; is there any reason to make a special case for this one? I don't see that there is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of content.Bjones (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both: Per WP:NOT#DICT. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, content doesn't justify a separated page in Wikipedia. Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:05, 10 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) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Krazy George Henderson (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. This gentleman claims to have invented "the wave" and also purports to be the "World's Sexiest Professional Cheerleader". There are no sources for any of this, of course. JBsupreme (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeeP KeeP (the Afd version of the Wave). There's this Washington Post article, an AP story in the Victoria Advocate and his claim is disputed in this ESPN article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Clarityfiend, assuming someone adds those cites, and puts them in context in the article. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the significant coverage found by Clarityfiend. Jujutacular T · C 03:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Audience wave under WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- the sources found above establish notability, and WP:BLP1E states that a person should otherwise be trying to have a private life. Since the man is appearing in commercials to this day (at least according to the article), he's not trying to remain private. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E doesn't state that a person should otherwise be trying to remain private! It says that they remain low profile; the secondary sources or lack thereof are the metric of their profile, not their intent. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the policy "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them", are you trying to say that he's trying to remain a low profile individual while still appearing on tv in advertisements? Umbralcorax (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the "trying" part I'm addressing. The policy doesn't care if the individual is trying to be famous or trying to hide. The policy is merely looking at the outcome; are they low profile? Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the WP:BLP1E cannot possibly apply as this person is notable as a cheerleader of sorts who has been hired by a plethora of different teams. RFerreira (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any secondary sources that talk about this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the man was a living legend and subject of all sorts of media attention in his day. He was a fixture and easy TV camera fodder at any Bay Area sporting event, particularly Oakland A's games, broadcast nationally. Yes, his peak was decades ago, but even if it has faded, notability does not disappear with time. He's apparently still working in sports cheerleading, so he's not going into the witness protection program. There is no reason to delete.Trackinfo (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any secondary sources that say this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but the independent sources that verify his notability must be included in the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:18, 5 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) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 23rainydays (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. Ridernyc (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Fits WP:BAND #1 (reviewed in ReGen magazine, Frederick News-Post), #5 (has released multiple albums on an important indie label), and #8 (nominated for the 2009 MTV Music Video Award for Best Break Out artist by MTV). The article author just needs to learn how to do <ref>in line references</ref>. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Mr. Thomson's logic above. The article really needs clean-up and wikifying, rather than an AfD. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Keep - I have cleaned up my titles and some of the content and have included inline references to legitimate sources. I am new to Wikipedia and have scoured the reqs so please let me know specifics if additional cleanup is needed. thank you for your time.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikmacgregor (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Keep At least they've released stuff, toured and got refs, unlike some of the bands that try to get articles (one I recall was a fourpiece, or would have been if they'd managed to get a fourth person - probably didn't last much longer than the article did...) I have trouble with inline refs still, so well done. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like their music but they don't quite meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Regen is not a publication - just some website. Radio-Active-Music is not "one of the more important indie labels". And as for being nominated for "MTV VMA Best Breakout Artist Award" - this is not even a national award, but one that is selected in 8 local markets[35]. As such it is hardly a "major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agree with above please read what the MTV breakout award is before you make up your mind. They basically came in third in a local battle of the bands, it was sponsored by Mtv but it really is little more then a local contest. Ridernyc (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ReGen is published (electronically), it just isn't printed. The guidelines do not specify that it must be print. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a self-published website. The fact that the website operator calls it a 'magazine' is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't a some dude putting out a site for himself, it has a staff, the dude that started the site (Nick Garland) isn't the editor (Ilker Yücel), and there are multiple writers under that editor. Not exactly self-published. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just enough coverage of them around, and the NME site (via YouTube) has two live tracks and an interview from the MTV Video Music Awards, what look like trailers for the main show. Not a clear-cut case, but I see no real reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 4 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) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Black (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 article does not satisfy notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.238.129 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not meet basic notability criteria of WP:BIO. -Reconsider! 08:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There isn't enough coverage of this person for it to count under WP:BIO. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:43, 9 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) Swarm(Talk) 03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) (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)
All we have right now is a title. No reliable sources. Sceptre (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. We have a confirmed title, but that is all. Edgepedia (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have more than a title, we have sourced information about the two main cast (Matt Smith and Karen Gillan), the writer (Moffat), the director (Adam Smith), the producers and so forth. And we are two months away from broadcast. I think that deletion discussion should be about the validity of the topic and not content on the article btw. Hektor (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's no point deleting this. 121.217.20.154 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All we have is duplicate information from Doctor Who (2010 series) and List of Doctor Who serials, so this article adds nothing, not until episode-specific information becomes available. — Edokter • Talk • 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that information is thin on the ground, right now. But look at it this way, we know that the episode will premiere, will be notable, and will receive specific and detailed coverage in reliable sources. We have a reliable source that confirms its existance, and we know that the article will simply be recreated in a few weeks, as more information comes along. Thus, I think it's less hassle to keep this article and expand it as appropriate. WP:CRYSTAL applies, certainly, except that this is an event that is sure to take place; the uncertainty associated with typical articles about future events isn't here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's stub, but it is sourced & be a full article at some point; i.e. it has potential and there is not crystal balling in what's there now. --Natet/c 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies here, methinks. We have reliably sourced information that its likely going to happen, and if it doesn't, the reasons why will likely be notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A highly anticipated episode of Doctor Who, the page will receive a high influx of traffic in the days to come when there's more confirmed information. Plenty of Doctor Who episodes are posted well in advance before sufficient information is provided for them. As an example, I'll cite The Waters of Mars, whose earliest entry was in 13 July 2008 and the episode itself did not come out well past one year of the edit, sometime in last November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Buizel (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Doctor Who (2010 series) untill there is more information. All the information on this episode (which amounts to "The Eleventh Hour is the first episode of British science fiction in a new Doctor Who television series, which is expected to be broadcast in Q2 2010. This will be the first full episode to star Matt Smith as the Doctor, and Karen Gillan as companion Amy Pond.") can be put there. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now At the moment, all we know is the episode title and nothing else. I say delete the article until we have enough reliable information about the episode to warrant a seperate article. Looneyman (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If we were several months away from the episode's first broadcast I might agree with deletion, but I don't see the point in deleting a page that will just be recreated anyway within the next few weeks. --DaveJB (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Unlike the second and third announced 11th Doctor episodes, there is currently enough verified information out to justify it, I feel. Plus I agree that there's no real point when in less than a month it would be back up. Kuralyov (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Just a title and the fact that it is the first episode is in there, it could alway be un-redirected when we find other info to add. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Please dont delete this, there's no point, this is confirmed the title and will be edited into a more detailed artidle shortly before and after the episode airs.
- Keep - Like already stated often: this is the title of the first new episode and soon a plethora of information will be put in this stubby entry.
- Redirect/Keep Sufficient reliable sources are guaranteed to become available. (Note: This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - it will happen.) It seems pointless deleting this to be recreated in a couple of months time. The JPStalk to me 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, Redirect to series article - there is no sense in deleting the article outright when it would need to be recreated come March or April. However, beyond basic production details such as writer and director, the only information at present is a one-sentence note on production. Also, can it be verified through other sources that the shooting referred to is definitely for the first episode, beyond the synthesis that the image depicts shooting for the first episode because of what the Doctor happens to be wearing? SuperMarioMan (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As an article about an upcoming episode it is appropriate that this article should be here. Enough information is known about it so far to justify its existence, and more will be made available in the coming weeks until its transmission. Absurdtrousers (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per <Hektor> —Preceding unsigned comment added by C Scrutinizer (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would suggest that this is taken to a merger discussion rather than AFD - merger is much better place for discussion of "Redirect now till more info/ keep now cause we have enough info" - as this discussion is highly unlikely to lead in a deletion of the article. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per <Hektor> Sabrebattletank (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Enough to justify its existence and as time passes ever more will become available Jasonfward (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for all the aforementioned reasons. Also, re:188.221.79.22 - I think merging for a few weeks is as pointless as is deleting for a few weeks.129.67.53.67 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there are reliable sources for the fact that the first episode of the next season of DW has been written and filmed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the episode is going to air within a couple of months, and interest in the new series (with a new Doctor in Matt Smith) and the recent specials is going to be high. 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.177.67 (talk)
Keep of course. Ok, there's not much info at the moment but within a couple of months, it will surely blossom... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 01:36, 9 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) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CODIX (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)
Software company, no real indication of notability, google throws up a few not very significant products, blatant COI from creator Jac16888Talk 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: introducing on the market iMX -a new concept of “events based management of cases”. You get that? There are cases. Those cases have something to do with events. These events are used to manage them. This is a new concept. And they'll take care of it for you, if you just throw money. Also, no minimal claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP as written. Pcap ping 16:34, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn without dissent, and the merge discussion can continue on the lists' talk pages independently of the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of largest hydroelectric power stations (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 a strong request, but i think that the article suits to be deleted since List of hydroelectric power stations now contains all (+ more) information of this page. Once again, not a strong request, hoping to have a discussion on this. Regards. Rehman(+) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the suggested "equivalent" list contains less than half the information of the list requested to be deleted. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense. But, such as? Rehman(+) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't think it is a good idea to dispurse a completed list into an unfinished list.Calvingao (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small question. Currently, the only incomplete factor is the coordinates. The rest is complete, and includes info of the nominated article. So, if the coords were filled, would that make sense? Regards. Rehman(+) 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The list is now fully complete. Currently, there are no elements which the article doesnt have compared to the nominated article. It also contains a good collection of coordinates which this article doesnt. And also lists power stations from 1000MW onwards, instead of 2000MW as this article does. Regards. Rehman(+) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of largest hydroelectric power stations has other informations such as anual generation and area flooded, while the other one does not.Calvingao (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The list is now fully complete. Currently, there are no elements which the article doesnt have compared to the nominated article. It also contains a good collection of coordinates which this article doesnt. And also lists power stations from 1000MW onwards, instead of 2000MW as this article does. Regards. Rehman(+) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems like a merge discussion. Every comment above can be read as Merge. Abductive (reasoning) 10:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. It appears to be a merge not AfD discussion. Move the discussion to the talk page and let discuss there if there is a consensus to merge these articles or not. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawal of AfD: Pretty good points by all. Also, one way or the other, the article does have some extra info. Besides, what harm can it do if we keep it. Regards to all. Rehman(+) 14:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 4 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
- While not ignoring the 3 keep !votes, I note that this is (from those very same !votes) a newly named instrument with no real references available. The issue is not whether it exists (no one doubts this), or whether it should be covered somewhere - it is whether it meets the notability criteria for inclusion here - as someone said, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists (or has existed). The comments here (both keep and delete) indicate that information is not verifiable from reliable sources, as this information is not available for such a new instrument. This being the case, I do not see that this subject meets the criteria for inclusion at this time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 12 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}} . |
- Sonome keyboard (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. Evidently non-notable invention from a non-notable inventor. While a tiny number of websites discuss this, there are zero gnews hits and zero relevant google books hits. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it isn't encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I own two sonomes, both Axis-49s, and present information about them in my alternate-keyboard website MusicScienceGuy.vox.com (it's hosted on a blog for convenience, but don't be fooled) and was sufficiently motivated about their potential to contact the people involved and standardize names and start the ball rolling on these articles. I plan to expand this series of articles to cover all commonly used note-array keyboards, so people using Wikipedia can judge which is best for their needs. Note-array alternate keyboards are very new (the technology to make them has become affordable), but they offer profound advantages over standard keyboards and could become very popular. The reason the search hit rate is low is that we've just standardized on naming. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Xj said I own a Sonome keyboard myself: an Opal Chameleon invented by Peter Davies and built by him with electronics engineer Jim Wills. It's correct that these 'alternate keyboards are very new' but I don't think it's a good reason to delete this article from Wikipedia. —Iranief • contribs 07:37, 4 February 2010 — Iranief (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment the issue here isn't that they exist. The issue is if they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Specifically, are there reliable and verifiable third-party sources discussing it? tedder (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that I have added strong evidence of notability in the links to some users of the system and in the Taxonomy of Realtime Interfaces for Electronic Music Performance article. Also, This is a new musical instrument - owners are busy learning how to play them and use them in novel way. The scholarly articles will appear in 2-5 years. I have a article proposal in to New Scientist, but that will take time to get published. Ken. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentRegarding the PROD: The reason the sonome is not mentioned much in the web because I just recently got all the users of the novel keyboard together and got them to agree on a standard: sonome for the instrument, and harmonic table for the note-array layout. Before this, the names were all over the map. Imagine the confusion in the early days of the guitar when it was also known as a tanbur, setar and sitar, among other names. This is early in this instrument's life-cycle. Interest is increasing now that an affordable commercial unit is available. MusicScienceGuy (talk 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As predicted, now that the sonome has become a standard, agreed upon term, the name is now popping up. Here is a link to a brand-new sonome, created in software. New mention. http://www.novation-launchpad.com/index.php/apps-software/launchpad-harmonic-table-controller/ - it is worth viewing. Is not a whole software application nontrivial? MusicScienceGuy (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In case it is not clear, the term Sonome is the general term describing the class of instruments made by different companies which includes the Axis-64, Axis-49 and Chamelon MIDI controllers. These themselves are a category of hexagonal array keyboard instruments. Various forms of hexagonal array keyboard instruments have been around for over 100 years. The Sonome design has a particular layout and configuration and specific key size and shape that is especially useful. There are other examples of hexagonal keyboards which are not Sonomes. The Sonome is one of the first to actually be a commercial success, being available and widely used by musicians. Saying that there is no reliable third party discussion of these instruments is completely false. The people stating there is no coverage have either not properly researched this by following provided links, or have an ulterior motive for censoring these articles. Well regarded print and web publications such as electronic musician have covered them. Here is a link to an e-m web video covering a Sonome at the NAMM show. http://emusician.com/videos/events/c_thru_axis/. Here's one at Synthtopia http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2008/05/12/the-c-thru-music-axis-64-control-keyboard/ Xj (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not a vote, and I could care less if you own one (or wish you did). If there aren't any reliable third party sources covering this subject in a non-trivial fashion then it belongs somewhere else, not here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles are designed to be highly accurate, peer-reviewed and useful to anyone trying to find information on alternative keyboards, hence the many hours of work that went into them. Does this not count? MusicScienceGuy (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Whichever way this turns out, there are a whole set of related articles. Possibly a compromise would be to just add a small amount of this material on alternative keyboards to an established related article. Maurreen (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you Maurreen. Perhaps a compromise can be arranged. The whole area of alternate keyboards needs a review, and perhaps a new classification of "Tonal-Array keyboards" needs to be set up (Isomorphic keyboards are a subset of this). Another would be to just postpone the deletion by 6 months to a year, to allow the print world to catch up. This would give us (particularly myself) strong incentive to write the New Scientist article that has been suggested. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MSG, in that case, a good way to do it would be to (a) put the article in your userspace (see WP:UFY) and move it back 'live' when it's ready. In the meantime, having a small subsection in an existing article would be appropriate. tedder (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Must Keep. This is a non-standard instrument that needs to be represented in an encyclopedia. Where else, if not here? I'm a composer, music professor and microtone aficionado, and while I don't own this instrument myself, I'm very tempted to buy one for my school, the Hamburg Hochschule für Musik und Theater. I'm organizing an international symposium in Boston (March 7 - 9, 2010), and one of the featured instruments will actually be a sonome!! Georghajdu (Georghajdu) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above is a live, realtime example of the value of these entries to Wikipedia users, especially researchers like Georg_Hajdu. The commercial sites are too focused on their own product to give background information and a good or unbyassed overview, just as the Stratocaster website doubtless does not have a decent overview of what a guitar is. A wikipedia entry supplies that vital information. Without the entry Dr. Hajdu would not have a way to know about the sonome class of instruments. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a note that Iranief is a "Single-purpose account". Iranief is actually the pen name of Carlo Serafini, a very prominent composer in the microtonal music world. Don't judge by the fact he does not do much in Wikipedia. I consider it fortunate that I got his support. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sonome hasn't been around long enough for music academics to really take notice of it. There are no published theoretical stidies of it to source, and there are also no instructors of sonome playing. What there are is the websites of the companies that make the keyboards, and a handful of websites created by players and music students who have taken an interest in the harmonic table layout. A Google search of "sonome" will not turn up all of them, since the name was only recently settled-on by the playing community. The lack of sources available is because the sonome is new, not because it's unimportant or "unencyclopedic". I have been playing for 8 months and I wish they'd had these when I was younger! I think it's hypocritical to suggest "anyone can edit" Wikipedia if someone may be told they're wrong on the basis that their contribution isn't interesting enough. Complicated templates and nonsense words like "unencyclopedic" only serve to discourage non-academics from contributing perfectly good knowledge. Envergure (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. tedder (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Envergure. They may not have meant to, but they have persuasively argued for this item's non-notability: "The sonome hasn't been around long enough for music academics to really take notice of it. There are no published theoretical stidies of it to source, and there are also no instructors of sonome playing. What there are is the websites of the companies that make the keyboards, and a handful of websites created by players and music students who have taken an interest in the harmonic table layout." In other words, there are no reliable sources and no significance yet. Georghajdu's !vote only argues that the current article may be effective as spam. — Gwalla | Talk 00:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another academic citation has come up. Formerly they used the term axis, as they did not have generic name, whence it was missed by searches. Having read this article, they have switched to sonome(and that will be the standard name, I gather, henchforth). Axis + "bohlen-pierce" gives 7,760 hits, "axis-64" keyboard: 2,090 "axis-49" keyboard: 5,710 The sonome has also been reviewed by Sound-on-Sound and Music Tech magazines, to name a few. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the citation? Are you confusing the term "google hits" with "academic citations"? See WP:RS for examples of reliable sources. tedder (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation was added to the sonome article: about the upcoming Bohlen-Pierce Symposium. It is right after the Taxonony of Realtime Interfaces, and just before the list of researchers using the instrument. Google hits is, of course, not a substitute for academic citations. However, the google hit rate, given that we have just changed the name from Axis-something to the generic sonome was added as an indicator of the actual usage level of sonomes. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry about removing the AFD - I was saving the article, and must have stripped it off the wrong one.MusicScienceGuy (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Re comments from Gwallas and User:Envergure; to put the record straight, it is not true that academics have not taken notice. To quote two examples, one sonome product, Axis, has been the subject of academic research since commercial availability in 2007: http://www.ziaspace.com/elaine/BP/Background.html. Georg Hajdo, professor of music, has known about it for some time under the name ‘Axis’. This article was not his introduction to the invention. Proof of his prior attention to it is in the Bohlen-Pierce Symposium: http://bohlen-pierce-conference.org/bohlen-pierce-instruments/ which he obviously didn’t organise overnight. Therefore the article does not constitute spam. This is the original isomorphic MIDI controller, first prototyped in 1991, pre-dating all the others: http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/glossary.html#sonome Pd1950 (talk) 16:40, 10 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) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Dengelegi (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)
A couple of years back, User:Psymba created a short bio article on a minor author, as part of a short series of articles on authors. I get the distinct impression s/he is associated with him. Problem is, someone else came along and posted referenced material about his criminal conviction. Since then, related IPs have tried to blank the offending text. Steve Dufour just PRODDED it with the rationale "He is not notable. No sources for minor career as author. No reason to think he is more notable than 1,000s of others in prison for drug offenses." I agree entirely, and think this is probably a good way to resolve what may be an embarrassing episode for Dengelegi personally as well as an article of dubious notability. However, I want to avoid a situation whereby the subject could repost the article in sanitized form, and felt that an AfD is a better way to go, so a recreated article could be speedied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable dentist convicted of issuing painkiller prescriptions illegally, the article is an attack as it stands. He fails WP:BIO Off2riorob (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I said, not notable as an author or a criminal, or even as a dentist. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There was a newspaper article on the subject in the Connecticut Post on January 25, 2007.--Rockfang (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, but if he's not a notable author then this would seem to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The IP continues to blank the critical content past 4th warning: s/he may be blocked. If any editors in this discussion do not see the text on the criminal conviction, and wish to do so, please check the revision history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This seems like a pretty clear WP:ONEEVENT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked twice for trying to blank the criminal stuff, the IP has now sought to bury it beneath a 1300 word description of the Casca book series. I'm leaving it. Makes no difference and it's just one more reason to pull the plug, I warrant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I concur, the subject isn't notable based enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, and the rest is BLP1E material. Ful disclosure, I blocked the IP once and declined to protect the page when request at WP:RFPP since it was at AfD. I'm tempted to speedy delete the page on A7 grounds and put the poor ip out of its misery, but given the maelstrom that is our current BLP policy it seems best to wait out the AfD. Strongly encourage privacy blanking upon closure. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the IP hopping blanker strikes again I won't intervene or revert, as it's become increasingly clear the article is being deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 4 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 by nominator. No outstanding delete !votes. Non admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walt Hunter (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. Unsourced biography, would need non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to remain. JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominated for an Emmy, won a ton of awards ([36]), several useful sources in Google ([37]), plenty of hits in Google News ([38]. This one's plenty obvious. Rebecca (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a news reporter, I would expect plenty of hits in Google/Google News. I'm still looking for non-trivial coverage of this person from reliable third party sources. I haven't given up yet. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...he's been nominated for an Emmy. Mentioned in a reliable source, no less. Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the difference between a "Philadelphia Emmy" and an American Emmy? We don't seem to have an article for Philadelphia Emmy awards... In any case I have struck my delete !vote, since there seems to be some degree of notability here. Sadly, the "ton of awards" listed on his biographical page at CBS3.COM are somewhat vague. JBsupreme (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...he's been nominated for an Emmy. Mentioned in a reliable source, no less. Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a news reporter, I would expect plenty of hits in Google/Google News. I'm still looking for non-trivial coverage of this person from reliable third party sources. I haven't given up yet. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rebecca. The Emmy nom points fairly strongly to notability, and the other awards bolster that. I think if we can document that (as we do, above), we have the makings of a reasonable stub. Local coverage, particularly of the emmy nom, would help as well. Google news will be weak here, simply because the subject is also the author of news coverage on other topics - but there'll be something in there as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, being awarded an Emmy is a surefire sign of notability. RFerreira (talk) 23:46, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Highway of Heroes (disambiguation) (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)
Disambiguation with no titles to disambiguate. The Highway of Heroes refers to Highway 401, which already covers the subject (and if you check the version is my sandbox, will be covered in great detail soon). Redirect is pointless, as it is an unlikely title to happen upon. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Highway 401 This page doesn't have a disambiguation category, and nothing but its title suggests that it disambiguates. It is a stub on Highway 401, so merge if there's anything worth merging or if not, delete. In this case, leaving a redirect behind would be worthless and could cause confusion. Boleyn2 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in this article that isn't covered in more detail by Highway 401 - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing really to merge, and a redirect is pointless in this case. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a valueless disambig. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 12 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 deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skank Robbers (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 a fake trailer to generate some sort of response at the BETs, and I can only find blogs/rumors about it becoming a real film. Nothing to indicate notability, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. fetchcomms☛ 04:27, 4 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 SNOW delete. Ok, it's had MORE than a fair trial. Time to execute it. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SEGA of Virgin Islands (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. I can't find any WP:RS via a Google search that indicate that this entity is notable - or that it even exists. The "Official Website" is nothing more than the SEGA logo, and I question if this is a hoax. I believe the article fails WP:V and WP:COMPANY. PDCook (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Note that the entity's web address is sega.vg, with "vg" likely meaning "videogames". Likely this entire article is a front for a domain squatter trying to take Sega's copyright and gain a pretty penny for selling it to them (not that there has been any landrush on .vg to speak of). As for the content, the usual argument; videogame companies only take ideas from developers with agents, not fans, and everything else becomes shredder fodder. YouTube channel has only been up for three weeks and all game marketing in the Caribbean is usually handled by the North American divisions with a few exceptions for those closer to Latin America. Nate • (chatter) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought .vg was for the Virgin Islands. I guess that point is moot anyways; the article needs to go either way. PDCook (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but many sites like bit.ly and del.icio.us are based on domain hacks like this one; for instance the Federated States of Micronesia sees heavy use of the .fm domain by radio stations. The same case seems to exist here, so it's basically a coatrack article IMO that's designed to say "we're a fan group...oh, and we'll sell our domain to you for the right price, Sega!" Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I learn something new every day! PDCook (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if it's a legit subsidiary, one with 6 employees isn't worth mentioning in the parent's company article, let alone have a separate one. See WP:CORP. Pcap ping 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Come on, "focusing exclusively on fan-created content" and "attempting to license several amateur fan projects". Sure, that sounds really legit there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because
- 1. Creator Rick Fields, Resident of Virgin Islands and PR director for SEGA of Virgin Islands, has no other edits.
- 2. Article was created on January 19th.
- 3. On January 18th User 70.189.95.143|, added this "company" to the Cruz Bay, United States Virgin Islands article.
- 4. The You Tube "official channel" was launched on January 18th (but has no content).
- 5. You Tube pages quotes "British Virgin Islands" while Cruz Bay claims allegiance to the US VI.
- in summary, no independent source proving existence. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:36, 4 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 by admin Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Young Twinn (rapper) (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)
Unsourced BLP, cannot find significant coverage of this artist on Google, most hits aren't reliable sources (twitter, myspace, etc.) Article does not establish the subject's notability. fetchcomms☛ 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is on google, his music displays and most of his sources are located on [www.myspace.com/artistyoungtwinn].
- Delete. He has received coverage from one author on 24hourhiphop.com ([39], [40], [41]), but nothing significant that I can find from any other source.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Michig. I should hope we require more than 24hourhiphop for our BLP articles. ;) JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second thought, this should qualify for speedy deletion (CSD A7) no claim to notability is made. JBsupreme (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to absense of significant coverage. RFerreira (talk) 23:47, 4 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. NW (Talk) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Vassar (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 article does not meet any of the criteria for notability in biography. Samopolis (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of significant coverage in the article and non found on Google/News/Books.--Michig (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like a nice guy, but indeed not quite notable. LotLE×talk 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notwithstanding my !vote above, I would urge commenter to evaluate this against WP:GNG or other standards, and not as WP:PROF (despite the deletion sorting). I think PROF has been over-applied as a deletion claim against biographies where there notability claim is different from that. LotLE×talk 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this professor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one link to a message board doesn't cut it. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With all due respect, developer of a message board and being "the youngest coach in National Forensic League history" (not even sourced) do not confer notability. The article is full of red-links related to most other things that might be perceived as claims of notability and there isn't a single source to confirm any of this. An uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. As far as I can tell (e.g. from this link) he's just a Stanford student, whose role with the debate team at Stanford is so minimal that one can't find his name anywhere on the team web site. Being a campaign worker is also not particularly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 6 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) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity (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)
Another in a series of articles listing supposed same-sex relationships by a recently banned user. The article seems to have been abandoned back in August. The biggest problem in this case is that the category named in the title is ill-defined and unexplained. Never mind the referencing, which is a bit sketchy; it doesn't seem to me that the whole concept is notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's thin, it's sources are dubiously applied, and the author has been banned by arbcom for pushing a particularly odious POV that relates tangentally to the content of this article. On point, this is a list, and its criteria for inclusion are fuzzy at best. If there is an encyclopedic topic here, a point on which I have no opinion, then it would be better to start over with a clean and untainted slate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pov fork and coatrack created to further an agenda by an editor shown, time and again, to have distorted/lied about sources and the historical record. It's shocking the extent of the damage this nambla activist was able to do here, for years, unmolested by admins. Wikipedia had a real system failure with that editor (of course there are system failures every day, but in the case of these types -- still a bunch more here -- the urgency is great).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mangoe. I can't imagine anything belonging in this article that couldn't find a better home in Homosexuality in ancient Greece or Homosexuality in ancient Rome. It's obvious that this article was created simply to be contrasted with Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity rather than on its own merits. Jd4v15 (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. POV fork. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:27, 7 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) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Troy Hatt (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 actor. Based on his IMDB page, he doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I couldn't find any mentions in the press showing him meeting WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, we would need much more than IMDb anyhow as it isn't reliable as a sole source for WP:BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation. His early roles were descriptives, not names. This looks like it may change... but has not received significance quite yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:16, 6 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. NW (Talk) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- S. F. Kapoor (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)
Comparatively falls short to become wiki notable, papers are not highly cited... DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several hundred cited papers on Google Scholar. Looks like plenty for notability. LotLE×talk 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There may be a searching problem here. The number of Google Books hits does not jibe with the low citations seen in the Google Scholar search. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The papers on Google Scholar are papers he authored himself, not papers in which he is cited. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The name sounded familiar somehow, but a h-index only of 9 or so [42]. Pcap ping 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pohta ce-am pohtit, low H-index, plus we really don't need any more non-notable WP:BLP articles lying around here. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gnews searches were unavailing, MathSciNet reports 29 citations over a career of 30 years (I know Gscholar produces more, but Pcap already provided the analysis there). I conclude that he is not more notable than the average professor. RayTalk 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tried some searches for evidence that he might pass WP:PROF and came up empty-handed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think traffic statistics are in any way a valid indicator of notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC in that he is not "influential in the world of ideas without (his) biograph(y) being the subject of secondary sources." Kapoor is well published, but he does not appear to be widely cited in other (i.e. secondary) sources. The three "references" included in the article aren't really references at all. Two of them are biogrophies, thereby providing a certain amount of evidence against notability as defined in WP:ACADEMIC. The third is a Google Scholar search, which is not a reference at all. Unless someone can find secondary sources that are not simply biographies, Kapoor cannot be considered notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:21, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mallika Chopra (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)
Comparatively behind to be called as notable with other notable authors, missing reliable sources... DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have added RS now (easily available from Gnews). And has good coverage in media. A good case for WP:BEFORE--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if someone is businessman, it might be quantified in $$$s. Also setting up dotcom or blogs is not a big thing - the trafic measure on them would help further --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She has received widespread independent coverage in multiple secondary sources - both in India as USA and both as an Author and as a businesswoman. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one has to measure it by adding the sources as evidence. She may be notable down the road, she is not there yet.There are out there in the US and in India much superior. Since she lives in the US, US facts may be nore valuable.
--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added 15 references now, from both US and Indian Mainstream media. I believe this is coverage enough. Indian Newspaper sources include The Hindu, Indian Express, Live mint and Times of India. American sources include CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe. All this from clicking GNews link above. Please do read WP:BEFORE.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I believe the subject meets the criteria.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I ask others to jump in and vote. The list of references added is growing exponentially while as the body is shrinking. It would be nice if these references are translated into the body of the article for readability and to balance out. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The body is shrinking" because of copy edits. The information remains the same. If you believe the article is short that is a content issue and not a case for deletion. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. And AfD is a not a numerical voting process.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately these new references fail to address the Comment -1 that I pointed out above. Also these news publications are there simply because there is a string attached to her. The notability goes to the string. I would vote for her if you wait for few more years.
Fyi- I do read Deepak Chopra’s books with respect. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage identifies her as "daughter of deepak chopra" for identification purposes. Other than that there is independent coverage as author and as businesswoman. And some of them don't mention her connection to deepak chopra at all. (check out the negative review for her book in livemint). I have nothing for or against the chopras (as a reader i wont touch deepak chopra's or mallika chopra's books with a barge pole). But i feel the subject is notable enough to be included in wikipedia according to existing guidelines.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say you summarize your findings to correlate with the item numbers of wiki notability (You and I may not agree with wiki notable guidelines). I appreciate your efforts. Hope this article survives. Respectfully I thank you. It is now left to the consensus. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources provided show more than enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per significant coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a classic problem with using Gnews. None of the sources added have Mailika Chopra as their subject. Being mentioned or quoted in an article that has something else as its subject, does not qualify as significant coverage, even if the person has been a quoted a dozen different times. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does her being quoted/company in context of her book or her company count as coverage for her?. I believe the coverage for the book and the company's launch are covering her as well. Out of the 15 refs, 6 are reviews for her own book in which she is quoted/interviewed, 2 are about the launch of her company in which she is named CEO. So it goes like this - Subject X does Action Y, Action Y gets covered in the media and Subject X along with it as the primary doer of Y.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Traffic statistics are not a measure of notability. If that is so, a lot of obscure subjects will not be covered at all. If your logic is extended then a lot of scientific and historical articles can be deleted easily. Only articles that will survive are current events and film related ones.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I meant the current Bios - here is an example [43] Jhumpa_Lahiri --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -Help me understand - cited o times on google scholar the books shown in Bibliography. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Books from bibliography are cited o times in Google scholar - [1]There are many non-fictions by other wiki notables cited many times in Google scholar. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She is not an academic and her books are not academic works. She writes parenting books for general consumption. You will not find a majority of non fiction works (especially on subjects like self help, parenting, cooking, lifestlye etc) cited in google scholar.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The claim is she an American writer – she must compete in that category. Someone might be a CEO, founder CEO or Director – the value of the sale and $$$ (tangible) that someone will look into. Barnes and Nobel bookstore has a shelves for book on parenting etc.. and likewise those authors and their books are found in wiki as wiki notables. o cites in Google may mean they cease to exist as popular books for reading for anyone. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what do gscholar cites have to do with "popularity"?. Amazon sales rank maybe but academic citations?. And what is this whole thing with "competing"?. And what is this "claim" about american writer. She is american, she writes books. both are facts. o cites in Google may mean they cease to exist as popular books for reading for anyone (how conveniently you have left off the "scholar" after google here?).--Sodabottle (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claim you askedI referred to her introduction in the page - "American author and businesswoman". The credit on comics goes to her brother. I ran out of time - I meant scholar google. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a claim. those are facts. And regarding virgin comics, Check the 16th ref. it specifically states she is a member of the board of directors of virgin comics. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is another string. She is a director to her brother's comics!!! Hard to find independent accomplishments to call her wiki notable. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is a family run business. But she is still a member of the board. By your logic Mukesh Ambani is not notable because now he runs the company his father started (or any second generation business family executive will not be notable). What is this you are going on about "wiki notable"?. WP:BIO is the relevant guideline involved here. (the specific line applicable her being A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.) It is independent coverage that is necessary for notability and she has had lots of it. And i have established with independent refs in multiple secondary sources that the subject has that coverage. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is your take on this? Notability is not inherited. They are many out there who have become notable otherwise. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki notable means notable as per wiki rules (who trusts wiki articles - there are many who are kind of do not trust). The one who is not notable here might be notable for others e.g. other Encyclopedia. Also Village Patel may be notable for the villagers...--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You and I are trying for the split milk for nothing. No one is coming forward to close it off. If Mallika Chopra had seen this, she would have asked us not to bother – This wouldn’t make any difference to her life.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- usually closure happens in 7 days. maybe there is a backlog or simply the deadline is by EST and it hasnt expired yet. Anyway this is not for mallika chopra, this is about building an encyclopaedia. A wikipedia entry is not a PR exercise/popularity reward--Sodabottle (talk) 15:34, 11 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sundar V. Nadkarni (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)
He maynot be a National Akademi award winner, but is a state level winner. So now I understood that he is a wiki notable. Thanks. DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A Sahitya Akademi award is a national award even if awarded for regional languages. But i am not seeing the subject's name in the Sahitya Akademi Award to Kannada Writers. If he is indeed a sahitya akademi awardee, then keep.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment-actually this person received state level 'karnataka sahitya akademy award' in 1978 for his book "Mandi Mane"(awarded by govt of karnataka) not national award which is given by govt of india. problem is lack of sources, where to find 1970's/80's archives? 59.96.204.231 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Karnataka Sahitya Akademi Award is sufficient for notability. A state with a population of 50+ million, and one of the most notable awards in literature for a language spoken by over 40 million. Worldcat also indicates significant holdings of his book (there are multiple spelling variations of the name, so searches will have to be expanded). —SpacemanSpiff 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per SpacemanSpiff. I don't otherwise know the award, but I accept that it is sufficiently prestigious for an article on recipient. LotLE×talk 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although the Karnataka Sahitya Akademi Award is only a regional award, not the national Sahitya Akademi Award, that region encompasses 52 million people. That is larger than many other nations. The award is comparable to national awards of most other countries. It certainly is prestigious enough to establish an individual as notable. — CactusWriter | needles 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - see the history of this page about Nadkarni (It had set backs). It was not understood the importance of Academy award from another country with their 52 million people..." --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why I listed for afd It was difficult for me to conclude why Central Academy and state Academy are equivalent. For example, in the US there is one academy award which looks into all over the world. I would like to see such things more elaborated in wiki notable guidelines. That’s why I listed Nadkarni for afd. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:14, 7 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:SNOW (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikil Dutt (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)
Comparatively it looks like he may not be wiki notable - needs updating the facts DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Substantial book list. Editor-in-chief of an ACM journal. Looks like substantial notability per WP:PROF and/or WP:GNG. LotLE×talk 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. GS cites are 999, 326, 227, 169 ... etc. h index = 46, if I counted correctly. Superlative pass at WP:Prof #1. Also holds named chair and passes Prof #5. Served as Editor-in-Chief of ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems (TODAES) between 2004-2008 so passes WP:Prof #8. Nomination is so inadequate that I have to conclude that it was likely made in bad faith. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, Highly cited, h-index above 40, journal editorships, including being an Editor-in-Chief, plus IEEE Fellow. More than enough to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I suggest a speedy close. The nominator himself says that the subject is likely notable and does not appear to advocate deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a IEEE Fellow alone qualifies for notability under the WP:PROF standard, besides all the other reasons listed above. Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above. Salih (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW? Bearian (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Xxanthippe. JBsupreme (talk) 07:27, 4 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) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The miozi network (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 company with NO coverage in independent sources, no sources provided in the article, none found in a Google search on "miozi network" (which brings up approx. 7 results total). Article had been PRODed, but PROD was removed by article creator. Kalervo (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a possible conflict of interest involved (compare the username of the article creator and the name of the company's founder). Kalervo (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable even by interplanetary standards ("this extract leads many people to speculate that The Miozi Network may one day be the primary data transporter for interplanetary nodes"). - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete the article. I was not aware of Wikipedia's rules for posting as this was my first article (thought you just needed sources). This company does exist but it does not have any online independent sources. As a learning experience could someone tell me how it was written to much like an advertisement. Jakerules007 (talk) 04:19, 4 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. NW (Talk) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take Off magazine (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 is predominately an unreferenced list of the contents of a series of magazines and thus completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. With all the unreferenced text removed the article would only consist of one remaining sentence. Inherently non-encyclopedic Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Article was prodded twice with the same concerns, tags removed without any edit summary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, looks like a phone book, fails WP:NOTDIR. Crum375 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete This isn't the place for the contents page as presented in the article, but I'd have to say that the subject is probably notable on its own. But its probably easiest to scrap this and start over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is likely notable but the table of contents sections should be removed. RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with Ahunt, plus there's a lot of unfinished stuff, which I consider Pointless. Minimac94 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the current article but think that the subject could meet WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals if written properly (which the current article isnt).--RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin - There's a dab page (two actually) by the same creator for the sole purpose of this article at Take Off (disambiguation) (and Take Off (disambiguation).) that should be probably be deleted if this is deleted. Shadowjams (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's some coverage here, although I don't know whether it counts as significant.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:32, 4 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.
It is amazing that only under the threat of deletion, people come up with something that resembles sources. The result was withdrawn by nominator. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Die Antwoord (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)
Speedy declined after somebody claimed that this group had received coverage in Beeld, Die Burger, and Rapport without citing any sources for that claim. I did the search, and all I could find was a short note that one of their members went missing. In addition, their album $O$ is merely announced as "upcoming" and all the places I looked are basically blog-like forums or venues. (WP:N) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just came to Wikipedia to learn more about them after hearing about then from a friend and a blog, so I'd say it's worth keeping. They seem legit and noteworthy. --LakeHMM (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You heard from a friend and a blog? Unfortunately, that's not how wikipedia works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From this review, it sounds like Ninja is the alter-ego of a relatively well-known figure in South African hiphop, Watkin Tudor Jones. There is already a Wikipedia article for one of his previous projects, The Constructus Corporation. I think the article should be kept and expanded as more information becomes available. -zorblek (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What nobody here understands is that we do not write entries with a rationale along the lines of "I think they will be famous in a few years, therefore we need to write about them to speed up the fame" -- Read WP:CRYSTAL... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Rapport article is here. It's more like a feature and doesn't really say much about the importance of this band but mentions the debut was at Ramfest near Worchester in 2009. This piece also mentions the band and seems to be a somewhat independent source. The Rapport weekly has quite a large circulation. No opinion as to whether this is sufficient for survival here, though. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Choyooł, I'm sorry you have such a problem with this band, but you are the only person proposing deletion. If a single other person suggests it, it will be worth considering, but otherwise it seems like a personal vendetta. 11:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.140.24 (talk)
- What policy are you referring to? (see WP:ILIKEIT) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an increasing amount of coverage of Die Antwoord over the past couple of days by major media organizations (for evidence, take a look at this Google News search). They might not have been notable a month ago, but that is clearly changing. -zorblek (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I like their sound, and I concur that coverage seems to be increasing, for whatever reason - but a lot of that coverage is in blogs and similar venues, which doesn't count when looking at notability. The thinking there is that anyone can write anything in a blog; for notability, we need proper media coverage. So, the question becomes, is there such coverage? The google news link posted above by Zorblek seems to be almost all blogs and brief mentions, so that doesn't help much. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repost here what I said on the talk page:
- Boing Boing is a blog, but Vice Magazine is - as one might expect - a magazine (and that interview is in the website's "In the Magazine" section), and Vulture is part of the New York Magazine website. If you take a look at WP:RS, I think you'll find that it discriminates between news organizations, not the media that they use. The article needs better sourcing, but that is not grounds for deletion.
- While many of the results are from blogs, many of them are from blogs that are part of major news organizations. These aren't some random guy in his basement writing about music. -zorblek (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repost here what I said on the talk page:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough sources. --Sloane (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I feel like there is a lot of coverage right now about the band. Their videos on Youtube have a lot of hits and they have been mentioned on some major blogs. Thesloth (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the reasons I stated above -zorblek (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A very reliable media source: http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-02-05-die-antwoord-how-an-afrikaans-zef-rap-trio-electrified-the-planet - Cheers, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.70.129 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Keep!* - These guys are blowing up all around the internet, live as we speak. The act's constituents are all well known from previous South African entertainment incarnations. As a group, Die Antwoord now has several top-end, television quality music videos under their belts as well as a CD released on a decent label. They are known and beloved throughout much of the Commonwealth Empire and the English-speaking world.--AStanhope (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more info form source channel24. This is a reputable news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FNC (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't be idiotic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:46, 5 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) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alpine New Wave (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)
Only 75 hits for this genre on Google and many of them seem to be the same 2 or 3 sites mirrored over and over. It seems to be more a neologism rather then a genre. Totally unreferenced and basically unchanged since 2005. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a genre. smithers - talk 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 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 merge to American Society for Psychical Research. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston Society for Psychical Research (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 was tagged via CSD, however it looks to me like they have been influential in their sphere. Taking to discussion here. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Historic organization backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep- Google books yields a lot of hits that seem to establish the notability of this former organization. Pseudoscience is not an area I am familiar with, nor is psychology, so I cannot be 100% sure that all these hits are reliable but I feel that it's likely enough of them are to justify an article on this topic. Reyk YO! 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to American Society for Psychical Research. This could make a small section in that article, with this being a redirect. Would produce a more encyclopaedic treatment for both, in context. I wouldn't oppose an early close to do this if there are no objections. Verbal chat 10:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection from me. As the submitter I would be fine with this, but also as the submitter it would be inappropriate for me to close. Someone else want to do the honours? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to American Society for Psychical Research. Lacks significant coverage to warrant its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Verbal et al. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GoatTracker (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 significant independent coverage for this software. Pcap ping 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are two PDFs given as references, but just because something appears in PDF format, it does make it a reliable source. One is from "SIDin Magazine", which describes itself as "A Sid paper magazine for Sid people!" and at the bottom has "Wants to contribute? e-mail me." The other is a tutorial from The C64 scene database, a site with user-contributed contents. It also appears in a book from Alphascript Publishing (no editorial control), and that appears to be a rip off Wikipedia; see [44]. Pcap ping 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no idea if "SIDin Magazine" is qualified as a reliable source but I am going to guess it isn't. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For all practical purpose is a WP:SPS. The article is authored by Stefano Tognon, the same guy that edits the magazine. The magazine was cited in a footnote here, but that doesn't seem enough to make it a WP:RS. The SIDin articles are written in pretty bad English, so they're rather useless... Pcap ping 09:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stumbled upon this while looking through different tracker pages, it's definitely notable and useful. Shii (tock) 23:14, 10 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Margot Hutcheson (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)
We seem to be getting multiple CSD nominations for this article, however I suspect that's because the editor wasn't aware of wiki markup. I've done some cleanup, but still the CSD tagging continues. I don't believe it should be deleted, because of her relationship with Peter Carey, and the fact that she is prominent enough to be shown in the Australian Victorian Art Gallery. I'm taking this to review to clear this matter up. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Her association with Peter Carey is of no relevance here as notability isn't inherited. She is mentioned in passing in at least one Australian newspaper article, as the artist he lived with, but it should be noted that the article is about him and she is just mentioned. Her one real claim to notability is that one of her paintings is in the Victorian Art Gallery collection (added in 1988). Other than that, there are only a couple of small exhibitions. Any sourced mention of her is in publications about Carey, where she is only mentioned in passing. At best, this should be merged with his article as she does not appear to have independent notability per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Currently, the Carey article does not mention her. I know nothing of Carey, so I don't know if adding her is appropriate. But on its own, this article is unsourced with no apparent sources available which are independent of her relationship with Carey. Likewise, one painting in a museum's permanent collection is insufficient to establish notability. freshacconci talktalk 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Peter Carey article now notes her association with Carey, and verifiable and reliable references have been found. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been rewritten throughout since the nom.[45] Ty 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Peter Carey article now notes her association with Carey, and verifiable and reliable references have been found. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the substance of nom's words, and looking at the sites therein already. She is exhibited at a prominent museum. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've found additional references, which are listed at Talk:Margot Hutcheson#References. Collections include: National Gallery of Victoria (Melbourne), the Museum of Contemporary Art (Brisbane), the University of New South Wales, and National Library of Australia. Ty 14:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per references above. She is connected to a prominent gallery in Sydney as well...Modernist (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per museum collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:09, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FillAnyPdf (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 Swarm(Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete: There is significant coverage for this software. I can list it here if desired. Some is listed in the article. More is available. RadUser101 4:50 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete- I cannot find any reliable, third party sources that would demonstrate the notability of this software. There's lots of software in the world; most of it is not notable, and Wikipedia is not intended to be a database that lists everything that exists. Reyk YO! 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Zero coverage in google news or books. Two blog reviews, one of which has gone missing are not sufficient per WP:GNG. Pcap ping 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
- Delete no notability asserted besides it exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After re-reading the notability guidelines I will list more specifically.
Also, I fixed the broken link that made it appear as if one of the articles "went missing". Sorry about that, doesn't help the case very much to have broken links.
To continue, a basic google search reveals articles by the following sources in the United States:
Lifehacker.com
Sitestouse.com
Appvita.com
Revolution Hour
Million Clues
EngineeringADebtFreeLife.com
ziki.com
SocialMedian
FrugalFocus
Gecko & Fly
Simple Savings Blog
DiscoveryEducation.com
gaj-it.com
47hats.com
And there are mentions in Other Countries as well:
United Kingdom: http://www.techseed.co.uk/archive/2009/10/misc/fillanypdfcom-online-and-interactive-form-processing/9595.html
France: http://www.jeanmariegall.com/2009/09/11/fillanypdf-editer-enregistrer-et-partager-des-pdf-en-ligne/
Italy: http://www.navigaweb.net/2009/11/scrivere-e-firmare-i-file-pdf-per.html
Russia (newspaper): http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/2009/09/17/214093
Based on this information, I believe the criteria of notability is met, and request for the article to not be deleted. raduser101 - 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many of these are reliable sources. Most of these look like blogs. I tried to search for reliable sources to establish notability, but couldn't find any. Swarm(Talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lifehacker, the first item on the list, is one of the most read blogs on the internet, and is reliable. (Note the definition of reliable does not exclude blogs altogether but says to look at the reliability of the blog in reference.) The last item on the list above is not a blog but a newspaper. RadUser101 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.102.86 (talk) [reply]
- He is actually right, this appeared just 19 hours ago on Lifehacker. Lucky timing for this article I guess. Pcap ping 15:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lifehacker, the first item on the list, is one of the most read blogs on the internet, and is reliable. (Note the definition of reliable does not exclude blogs altogether but says to look at the reliability of the blog in reference.) The last item on the list above is not a blog but a newspaper. RadUser101 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.102.86 (talk) [reply]
- Weak keep per Lifehacker and Vedomosti articles; the latter is behind a paywall, so I cannot judge depth of coverage. It seems this is just passing the threshold into notability. It might have to be userfied though given how this AfD went. Pcap ping 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Lifehacker helps but it is only a minor review/post about the product. No where near enough RS to establish notability. 16x9 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Lifehacker is 6 paragraphs, not counting the text copied from the site reviewed, and appears normal for a review rather than minor. Raduser101 (talk)
- comment- !voting
twicethree time? 16x9 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - comment- actually where I was adding anything, I was just copying the format of the line above each entry since I'm not good with html. So I'll just use this format for commenting on other people's entries if necessary. No mischief intended since I signed each one Raduser101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Kim Komando has a nationwide radio show the site says "is the largest weekend show in the nation" and featured FillAnyPdf as "Cool Site of the Day" http://www.komando.com/coolsites/index.aspx?id=8160 Raduser101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 10 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 Userfy to User:CitiField2010/Sacred Heart School (Merrick, New York) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacred Heart School (Merrick, New York) (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 school. Swarm(Talk) 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete Sacred Heart School from wikipedia. i swear that everything that i put up is real, and i wanted to put this up for all my classmates and schoolmates and teachers to see. Once again please dont delete this. if i have violated anything then just tell me what i did so i can fix it please. it would really mean a lot to me if you would keep this up until i am finished and then you could make up your mind. thank you from, CitiField2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CitiField2010 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - currently a mess, but possibly could be fixed and sourced. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - If we wikify this and add a few reliable sources, I see no reason to delete. MMS2013 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - as above. (GregJackP (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions and i am open to more but just getting back to MMS2013's comment thank you for agreeing with me that it is still being made and is not finished and at the end of this construction of the page i will add some socrces, also how do i wikify this? CitiField2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.9.109 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To 'userfy' the page, you need to click the 'move' tab at the top of the article page. When that page opens, you will see a box that says 'to new title' and the current title of the page. You will need to insert your user page info, so the title would now read 'User:CitiField2010/Sacred Heart School (Merrick, New York)' - this will allow you to work on the final article and get it in a format that is compatible with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. While you are working on the article in your user space, it is not displayed in the public view, but you can request feedback by posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I'm sure that I have probably left something off, so if I did, please ask, and I'm sure one of the other editors can answer it (probably better than I could). (GregJackP (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I am finished with the Article. and if you read it, i am Dylan Sandas and i am in 7th Grade (still at the School). So give me your comments, good or bad. even give me more suggestions on how to make this article better. Thank You CitiField2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.9.109 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (by nominator) - If there's an obvious consensus for userfy before the full 7 days, I would be fine with an early closure of this discussion and userfication. Swarm(Talk) 01:15, 5 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) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Montevideo Motor Show (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:CORP. a non notable motor show [46]. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is there a lack of notability, the current show is from 2.5 years ago. Orphan, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SPAM a {{prod}} would have worked too. Jeepday (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to El País the first show was actually in 1923, not 1995.[47] This search confirms that there was a historical Montevideo Motor Show, but it's unclear whether the modern show described in this article is related. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After coming back from my cigarette break I see that the search linked by the nominator actually demonstrates the show's notability rather than its non-notability. Or can someone explain what is wrong with those sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the sources mainly verify the existence of the motor show rather than show in depth coverage. WP:V is not the same as WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This could well be an English language problem - there could be verifiable sources in Spanish. But if there are, they're not listed and I can't find them. With the information I can find, I can only conclude that this is not a notable event.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Couture (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. I deprodded this because, as noted on its talk page, there are many possible good sources, and arguably, she could be notable. I also noticed much vandalism on the page, so I semi-protected it for 24 hours. No opinion on the substance of deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her notability limit it self to being the ex of Randy Couture, that is the only reason these fights were track and that ther are people actually cared wat she has to say. Other then that she hasn't accomplished anything, she is a terrible fighter 1-2. I doubt that being the ex of an mma star is inuff to be notable.GSP-Rush (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to fail WPMA/N. Janggeom (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is independent coverage in reliable sources, and the coverage focuses on the subject (as opposed to focusing on Randy Couture, whose (ex-)wife happens to also fight). It's thin, absolutely, but it (barely) meets minimum standards, I believe. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. as she presently fails WPMA/N. It is too early to tell where this will go, perhaps a few months down the road she will have elevated above our notability standards. Til then... JBsupreme (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete without prejudice." LOL, thanks for making me laugh. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the coverage is thin right now, but I feel this makes the hurdle over our notability standards. RFerreira (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,while the article is small it can be lengthened through reliable sources and more media attention. She has just started her MMA career and that is no reason to delete it.Also the fact that she is Randy's ex-wife should not matter. Also people's opinions about her shouldn't be a reason for deletion.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Comment. If we are considering the subject's MMA career as a point to support notability, I would actually see 'just starting' her MMA career as a reason for deletion—unless the start has been spectacular. Just a brief thought. Janggeom (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly. The fact that "she has just started her MMA career" is the basis for deletion to begin with. JBsupreme (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interesting thing is, the coverage of her just started career is probably greater than would be typical - because of her ex-husband. Not sure what to do with that, but there it is. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject does not meet WPMA/N. Male MMA fighters with more experience and better records have been deleted for this reason. Her one victory was over a fighter who has never lasted an entire round in any of her fights. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think this AfD emphasizes the problems with WP:ATHLETE. Is being a professional athlete in a more obscure sport sufficient? WP:ATHLETE, which is a guideline, says yes, WP:WPMA/N, which is an essay, says no. Pcap ping 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Covered in USA Today, and FOX News [48], so meets WP:GNG. Pcap ping 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pcap. I think she meets the guidelines generally and specifically, based on the best available sources. The most common outcome in the past is that a professional athlete who has played even once is kept. Whether wrestling is a sport is a question that is beyond the scope of this discssion. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep references available per Pcap. Meets athlete which delete comments do not address fully. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:14, 11 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.