Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination rationale lacks credibility, borderline vandalism. Non-admin closing. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Camera (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 notable enough. JMartin44 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Search engine optimization. JForget 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Optimized Searching (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 seems to be a manual. Does this meet csd? Blue Rasberry 04:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete After all the content that had been copied word for word from http://www.optimizedsearching.com/ has been removed, all that remains is the intro and some references to Google books. It could be redirected to Search engine optimization, perhaps. --bonadea contributions talk 05:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete for Bonadea's exact reasons. This campaign by Kamtech2010 (talk · contribs) has been going on for almost two months now. Haakon (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Search engine optimization, salt Kam Optimized searching which has been repeatedly recreated by the creator of this page, report spam-only, coi, and company name account to WP:AIV. (Will do the latter part myself) --Pgallert (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Page creator now indef-blocked. --Pgallert (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under g10. Do notredirect to Search engine optimization. (This was the option rejected by the article creator, who expressed a need to get this "published." Now I know why.)This is not a likely search term. Apparently it's just the name of the webpage he was trying to promote.Recommend SALT.Dlohcierekim 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kam Optimized searching has been salted. Reading the creator's talk and and edit history, it's impressive they were not blocked sooner. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flipped back to redirect. the title is a valid topic. Dlohcierekim 13:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I edited the nom'd article bcz it showed up at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup and summarized
- Change Cats calls (mostly aggressively alpha'd spam) to Cat refs
- believing that the usurpation of the role i think of as "first-listed article on the Category, which explains what the Cat is defined by", on that Cat pg & 8 others, was an intentional
SOESEO measure by the author, with the intent to spam our users. Investigating further, i find it likely those usurpations are likely to be the result of a clueless editor using an "Article Wizard" that may offer some traps for it presumably uniformly clueless editors. I conclude that my imputation of bad faith to the editor in question (the originator of the nom'd article) was unjustified, and that there is a high probability that no "aggressive use of the alphabetizing parameter" of the Cat invocations was intended. My apologies to all concerned.
--Jerzy•t 21:07 & 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Search engine optimization. The article is basically one sentence. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:55, 2 April 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 nom. This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though. --Rschen7754 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ventura Freeway (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)
Topic adequately covered in U.S. Route 101 in California and California State Route 134. Rschen7754 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a set index page like Mackinac Trail. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's an official separate entity than U.S. Route 101 in California and it would be inaccurate to describe it entirely as US 101. In Los Angeles on traffic reports, this route is almost always termed the "Ventura Freeway", not US 101 or California 134. While US 101 is generally a north-south route, Caltrans designated the Ventura County and part of the Los Angeles County sections as the "Ventura Freeway" because in those sections, it is an east-west route. "US 101" regains its noth-south distinction as the "Hollywood Freeway" south of the Ventura Freeway-Hollywood Freeway interchange, where then US 101 continues south as the latter name. West of that interchange, the Ventura Freeway continues with the designation as California 134 until it meets I-210 in Pasadena. The reason for the Ventura Freeway officially being designated over 2 different numbered routes is to avoid confusion for motorists so this entire east-west route is always known as the "Ventura Freeway". Additionally, the Ventura Freeway is distinguishly known in American culture in both music and literature. --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per nom, information from this article is already covered in two other articles. This article can be converted to a set index page, retaining the name for search functionality. The set index page can further describe where the Ventura Freeway designation exists on the other two article pages, unlike a standard disambiguation page where the format only allows for a list of articles related to the name. Duplication across so many pages of otherwise identical information makes article maintenance more difficult. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But nowhere do we describe it entirely as US 101. Hence the set index page. --Rschen7754 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The freeway is notable in itself and is not synonymous with the two numbered highways that it contains. In news articles it is always referred to as the Ventura Freeway and only parenthetically as a numbered freeway; for example, [1], [2]. Most locals could not even tell you which segments are the 101 and which are the 134; it's just the Ventura Freeway. It was originally (1947) created as the Ventura Parkway and was only given numbered designations later.[3]. It is notable under this name and Wikipedia needs an article on it - just as most other named freeways in Los Angeles are known by their names rather than their numbers and have articles under their names. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists. There's no reason that a good set index page can't cover what needs to be covered about the Ventura Freeway name, and redirect readers to the other articles for more information, reducing the redundancy between articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade and MelanieN. It's got its own song,
plus a set index is for items that "share the same (or similar) name", not the case here. Ah, you don't mean a set index, you mean a roaddis. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep as disambiguation page between US 101 in CA and CA 134. ---Dough4872 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Just because the Ventura Freeway is co-signed with other numbered roads doesn't make it not independently significant. US 101 is a quite lengthy road in California, and its not uncommon for significant named highways to have their own articles, see, e.g., Cross Bronx Expressway (NY highway, a portion of which is signed as U.S. 1), John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (a portion of Interstate 95 in Maryland), and New Jersey Turnpike (a portion of which is signed as Interstate 95 in New Jersey). Older highways which predate the interstate highway system, and thus are often in some of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, are independently notable and should usually have an article covering them.--Milowent (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have to agree with the non-disambiguation keeps. The Ventura Freeway is notable in its own right. If all of the Ventura were part of US 101 or CA 134, I would support merging there. --Fredddie™ 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: All limited access highways are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the debate is about. --Rschen7754 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article breaks topic hierarchy as advocated by WP:SUMMARY. Those voting Keep in this discussion do not appear to understand the way the U.S. highway articles on Wikipedia are structured and maintained. To illustrate, let's take the example of the Cross Bronx Expressway given by Milowent above.
- The Cross Bronx Expressway article works because of the nature of how road articles are structured on Wikipedia: we start with a general overview, then scale down to progressively smaller snippets of road. So it goes I-95 → I-95 in New York → Cross Bronx Expressway. In this case, in the I-95 article, for the portion covered by articles of smaller scope (like I-95 (NY) and CBE) we provide a brief summary of the other article. If you need more information than that summary provides, you drill down to the next level.
- The Ventura Freeway is a name given to a small section of two other routes. In this case, you have four articles involved: US 101, US 101 in CA, CA 134, and the Ventura article. Because the Ventura name applies to two different highways, we can't just say "See Ventura Freeway for more details" on their two pages; if someone is on the CA 134, then the article they're being linked to will also contain things that apply to US 101 and not CA 134. If someone is expressly looking for CA 134 information, this is likely to confuse. This is especially evident when you consider that we provide exit lists on each freeway article; the same list in the CA 134 article and the US 101 in CA article is going to have to be duplicated in the Ventura Freeway article. It is much simpler editorially to provide separate information on US 101 (CA) and CA 134, and if someone is looking for information on "Ventura Freeway" in particular, then they can be told via a dab page "This name refers to a segment of these two highways; what part of the Ventura Freeway do you want?"
- Clarityfiend above noted that the Ventura Freeway is mentioned in a song. This is an argument for judging notability, yes, but notability is not what we're trying to judge here, and not the only metric which determines what gets an article. Were one to be arguing that the Ventura Freeway (or just its name) was not going to be covered on Wikipedia at all, this would be a good thing to point out. However, that's not what's being debated here; all of the Ventura Freeway will still be covered in Wikipedia, and the name will be noted in the other articles that are covering it. What's being debated here is just whether there will be a page which covers only the sections of the two roads that are called "Ventura Freeway"
- In essence, this article hinders the editorial process on Wikipedia by creating an article with content that will substantially duplicate the others, causing the article maintainers to waste their time patrolling and updating two articles when one will do. It has no place in the hierarchy of articles that is standard in the U.S. road section of Wikipedia, and thus makes applying WP:SUMMARY difficult. It needs to go. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What if I wanted information on the whole Ventura Freeway? By your logic, I have to go to two articles for this one road. --Fredddie™ 04:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about the New York State Thruway, its similar in that it is co-signed with a number of different routes, but has its own article as well.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What if I wanted information on the whole Ventura Freeway? By your logic, I have to go to two articles for this one road. --Fredddie™ 04:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: (to help me decide how to vote). I get that this article, if kept, will be redundant to California State Route 134. However, if fully developed, wouldn't the article for U.S. Route 101 in California be so big, that it should be split into sub-articles? Then, could this article focus on the US-101 part of the Ventura Freeway and be structured to be a sub-article of US-101 in California?Dave (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that there is inherent overlap of not one but two articles. If the article just overlaps a smaller section of just one article, that's okay, because we can use summary style to allow the reader to form a chain of articles in their mind, with a broad-subject article at the top, progressively drilling down to the bottom where you have the narrowest subject. I have this diagrammed out at User:Scott5114/Hierarchy. If the Ventura Freeway article were to become a sub-article of US-101, that would leave it out of the CA-134 hierarchy, and vice-versa. The only thing that US 101 and CA 134 have in common are this section of freeway. Having this article merges the two concepts' article chains. That makes navigation harder because it causes the reader to have to conflate these two concepts for the mental map in their head to reflect the way the articles are structured. And that's a factually incorrect mental model to have.
- The New York State Thruway is not comparable because it is a route system. In addition to what most people call "the Thruway" (the mainline route), you also have I-86 (which crosses the mainline thruway at right angles) and the New England Thruway (a portion of I-95 that doesn't even connect to the mainline thruway) in the system. Also, this highway system is administered by a completely different agency (there is a Thruway Authority that handles only the Thruway system).
- Look at this from another point of view—is there anything inherent about the Ventura Freeway that would not be covered in the CA 134 and US 101 articles? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is similar to the situation in Detroit between I-75 and I-375. I-75 comes north from Ohio on the Detroit–Toledo Freeway before it becomes the Fisher Freeway. The Fisher runs parallel to the Detroit River. The Chrysler Freeway started near the river and runs away from it. This section is I-375. Where the Fisher and the Chrysler meet, I-75 takes a right-angle turn to leave the Fisher and use the Chrysler to head out of Detroit. The Chrysler Freeway carries two different Interstate Highway designations, just like the Ventura Freeway carries two different highway designations. Chrysler Freeway actually redirects to the Interstate 75 in Michigan article, if only because I-375 is the shortest, signed Interstate Highway in the nation, and the fact that I-375 also runs on the Chrysler can be adequately summarized in both Interstate articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Chrysler Freeway redirects because you redirected[4] it, Imzadi1979.--Milowent (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 2 years ago when I made those redirects, there was nothing in the article that couldn't be covered in the I-75 article, which is my point. Articles that are redundant to each other should be merged together, using redirects or variations on the disambiguation page scheme as necessary. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But just because you redirected that one doesn't mean there aren't many examples of named roads that are also co-signed with other roads and which retain their own articles, like Henry Hudson Parkway.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 2 years ago when I made those redirects, there was nothing in the article that couldn't be covered in the I-75 article, which is my point. Articles that are redundant to each other should be merged together, using redirects or variations on the disambiguation page scheme as necessary. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Chrysler Freeway redirects because you redirected[4] it, Imzadi1979.--Milowent (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is similar to the situation in Detroit between I-75 and I-375. I-75 comes north from Ohio on the Detroit–Toledo Freeway before it becomes the Fisher Freeway. The Fisher runs parallel to the Detroit River. The Chrysler Freeway started near the river and runs away from it. This section is I-375. Where the Fisher and the Chrysler meet, I-75 takes a right-angle turn to leave the Fisher and use the Chrysler to head out of Detroit. The Chrysler Freeway carries two different Interstate Highway designations, just like the Ventura Freeway carries two different highway designations. Chrysler Freeway actually redirects to the Interstate 75 in Michigan article, if only because I-375 is the shortest, signed Interstate Highway in the nation, and the fact that I-375 also runs on the Chrysler can be adequately summarized in both Interstate articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another question: Can anyone answer if any part of CA 134 is not part of the Ventura Freeway? --Fredddie™ 04:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of CA 134 is the Ventura Freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To build off of Dave's idea, we could merge CA 134 and the US 101 section into Ventura and summarize the US 101 section on US 101 in CA. --Fredddie™ 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be over 13 miles of off-topic content for the US 101 article.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no. Just the part about US 101 would be summarized. --Fredddie™ 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be over 13 miles of off-topic content for the US 101 article.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To build off of Dave's idea, we could merge CA 134 and the US 101 section into Ventura and summarize the US 101 section on US 101 in CA. --Fredddie™ 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of CA 134 is the Ventura Freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at this from another point of view—is there anything inherent about the Ventura Freeway that would not be covered in the CA 134 and US 101 articles? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone has access to LA Times archive, I'd like to see this[5] article and any other features done on the Ventura Freeway, for fleshing out a history section in the article.--Milowent (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a similar situation, see San Diego Freeway. --Rschen7754 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about New York Avenue (Washington, D.C.). Another metropolitan thoroughfare, its U.S. 50 and U.S.1 Route 1 Alternate at different points. I am having trouble finding any consistency.--Milowent (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) (ETA: e.g., Cherokee Turnpike, which is a segment of US-412 in Oklahoma)--Milowent (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Rschen7754 05:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New York Avenue is basically a highway for a good portion.--Milowent (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your Cherokee Turnpike example isn't good here either, because Cherokee Turnpike only has one numbered designation. --Rschen7754 05:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if a road overlaps with only one numbered highway, its ok to have its own article? Am trying to understand the conventions here.--Milowent (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. We have Interstate 5 and Interstate 5 in California, yet we don't have Interstate 76 (west) and Interstate 76 in Nebraska. There has to be enough information for a separate article. Not just a separate article, a separate article that is actually worth reading. --Rschen7754 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if a road overlaps with only one numbered highway, its ok to have its own article? Am trying to understand the conventions here.--Milowent (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to those voting keep - As the article currently is, is there anything worth keeping that is not covered in U.S. Route 101 in California or California State Route 134? If you remove all of the duplicated information, do you have enough for a standalone article? Also, this debate is about redundancy, not notability. --Rschen7754 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bleh. There's no way to handle this well. Disambiguation is a bad idea since you can't link to a disambiguation, but there are legitimate reasons to link to Ventura Freeway. But if it's not important enough for a separate article - which I'm not convinced it is (unlike Santa Ana Freeway and friends, it wasn't one of the early freeways with a lot of history; the history is really split between 101 and 134) - what are you going to do? It seems that there might be a need for disambiguation pages that can be linked to, and for which links to should not be fixed. These would be essentially permastubs, pointing to the separate designations for more information. --NE2 06:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Mackinac Trail isn't a pure disambiguation page anymore. It's actually been tagged now as a "set index", some new type of page I never heard about until I looked at the page earlier tonight. The gadget that color-codes the title of an article based on assessment classes calls it that. From what I read about them, these "set indices" would be a hybrid between a pure disambiguation page and a permastub, which is why I suggested it for this case. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:27, 29 March 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. JForget 02:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 3D Custom Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find significant coverage for this game, and a lot of Google results are torrents/other assorted download sites, Youtube, etc. fetchcomms☛ 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not enough references to identify context, but try Japanese search, probably there will be references. Even if, I don't think this game is notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage, appears to lack notability. EuroPride (talk) 11:51, 29 March 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 keep. No deletion recommendations, and nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every Little Thing (band) (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, couldn't find any non-trivial independent references. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep on the basis that sources for a Japanese band aren't necessarily going to be readily accesible by English speakers, and one can reasonably assume that such sources would exist for a band that has apparently sold millions of albums and singles. (Google image searches instantly return images of the band which is usually a good sign that there are sources which I haven't located.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep band IS notable. They sold millions, all of their releases have charted on the Japanese charts and they have several number-ones. Sources for them in English may not be easy to find but there are plenty of them in Japanese. Google.jp News search. Here is an entry for the band on Allmusic which shows that they are notable. Allmusic MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you on the keep but Allmusic aren't an independent source because they are a vendor of the band's music. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I never knew that Allmusic wasn't an independent source, but it has been used in various music biographies on Wikipedia as an acceptable source and it does show that the band is notable. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Allmusic is probably fine as a reliable source (see WP:RS), so it may well satisfy the verifiability requirements at WP:V. It's just not independent, which means it can't count towards the coverage needed to pass WP:N, which is the main test of notability. Also, in all honesty, there probably are more articles on Wikipedia than I can count that DO wrongly use Allmusic as an independent source but that's not relevant as they're not the articles we're discussing right now. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article passes WP:N without Allmusic anyway. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is rather sad. Every Little Thing is one of the most famous bands in Japan. It is like trying to delete Lady Gaga or Madonna. Sure, the article needs citations and references, like nearly all articles that we have, but this is not the appropriate forum to solicit them. Bendono (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be unsourced, but given the material present in the article, including multiple #1 singles and albums, this artist clearly passes WP:MUSIC by several kilometers. Given how #1 hits are pretty damn easy to find sources for verification, a WP:TROUT to the nominator for failing to follow WP:BEFORE -- there are several steps to take before bringing an under-referenced article to AfD, which is clogged up enough without having to deal with obvious keepers. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I won't vote keep since I was an editor and have a conflict of interests, but I will point out that Every Little Thing is a pretty famous band in Japan. Unfortunately, it is hard to find English sources because it clashes with the "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic" song. A good reliable page is Oricon, they create the weekly, monthly and annual rankings for Japan the industry of both video and music use to measure success. The page for ELT there has several interviews (in Japanese, sorry) and the profile for Kaori Mochida (the singer) states 8thシングル「Time goes by」がミリオンセールスを記録し、その後の2ndアルバム『Time to Destination』は400万枚を超える大ヒット作品となる。 (The eighth single "Time goes by" set a million sales record, afterwards the second album "Time to Destination" became a hit selling past 4,000,000 units). Also, an old Oricon printed table (only available through posts like this one show Time To Destination as the tenth best-selling album in Japan history (the table itself is outdated, though, but shows the scale of their success). The article surely requires sourcing (as most articles from foreign topics) but it is notable in itself. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- iTunes sells the band's music, and in the profile page it explains they have 3 million selling albums (Everlasing with 2 million is another), 14 top albums and 25 top ten singles. Not sure how trustworthy people at the Music Wikiproject consider iTunes or its descriptions. In their home page (in Japanese), in the history section they also mention Everlasting selling about 2 million units, and Time to Destination around 4 million. There are also lists of their national tours like Spirit 2000 (25 shows in 17 venues in two months), Concert Tour 2001 4 FORCE (31 shows in 22 venues in 2 months), 2002 a-nation (A-vex discography concert with its most important stars, 10 shows in 8 venues in one month), 2003 tour Many Pieces (26 shows in 21 venues in two months), 2003 a-nation (12 shows in 7 venues in month and half), Commonplace concert tour 2004-2005 (44 shows in 40 venues in six months), 2004 a-nation (7 shows in 5 venues in one month), 2005 a-nation (7 shows in 5 venues in one month), 2006 a-nation (5 shows in 5 venues in one month), Concert Tour 2006-2007 Crispy Park (30 concerts in 26 venues in four months and half), 2007 a-nation (5 shows in 5 venues in a month) and Concert Tour 2008 Door (25 shows in 23 venues in 2 months).
- Again, it is hard to find english written reviews. There is news from a national tour, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there should have been more WP:BEFORE work done on this one. Notability of band and availability of reliable sources are obvious thanks to the work of the folks above. There has got to be a better procedure for drawing this kind of community attention to an article that really needs improvement, rather than deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep spotted them today in a travel guide to japan. In the music section there was a photo of a live performance and the caption referred to them as a popular band. The travel guide was by National Geographic, without question a reliable source.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the nomination. Evidently I should have done more before nominating, but I'm not quite sure what. I had never heard of them (unsurprising, I've never heard of most of the bands I see articles on), and a google didn't turn up anything obvious. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly searching in Japanese, given they're a Japanese band? Just a suggestion ... —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 1 April 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. JForget 02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better Because, LLC (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)
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this new company has good PR people who have managed to get "aren't they great?" pieces into a number of media outlets in the last few months. I don't think that makes them encyclopedically notable. What does the community think? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete GNews/GBooks/GScholar return zero hits. GHits returns some sources which initially look interesting but, per what I believe to be nom's point, a review of them reveals that most (and possibly all) of these are PR-type placements and not actual independent coverage that could confer notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete man this should have been deleted when the article was created as WP:CSD#A7 and/or WP:CSD#G11. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertising: a Seattle based multi-media company founded in 2009 with a mission to inspire an international movement to motivate others and bring out the positive in their lives. Through its book, merchandise, and other projects, Better Because has an unmistakably upbeat outlook and are reaching out to people and asking them, “Why is your life better?” - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 29 March 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. JForget 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- International Cinephile Society (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)
Online film group of questionable notability. No assertations of notability, no references to any sources, third-party, independent, or otherwise. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Cinephile Society Awards 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They claim to be made up of 60 accredited somebody or others, but there's no list. You'd think that if there really were 60 film gurus voting, they'd at least link to it from their websites. Leoniceno (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't care either way. The reason why I started the article was because I saw all these pages with the International Cinephile Society Awards as well as the template [6], so a proper main page was needed.--TheLeopard (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see evidence that this is a notable organization, as far as we can verify it's a bunch of movie fans who set up their own online awards system. -- Atama頭 22:31, 2 April 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 and REDIRECT Merge with Streetlight Manifesto as recommended Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Streetlight Manifesto band members and touring history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete: Non encyclopedic topic, promotes a relatively unknown band through exaggeration of mostly un-noteworthy facts. Marokwitz (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Streetlight Manifesto. This is exactly the sort of material that should be covered in the main article, and the main article isn't nearly long enough to support a split to a sub article on the grounds of length. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Streetlight Manifesto as stated by DustFormsWords above. I also agree with the general claim of exaggeration, as the band article has been accurately tagged for having too much detail. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Streetlight Manifesto for the above reason and because it would make the Streetlight Manifesto page better. Whenaxis (talk) 11:34, 4 April 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. JForget 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Over the Counter (album) (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)
Unreleased albums are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparently original research. Note that although the album is often described as "unreleased", it DID actually make its way to the public and can be downloaded from sites such as HipHopRuckus.com. For what it's worth I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources for the album, although there are heaps of Ghits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the page might not exist, is misspelled, is not an encyclopedia article.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 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. This article has been moved and modified and now bears no resemblance to the article nominated. Recommend RFD for the redirect and no prejudice against a speedy renomination for Would You Raise Your Hands. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dance And Modeling 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unreal competition created by Manhpham (talk). There is no source mentioned of this competition, he copied some Miss Universe articles and added some imagine details for this nonexistent cocontest. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Admin - Something whacked is going on with this AFD. It looks like the deitor is not familiar with wikiepdia (see [7]). The article was moved to Would You Raise Your Hands, and the contents changed entirely. In other words, the article now has nothing to do with Dance And Modeling 2010 which is now a redirect which ought to be deleted. This also makes the history for the current article rather unintelligible as well as it was about some sort of pageant, and suddenly becomes an article about a song. I have no current opinion on this song article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 1 April 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 Sufficient consensus that reliable sources exist and that this biography should be retained in WP. Article certainly can be improved and expanded with more sourcing. Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Johanna Budwig (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:IRS Article has failed to link to reliable sources. After search, no rs exist for subject. WP:N subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) [Twiga Kali #1]
Keep: Scientific papers written by Budwig are all in the PubMed database, a reliable source. Equally, the evidence that she wrote many books, translated into into at least two other languages is reliable. There are Wikipedia articles about Budwig in five other languages (German, French, Spanish, Italian and Hungarian), which suggests a notability. (The proposer has, on at least one occasion tried to delete the inter-wiki links to these other articles.) A simple Google search on "Budwig diet" shows that Budwig still has many followers and proponents, however misguided they may or may not be. It would be remiss for the English wikipedia not have an article on her. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [Twiga Kali #2]: To respond to your points:
- Being in PubMed is not a sufficient sign of notability (see WP:NJournals). There are hundreds of thousands of authors who have written papers in pub med who do not meet notability criteria. These publications do not appear to be recognised insofar as they have not gained notable, objective independent attention.
- Writing books is again not necessarily noteworthy (WP:BK). What would make these books notable is if people have written non-trivial, reliable and independent works focussing on her books "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." We have failed to find such material. For inclusion as an academic, Budwig would have to meet WP:ACADEMIC. She does not.
- That other articles in other language versions of Wikipedia exist does not imply notability or authority. These articles appear to suffer from the same problems and should be candidates for deletion as well.
- Your argument amounts to "everyone is out of step except me". The English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Hungarian editors have all independently arrived at the conclusion that Budwig merits an article. Totalling them all up, there must be dozens, scores of such editors. Given your editing history is almost exclusively deleting other people's contributions to the English Budwig article, a more balanced view is that Twiga has a bee in his bonnet about Budwig and this proposal to delete the whole article is just more of the same. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My arguments stand on its own merits. Either we can find good rs and establish notability or we cannot. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and the action of other editors on other language editions must stand on their own merit. There is nothing to stop you using other editions to find good rs. Having checked, the other editions look in an even worse state than the English edition. Relying on them to bolster your argument may well be self-defeating. I also suggest you do not start down an ad hom defense of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument amounts to "everyone is out of step except me". The English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Hungarian editors have all independently arrived at the conclusion that Budwig merits an article. Totalling them all up, there must be dozens, scores of such editors. Given your editing history is almost exclusively deleting other people's contributions to the English Budwig article, a more balanced view is that Twiga has a bee in his bonnet about Budwig and this proposal to delete the whole article is just more of the same. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Budwig may well have many followers, but web sites you suggest we search for are advertising various pseudo-medical services based on fringe theories. Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting products and services.
Notability depends on finding appropriate sources - significant independent coverage or recognition - independent of business interests or people connected to the topic matter. I first requested a search for such material over a year ago. None has been forthcoming. Twiga Kali (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Rod 57 #1]:Clearly notable from the large number of references on WWW which do not seem to be promoting the diet commercially. Although her theories are not accepted (and seem wrong to me), a NPOV article in WP seems well justified, and should not be viewed as promoting the diet/protocol. WP should not be attempting to suppress descriptions of theories just because they are not orthodox. As with Hoxsey therapy the ACS has docs mentioning the Budwig diet on their website : [8] Rod57 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the subject is clearly notable then it should be possible to create a list of suitable sources for the article. If you believe this to be true then please create a source list from which this article can be constructed.
- The only source you mention is the ACS page which has a brief mention. It is not a reliable source as it claims Budwig "discovered essential fatty acids" in the 1950. This is clearly not true as the term was being used in the 1930s. Furthermore, none of the four papers listed makes any such claim either - which would be expected if Budwig was a notable academic and discoverer of such important dietary components. It would appear to be a spurious claim promoted by those selling pseudo-medical cancer diets based around her cookbook recipes.
- There is no attempt to suppress any unorthodox theory here. The problem is that there is no reliable source that discuses her theories. Twiga Kali (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the ACS pages [9] [10] look like reliable sources. The term EFA may have been used in the 30s so the omega-3 article seems to be saying that JB discovered one or more additional EFAs (not the first or all EFAs). Rod57 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid we can only go on what the source says and not what you wish it had said, and in that case, the source is not reliable as it makes a claim for Budwig which is not true. The ACS pages give no references to these statements and indeed offer no references from Budwig or about Budwig. She is obviously a very minor character and not notable. At best you might like to include some discussion of her on the article on Flaxseed, but I think you will still suffer from lack of rs. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the Omega-3 source says seems ambiguous ([all] EFA, vs [some] EFA). Only one of the possible meanings might be untrue and does not make this and all other ACS sources unreliable. Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are rather stretching things to claim other meanings. In the context of Omega-3 (which the ACS is discussing) the claim is simply untrue. If the claim were true, we would expect to be able to find primary sources to verify this. None of Budwig's papers are primary sources that substantiate this claim and show the ACS page to be a suitable rs.
- Let's be straight. Reviewing the evidence, Budwig could at best be described as being a writer of recipe books that made unsubstantiated claims about the cancer healing properties of her recipes. But even to say this would be synthesis and OR. And even if the ACS source was correct (which it is not) it hardly counts as a substantial, "non-trivial, reliable and independent work" that would lead us to believe the subject was notable. You are barking up the wrong alley on this one. Twiga Kali (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the Omega-3 source says seems ambiguous ([all] EFA, vs [some] EFA). Only one of the possible meanings might be untrue and does not make this and all other ACS sources unreliable. Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid we can only go on what the source says and not what you wish it had said, and in that case, the source is not reliable as it makes a claim for Budwig which is not true. The ACS pages give no references to these statements and indeed offer no references from Budwig or about Budwig. She is obviously a very minor character and not notable. At best you might like to include some discussion of her on the article on Flaxseed, but I think you will still suffer from lack of rs. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the ACS pages [9] [10] look like reliable sources. The term EFA may have been used in the 30s so the omega-3 article seems to be saying that JB discovered one or more additional EFAs (not the first or all EFAs). Rod57 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Rod 57 #2]: (me again, New argument) - She seems to meet criteria 7 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) in that she is an academic (fat/oil chemist) and she (eg by her many books and interviews) has influenced the field of anti-cancer diets as is clear from the many such websites that mention her. Rod57 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [Twiga Kali #3]: before you can make the claim that she is an academic you need to establish that she is. With the risk of repeating myself hoarse, you need to find reliable sources that establish the notability of JB and that she was an academic. Such sources would confirm basic facts such as what qualifications she gained and what institutions/universities she worked in. I can see no evidence that JB was an academic. She clearly has not influenced the medical world of cancer diets as there are no citations to her work and no discussions of her impact on the thinking of cancer and diet. The evidence we have is consistent with her being the writer of a few non-notable cookbooks and having some crankish views on cancer - this is not notable. Twiga Kali (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the 1950s, a German scientist named Johanna Budwig, PhD, discovered essential fatty acids and developed a diet that she said would fight cancer. Dr. Budwig claimed that many of her patients experienced tumor reduction within 3 months, and she stated that some experienced even more dramatic results. Dr. Budwig has reportedly used omega-3 fatty acids in combination with other nutrients to treat thousands of people with cancer and other diseases." from American Cancer Society Omega-3 Fatty Acids Despite its neutral tone, this is a reference that Twiga Kali keeps on deleting from the article on the ground that the American Cancer Society doesn't know what it's talking about. Twiga Kali has a long history of deleting material he doesn't like such as this series of edits where he deleted the papers that Budwig had written (found in the PubMed database), the books that Budwig had written, and all external links. His proposal to delete the whole article is just in the same spirit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the source makes assertions that are not true about Budwig. There is no evidence "discovered essential fatty acids" in the 1950s. Indeed, such dietary components were discovered in the 1930s. This makes the limited material in this article unreliable. Given that the intention here is to create an encyclopedic article about Budwig (if that is possible) then hanging the entire article on this one minor and unreliable source would not be appropriate. Nunquam Dormio - I am sure from your experience with Wikipedia what the requirements are for sources and this page falls well short. Please do not add it again. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also in the above edit, Twiga Kali added this sentence "She died of cancer in 2003." without any reference. As Twiga Kali seems to be setting high standards for references, I would be interested to know what his reference for this assertion was. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you well know, I trimmed this article to a stub as it was completely unsourced and requested editors to find appropriate material upon which to build an article (if indeed that was possible). That has not proven to be so. Indeed, all statements about Budwig are unverifiable and that is one of the reasons for the deletion request. (The other being lack of notability). Once again, Numquam, it would be more constructive if you felt able to engage in this process rather than imputing my motives, attacking me and failing to engage in meaningful discussion about the limited material we have here. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your own mind, you obviously thought that writing "She died of cancer in 2003." was a witty ending to an article about a person who devised a supposed anti-cancer diet. However, as you ostensibly demand high standards of referencing, it is entirely legitimate to ask you what source or reference you used to make the statement that "she died of cancer". If you cannot, a dispassionate observer might think this totally undermines your credibility. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually find that people who attack the person do so because they cannot address the argument. The points of argument are straightforward here and it is about time you addressed them rather than resorting to obstructive reverts and ad hom attacks. Please do so. Twiga Kali (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your motives are completely pertinent to your desire to have this article deleted. On 22 October 2009, with this edit here, you added the text "She died of cancer in 2003.". Presumably, you did this either as some sort of attempt at discrediting Budwig and her diet or some sort of attempt at humour. You did not provide a reference for your assertion then and have not done so since. Unless you do so, people will presume that you deliberately added a false statement to serve some personal 'agenda'. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for this edit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear you are trying to create a side-show to the substantive point. There is not point discussing an edit that is long gone (rightly) and we would both agree should not be there. We should be discussing the current content. Despite repeated requests to explain why you think you can add links to commercial and unreliable sources in order to support this article you have not done so. Further reverts without substantiating the edits will strongly imply that you are not acting in good faith here. I am quite clear about what sort of substantiation is required - nothing unusual, just normal WP rules. I strongly urge you to show the good faith required in discussing the content and refrain from personal attacks. WP:FOC I believe I have shown plenty of patience in allowing you to resume discussion content. Further undiscussed matters of content may well lead to dispute resolution processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree it was vandalism and that you should be treated as a vandal? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only conclude that you are being deliberately provocative now. My edit history will stand on its merit. All I have ever done is try to either a) improve this article and, after failing to find sources, b) stub it and finally ask for deletion as the subject is clearly non notable. I am bemused by your actions where you clearly at every stage wish to prevent any article improvement and instead stoop to attack other editors. I am afraid I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore. Please turn around from this course of action and address content. My character is not the subject of this article.Twiga Kali (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You deliberately vandalised the article on 22 October 2009 (I assume you're not denying it), and nearly all your Wikipedia edits have been deleting chunks out of the Budwig article. Your proposal to delete the entire article should be seen in that context. You reap what you sow. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absurd. If I am at fault of anything it was naivity in early editing. But once again, my character is not the topic of this article and you refuse to engage in content.
- Let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe this article meets WP standards for sources and notability? If so, on what basis? If not, what do you propose doing about it?Twiga Kali (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You deliberately vandalised the article on 22 October 2009 (I assume you're not denying it), and nearly all your Wikipedia edits have been deleting chunks out of the Budwig article. Your proposal to delete the entire article should be seen in that context. You reap what you sow. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only conclude that you are being deliberately provocative now. My edit history will stand on its merit. All I have ever done is try to either a) improve this article and, after failing to find sources, b) stub it and finally ask for deletion as the subject is clearly non notable. I am bemused by your actions where you clearly at every stage wish to prevent any article improvement and instead stoop to attack other editors. I am afraid I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore. Please turn around from this course of action and address content. My character is not the subject of this article.Twiga Kali (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree it was vandalism and that you should be treated as a vandal? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear you are trying to create a side-show to the substantive point. There is not point discussing an edit that is long gone (rightly) and we would both agree should not be there. We should be discussing the current content. Despite repeated requests to explain why you think you can add links to commercial and unreliable sources in order to support this article you have not done so. Further reverts without substantiating the edits will strongly imply that you are not acting in good faith here. I am quite clear about what sort of substantiation is required - nothing unusual, just normal WP rules. I strongly urge you to show the good faith required in discussing the content and refrain from personal attacks. WP:FOC I believe I have shown plenty of patience in allowing you to resume discussion content. Further undiscussed matters of content may well lead to dispute resolution processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your motives are completely pertinent to your desire to have this article deleted. On 22 October 2009, with this edit here, you added the text "She died of cancer in 2003.". Presumably, you did this either as some sort of attempt at discrediting Budwig and her diet or some sort of attempt at humour. You did not provide a reference for your assertion then and have not done so since. Unless you do so, people will presume that you deliberately added a false statement to serve some personal 'agenda'. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for this edit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually find that people who attack the person do so because they cannot address the argument. The points of argument are straightforward here and it is about time you addressed them rather than resorting to obstructive reverts and ad hom attacks. Please do so. Twiga Kali (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also in the above edit, Twiga Kali added this sentence "She died of cancer in 2003." without any reference. As Twiga Kali seems to be setting high standards for references, I would be interested to know what his reference for this assertion was. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting this article would seem counterproductive, and counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, which exists to inform its readers, not only to limit topics via technical criterion as interpreted by some editors.
Johanna Budwig is a notable person, regardless of her academic or scientific achievements, or any lack thereof; or whether she was an academic, or not; or whether her notability was major or minor; or whether her program is orthodox medicine, or not. Thus, she deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Deleting or keeping an article depends on its notability, not only academic or scientific value.
Most celebrities such as actors, musicians, and show business entertainers have no academic or scientific credentials, and yet they are persons of note, about whom some other persons wish to know.
Johanna Budwig may be viewed as a chemist, or maybe as an academic, or maybe as an alternative health practitioner, or maybe something else. But clearly, she has some degree or kind of notability.
Many years ago, before the Internet grew popular, occasional references to the Budwig diet appeared in the paper-based alternative health literature. I vaguely recall seeing some of these. I first seriously read of the Budwig diet in the late 1990s, I think, on the Internet. I experimented with the diet for a week or two, but my dairy allergies made it unworkable for me.
Had Wikipedia existed back then, or were I studying the issue now, and if a Budwig article existed on Wikipedia, I could simply look up "Budwig" and find information on her and her diet. Deleting the article denies this simple course of action for the future, for everyone.
Please, let us avoid mean-spirited unpleasantness and negativity. Instead, let us use common sense, good manners, and be cooperative, helpful, and charitable. Good luck. Jerryobject (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you, but the article needs to be accurate, substantive and well referenced. Despite a long period of requesting reliable sources to build the article, none appear. We cannot build an informative article based on the wild claims made about her online. We can find sources that claim she is a pharmacist, a chemist, a physicist, a cook (which?) etc with Nobel Prize nominations (a common quack claim), she discovered EFAs (not true), she has had successful cancer cures (sources?) etc. We need to know what we can believe. Find those sources and we are away and a good article will ensue. But - and this is a big but - we do not want Wikipedia to give an imprimatur to a subject that does not deserve it - especially when life or death issues are at stake - such as cures for cancer. A misleading article could quite literally kill. No sources - No notabilty - no article - it ought to be that simple. Twiga Kali (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable.
Looking at the sources above, there's a wealth of evidence that she is mentioned on web pages, news, books and scholar. Her theories may have little currency today, but Wikipedia should discuss her and them, in the same way as it does for Horace Fletcher. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Horace Fletcher has scholarly articles written about him and hence notability can be established. This is not true for Budwig. Her theories may not have currency now, but there is no evidence that they ever had. Notability and reliable sources need to be established. The 'wealth' of evidence is all to unsourced, unreliable quack web sites. Better things are required. Twiga Kali (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list those articles that establish notability and can act as rs for this article. No number of poor sources can make a good wikipedia article. Twiga Kali (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This AFD was previously listed on the old log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 16. It is now listed on the new log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 28. Jujutacular T · C 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Sufficiently notable in her time of activity. WP covers non-current subjects equally with current ones. Good sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is somewhat frustrating to see you talk of 'good sources' when we have not been able to find any. Can you list sources you consider adequate to establish notability and to base the article upon? Twiga Kali (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the vote statistics (AfD statistics) don't reflect the text in this discussion. How does one 'vote' ? Rod57 (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Expand - Notable, enough references and external links, she is obviously real. Though it could use some expanding in order for it to be kept. If she is so notable, we (Wikipedia family) should expand it since there is sufficent number of references and there is a lot of Google hits on her. Whenaxis (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Volconian Empire (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)
Un-notable part of a video game story. The entire game doesn't have its own article, just a mention here Artix Entertainment#EpicDuel. Clubmarx (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No evidence of notability. GNews/GScholar return zero hits. GHits returns one result, which is clearly incapable of conferring notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable club, which I've tagged it for. This is just some online group of video-game players who, apparently, are "not accepting new members but should a player be booted due to inactivity, or they leave, the Faction will quickly look for people to fill there spot." Massive notability fail. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable at all. Google turns up hardly anything. --Bsadowski1 07:15, 30 March 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. JForget 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Hale (businessman) (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 real estate sales association president and recipient of an "Inman Innovator Award." The Inman award seems somewhat more notable than your average minor business award, but it's not exactly an Oscar. Otherwise, I cannot find significant independent coverage of Bob Hale. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the only Bob Hale that I find references for is the baseball player, this subject fails WP:BIO. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original version(diff) of this article was actually a WP:COATRACK for the Houston Association of Realtors. Weeding out the HAR material made it clear that Mr. Hale does not have sufficient evidence of notability independent of his organization to clear the WP:BIO bar. B.Wind (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A businessman should be notable in a wider area than a city before he merits an article. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:12, 2 April 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. JForget 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1988 North Island plane crash (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 accident with very few references available, does not seem to be be a suitable topic for Wikipedia given these reasons The Bushranger (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be notable which may account for very few references, none of which indicates anything different about this accident, sad as it may have been. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Articles fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Non-notable accident. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons given above. YSSYguy (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable GA accident, no Wikinotable people involved. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 29 March 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. I believe lists themselves can not be copyrighted as those are historical facts. With this problem solved, the consensus seems to be keep (and improve) Tone 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of rulers of Kasongo Luunda (Yaka) (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 encyclopedic content. No sources or references to speak of anyway. Almost all pages linked are redlinks. Fails to establish notability. Outback the koala (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis level of detail, and nobody can tell us where they got it from? That practice was winked at back in 2004, but it doesn't go anymore. Cite to a source and then we'll talk. Until then, "Paandzu Pfumukulu" doesn't fall under the "everybody knows that" category. Changing to speedy-- now I see why it wasn't sourced. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The table is taken directly from this page. I'm leaning delete but I'm also aware of systemic bias. I don't know enough about African politics to be able to assess the notability of such a list. I went ahead and contacted WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo to see if anyone experienced in the topic area could sort this out. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If thats the case, then this should be speedy deleted per G12. Outback the koala (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Finding a source does not make something a speedy deletion candidate. That makes it an article. Have the deletionists really gotten this bad? Rmhermen (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If thats the case, then this should be speedy deleted per G12. Outback the koala (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G12 One thing that deletionists and inclusionists can agree on is that we don't believe in ripoffs or ignoring copyright. The little "c" inside a circle in "©2000 Ben Cahoon" means that Ben Cahoon, who did the research for his site http://www.worldstatesmen.org/, asserts a copyright over a decade's work, which he supports through PayPal. If I were Ben Cahoon, it's safe to say that I would be pissed at somebody not only copying this verbatim, but not acknowledging him as the source. A person could write an article about Kasongo Luunda and provide a link to Cahoon's site, as an alternative to "cut, paste, don't say where I took this from"; or one could e-mail the man at [email protected] -- either to ask if he has any objections, or to tell him that someone has pasted his work onto a free encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as such. ThemFromSpace 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't withdraw my nomination just yet, in case speedy delete is turned down. We'll have to go ahead with the delete here in that case. Outback the koala (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are not copyrightable as they do not contain any original thought but rather are collections of simple statistical information. Not speediable under G12. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as such. ThemFromSpace 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for the correction. ThemFromSpace 07:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What correction would that be? I don't see anything in User:Nihonjoe's profile to indicate that he or she is in the practice of law, let alone copyright law. Proof has been offered to suggest that this has been plagiarized from someone else, and I haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and asked for an administrator to intervene in this discussion and in the other one [11]. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. (Don't want to put the G12 tag back although I believe it qualifies) It seems the admins are not in agreement about what a copyvio is and what is not. List_of_rulers_of_Kuba was speedied on Friday. This and some others have been declined. Presenting research results in list form does not prevent them from being protected by copyright law - this is not a list anyone could assemble without much trouble. --Pgallert (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sad that people are not in agreement about plagiarism. Comparing this to this, it's disgustingly obvious what happened. Excusing it by saying "it was only a list" is kind of like excusing a shoplifter on grounds of "it was only a pack of cigarettes, and he cheerfully paid for it after he was caught". Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my opinion, the list was originally copied from Cahiers d'études africaines, Vol. 13, No. 50 (published in 1973). The article Patriarchal Structures and Factional Politics. Toward an Understanding of the Dualist Society by Jean-Claude Willame deals with the political situation in the region in that time. The local name for the ruler apparently wasn't Kyambvu, as our article claims, but Kiamfu. The table "Succession of the Kiamfu's" (p. 333) is unfortunately locked, however, a fragment is available at Google Books. I suspect that the list is repeatedly copied on the internet with increasing number of errors. The article in Cahiers contains sufficient information needed for expansion of our article. It is really complicated to judge the copyright violation by Wikipedia, in this case. However, the content is repairable with the help of reliable source and the information could surely be useful for this project. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing Admin Please state in your closing explicitly whether G12 applies in this situation. This would be greatly appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand/improve. This is not a copyvio per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service which held that telephone directories are not subject to copyright. I believe that this list is a similar case, just names and dates in order. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no opinion on the merits, but Eluchil404 is correct that the Feist case applies here; lists of facts are not subject to copyright, unless the facts are presented in an original manner, which does not seem to be the case here. Sandstein 08:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be a moot point soon. Presentation of the facts in an original manner doesn't appear to have been that important when the article was created, but Wikipedia has grown up a lot since 2004. Now that Vejvancicky has located a source, a new page can be created, and this one can be forgotten. I'm wondering how many other similar copy-pastes are floating around out there. Mandsford (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The comparison with the Feist case limps a little bit, I'm sure you can see why. But in all our copyright policies I could not find any notice on Wikipedia advocating the US courts' views on copyright, or any court's view, for that matter. Surely WP is bound by guilty verdicts as the servers are located in the US, but nothing prevents us from employing a stricter view. --Pgallert (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreatewhen Cahiers d'études africaines, Vol. 13, No. 50 (published in 1973). The article Patriarchal Structures and Factional Politics. Toward an Understanding of the Dualist Society by Jean-Claude Willame fully sourced. GREAT WORK Vejvančický - thank you so much for finding what appears to be the original source. We should delete this distortion now, with no prejudice to recreation at a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point we have got to be the longest running AfD I have ever seen by far. Your no prejudice to recreating the page kinda sidesteps the issues above. Can we take from from this original piece of work. What is copyrighted and what is not; and what is valid, and so on and so forth.... Outback the koala (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a short explanation of the subject, sufficient for an informative and referenced stub. The article should be redirected to Kasongo Lunda or Kasongo-Lunda (the area is listed in the article Territories of the Democratic Republic of the Congo). --Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to Kasongo-Lunda. Good work again Vejvančický. Outback the Koala, I've seen a number of very very long AfDs - check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Indian Infantry Division. What I was attempting to propose was a solution. Now Vejvancicky's bettered it. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant time wise. Outback the koala (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to Kasongo-Lunda. Good work again Vejvančický. Outback the Koala, I've seen a number of very very long AfDs - check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Indian Infantry Division. What I was attempting to propose was a solution. Now Vejvancicky's bettered it. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a short explanation of the subject, sufficient for an informative and referenced stub. The article should be redirected to Kasongo Lunda or Kasongo-Lunda (the area is listed in the article Territories of the Democratic Republic of the Congo). --Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point we have got to be the longest running AfD I have ever seen by far. Your no prejudice to recreating the page kinda sidesteps the issues above. Can we take from from this original piece of work. What is copyrighted and what is not; and what is valid, and so on and so forth.... Outback the koala (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The area ruled was at least equivalent ot a province, and a list of heads of government of such an area is always appropriate. Every bit as valid an article, though not nearly as complete, as List of Governors of Pennsylvania--a Featured Article. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is unimportant and non-notable at this time, it may have been notable before. Also, on the page there are question marks all over the page. If it was real and have enough references they (the creators) wouldn't have to put question marks. Whenaxis (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly rename to Kasongo Lunda. While I absolutely agree with DGG above, the article currently is more than just a list of rulers, and Kasongo Lunda should have an article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Raymond v. Raymond. Tone 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More (Usher song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This song fails on WP:Notability (music) because it has not recieved significant independent coverage and therefore there is no information here which could not be merged into the album's page. In other words there is reasonable doubt over why this page is in existance especially when similar pages for other songs/articles e.g. Black Eyed Peas were deleted. The information from this page could easily be mainted at Raymond v. Raymond Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Raymond v. Raymond. Best covered in the album article.--Michig (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect content then delete page Jayy008 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Merge with Raymond v. Raymond or Usher or both. Whenaxis (talk) 11:56, 4 April 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. JForget 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jon Ferguson (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)
Neither of these two individuals is demonstrably the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:GNG. Personal websites, blog postings, Amazon and Barnes & Noble searches, and the sites of random organizations vaguely associated with the Fergusons are not positive evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable subject. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and it's all true, but ... there are no reliable sources, much less any evidence of notability. I'd change my mind if someone can dig through Google and find something better. 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Teaz N Pleaz (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)
NN business with 0 G News stories and only trivial (Facebook, Myspace, address info) on G Search, plus according to the page, they only have 2 employees. CTJF83 chat 18:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion. Non-notable and unimportant. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already declined, I've asked the admin for their reasoning. CTJF83 chat 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was a claim of a "great impact" (since withdrawn) and 2 newspapers, enough to avoid speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already declined, I've asked the admin for their reasoning. CTJF83 chat 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also note that there's no particularly assertion of notability. It's not some sort of national chain. For a small local business that doesn't have profits/reach to get notability through that route, there ought to be some sort of landmark status for it. I mean something remarkable longevity, meeting place for famous figures, etc. This is a really young business, with no showing of any special status that override its modest size. --JamesAM (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 2 stories in local media doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 March 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. Tone 14:44, 4 April 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}} . |
- Joseph Rowbottom (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 came across this page when it was being added to the article Flash mob in reference to rioting and student activities at the University of Philadelphia.
- Fails just about every point of WP:BIO and doesn't truly fit into any of the categories of media, academics, or WP:ANYBIO
- The references barely mention the activities or the legacy of this person in the main context of the article and all the references appear to be University Archive based. No notable mention is made of this person outside by a third party publication.
- I Google Test shows very few results. Wikipedia and Facebook for other people with the name come up first.
- Since my original A7, an editor as gone around to various other University of Philadelphia articles to add a one or two sentence reference to this person in odd places and no context or integral contributions. Possibly disputable in their own additions to the article itself.
- Other than the last 24 hours the article has been visited very few times, averaging under 10 times per month, and likely due to the number of redirects that existed toward the article compared to the other Rowbottom articles -- particularly comparative to Jo Rowbottom, visited over 200 times a month, and a possible confusion of Joseph Rowbottom.
In my conclusion I find this article lacks any encyclopedic value. Mkdwtalk 04:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination per the changes made by User:Father Goose to the article. Mkdwtalk 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most relevant and sourced information into Student life at the University of Pennsylvania. Although Mr. Rowbottom himself does not appear to have engaged in any rioting at the University of Pennsylvania (note: not the University of Philadelphia), his surname apparently became synonymous with riots at the university for several generations, for some reason. (See [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. These articles are from newspapers outside Philadelphia and range from 1931 to 1966.) The term "rowbottom" even made it into The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. [17] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Recommendation withdrawn because of changes to article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or merge, no evidence of genuine notability. Being known inside an individual community doesn't mean you're actually notable unless the world at large takes note.--Crossmr (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no properly independent sources for this biography. The word Rowbottom may be suitable for a redirect to the appropriate section in Student life at the University of Pennsylvania, but the person does not look like a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly rewritten and moved to Rowbottom (riot). There was insufficient sourcing to justify an article on Joseph Rowbottom, especially considering most of it was about the UPenn tradition, not Mr. Rowbottom. But there's plenty of justification for having an article on the "Rowbottom" phenomenon. I barely scratched the surface of available sources -- both those listed on this page and those available via Google News and Books. Hopefully this will resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties.--Father Goose (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Fr Goose. Philly jawn (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "new and improved" Rowbottom (riot). Maurreen (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is improved, and now is notable. Next time don't put a AfD nomination put a improve sign. Whenaxis (talk) 12:00, 4 April 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 g3, blatant hoax by serial hoaxer (see other deleted contributions); both sources found by Erik are user-created pages that were likely posted by the same hoaxer. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The City That Sailed (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 per WP:NFF. Future movie which hasn't even been filmed yet, with no reliable sources. The IMDb and Allmovie references link to pages about a completely different movie. SnottyWong talk 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) SnottyWong talk 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF because it is not certain that this film will be made; this recent article says that Will Smith may do this film or Men in Black 3. This is the IMDb page, by the way, showing that it is only in development. There is no certainty that there will be a film nor any indication that this is a project significant enough to warrant its own article if the film never gets past development. I have no problem with the project being mentioned at Francis Lawrence or Will Smith. For comparison, Will Smith and Nicolas Cage were attached to a film called Time Share, but it never got beyond development. The article was deleted. Erik (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - full of unknowable stats, like budget and runtime; fails notability guidelines for future films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:01, 29 March 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 User:JzG, "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Non-admin close for housekeeping. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex helriegel (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)
Lack of notability. KzKrann (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - achievements don't go beyond high school so doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Clubmarx (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is the third incarnation of this article, the previous two having been speedily deleted under A7. NtheP (talk) 16:47, 28 March 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. JForget 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taylor Brook (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)
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. This is a composer who is still basically a student, I think one day he might well be notable but that time is not yet. Previously deleted. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Searchs for info on Taylor Brook that would suggest notability turn up nothing except for a couple of awards (not sure if they are notable or not),and most of the results are for Brook Taylor. The websites I could find were already listed as sources on the article. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not-yet-notable music student. Hairhorn (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A fairly typical resume for a post-graduate musician. Probably a wonderful guy but not quite ready for prime time. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:19, 2 April 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. JForget 02:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Theory of incomplete measurements (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)
Presents self-published material originating from the author's personal website. The only citation in the article is to a single paper and although the paper's title page indicates that Hewlett-Packard might be the publisher, the author's paper ends with a disclaimer that says "My employer, Hewlett-Packard, did not directly commission this work, and had no direct role in its creation." Furthermore, I can find no secondary sources and other editors have expressed concerns that this is original research on the article's talk page. Modocc (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR, no references given to published literature. Djr32 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as synthesis. There are two sources available at Google scholar, and nothing at Google news. It seems interesting, but it does not cite any of the results I could find at general Google. It may not meet WP:GNG. Possibly userfy? Bearian (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Bearian's comment: There are not two reliable sources available via Google Scholar. The first source is de Dinechin's self-published manuscript, and the second is a paper from 10 years previously which happens have buried somewhere within it the phrase "quantum theory of incomplete measurements". Djr32 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quantum mechanics is one of those subjects which are a magnet for OR type theories and we should have particulary high standards for work in this domain. This article does not have anywhere close to the number of thgirds perty refernces I would need to see.--Salix (talk): 17:31, 30 March 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. JForget 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 16 Most Requested Songs (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. Another non-notable compilation that is also written like an advertisement. WP:NOTDIR applies. De728631 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - actually WP:NOTDIR does not apply because if you look at that guideline it says nothing about track listings within album articles, which are necessary regardless of how informative the article is otherwise. With that being said, this appears to be a quickie compilation with no interest for the general media or for fans, so it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, in WP:NOTDIR it says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.", so one could say that writing a single article for each and any released medium associated with an artist is not desirable as well. Just because it exists and is linked to a notable person it need not be on Wikipedia. Otherwise I of course agree with you that this particular disc is lacking relevant coverage in the first place. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - checking for critical coverage via Google News [18] doesn't turn up much. It does appear that "16 most requested songs" is a compilation title for multiple artists. Was this a series of compilations? -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 1 April 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 University of Toronto#Student media. Tone 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Toronto Television (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)
Concerns of notability; could also merge to University of Toronto. Airplaneman talk 02:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the TV station is less than one year old, according to the article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Keep, but watch This group is on my campus at the university of toronto, and I have seen their posters around and such. While the name "television" is less than one year old, i am 100% sure that they went under the moniker of "film society" last year. So they may be more than one year old. There may also have been a campus newspaper article or two about them. I'm not sure, I'd have to investigate. They appear to be a campus group that is "recognized" from this list: https://ulife.utoronto.ca/organizations/view/id/2522. For now, I propose give them some time to respond and fix up the page. If they fail to do that, maybe merge with u of t's main page? Troglodyto (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of Toronto#Student media to give interested editors a chance to merge information to the University of Toronto article. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: This debate was not listed in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 12 log, so I have relisted it. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Regarding notability, I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better if this was redirected to University of Toronto#Student media instead of deleted? Cunard (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess. On the other hand, userfication is also an option. — Rankiri (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those options are fine for me. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with University of Toronto or media department. Whenaxis (talk) 12:10, 4 April 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. Tone 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of countries with no lakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indiscriminate list consisting of non-notable, original research RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a contested prod.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Obviously its author must have some reason for thinking it is useful but I really can't see any reason to compile or want such a stand alone list. If it can be properly referenced then I guess it could be mentioned in passing in the article about lakes, more in order to demonstrate the near ubiquity of lakes than for the interest of the list itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial assembly of two points of data. I am, however, perfectly prepared to change my mind to "Keep" if anyone can demonstrate the encyclopedic utility of such a list. I sure can't think of any. Ford MF (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an interesting bit of information that should be mentioned in the article lake, which would provide some context, specifically the definition of what constitutes a lake. A short definition of what separates a lake from a pond is that a lake is fed by a river. In some cases (Monaco and Vatican City) it's a case of a small nation surrounded by a much larger one. In the case of the various islands, I'm guessing that they're on here based on the assumption that their sources of fresh water empty into the sea rather than into a natural lake. Even at that, water is generally diverted into a reservoir. I'd support a merge of the information into the lake article, which would afford some protection against it being edited back out. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons above. Although I agree that the information is vaguely interesting, I can't support a merge to Lake (or elsewhere), since it seems to be completely OR, as the citation to "Google Maps" indicates. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:OR and the list lacks any sources or general notability per WP:LISTS. Mkdwtalk 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Interesting article, but; The only source is Google Maps,it's a list of trivial infromation,and all the info could easily be added into the Lake article, I'm almost certain we can find other sources for this info. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Information about which countries have lakes and which don't, does not seem all that useful. Each individual country article usually does note any major lakes or at least in its regional sub articles. Mkdwtalk 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that there would be more support for an article about the largest lake in each nation (similar to a list of the highest point in each nation), in which case there would be a notation for these places with no lakes. If there ain't, there oughta be. Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete countries which are extremely small, or are coral atoll island nations, are not normally expected to have lakes, thus this fact is not really notable. if this fact is notable for any of these nations, it can easily be added to the nations article. these are abnormally small nations, considering what most people think of as a nation. most are smaller than many cities.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is not a notable combination of factors. Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Add something to the countries page that are listed like "This country has no lakes or ponds" Whenaxis (talk) 11:46, 30 March 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. A merge is possible here but not delete. Therefore, closing as a keep. Tone 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Douglas M. Webster (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)
Douglas Webster might be known for one event. The incident that resulted in his death appears to be notable but he does not appear to be notable. I can find no reliable sources that discuss him. The sources currently in the article discuss the incident. I do not have access to the books but based on the titles and from reading similar books, he might be mentioned in passing as the pilot only. It is very unlikely they discuss him in depth. The www.atomicarchive.com reference doesn't even mention his name. The only reference that probably covers him is the A4skyhawk.org site. That does not appear to be a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Non-notable ,there is no reason for it to have an article. --Rirunmot 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep information As a Broken Arrow (lost nuclear weapon) this incident is very notable. The information should not be removed from wikipedia, but at the very least needs to be incorporated into USS Ticonderoga and Broken Arrow, and possibly United States Seventh Fleet. The article is at the wrong title however, as it focused completely on the incident with only a mere mention of the scholarship fund which is actually about the pilot. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Buckshot: the incident seems notable enough, if not the individual. Perhaps we can rename this? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Information is certainly notable, if not for the person, but for the incident. Background information on the pilot would be useful as well, but not entirely necessary. Let's keep in mind the potential of articles, not necessarily their present state. — BQZip01 — talk 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and recast: The incident is worth covering in depth. It gets a mention in United States military nuclear incident terminology#Events where few would look for it. I'd retitle / recast the article to be about the incident, with the biography and fund being a section within. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (effectively, delete article on D.M. Webster), but Keep the important and well-sourced information about the incident. Per WP:ONEEVENT, the is insufficient notability demonstrated for this article on the person. N2e (talk) 03:20, 4 April 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. Tone 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Douglas Terrey (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 meet notability criteria - no evidence of his being a member of the armed forces in WW1, insufficient evidence of notability found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- clearly NN. Only possible notability is joining up at age 14, but this is described as "unverified". If this is to be kept, details of his war record need to be verified and set out. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- He claims that he joined the army at age 14, he's an "unverified British veteran", he is not notable enough for an article. If sources are even found that confirm that he joined the army when he was 14, and that he is a British veteran, then possible Weak Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Dan1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: does not satisfy WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've read though article, good article, should be kept.--Del Boy (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep should be kept because it is a good claim and also a good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.114.38 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources; quality is not an argument for keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. If centenarians are not notable, the only other argument is that he was briefly mentioned in a few articles. I tend to be an inclusionist, but I have trouble seeing any notability here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it is worth, the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me on that.--RadioFan (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated for "Douglas Terrey" in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:21, 4 April 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. JForget 02:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Henshall (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)
AfD - nominated because the player fails WP:ATH - person has not made any first-team appearances (has only been named on the bench for the first team) as yet. Proposed delete until/ if meets notability criteria Steve-Ho (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural renomination. This was redlinked in the deletion log. I remain neutral Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Comment I presume the nomination was because this footballer hasnt made any first-team appearances, but the nominator has been informed about the renomination and the need the need for his/her input so don't take my word for it :-D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being named on the subs bench for the JPT thingy trophy falls well short of WP:ATH - he's not entered the field in a League One match so he doesn't meet that subguideline. Representing the England U16 team is a good achievement, but only Olympic or full international appearances would qualify under WP:ATH. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources for WP:BIO either. Most of the article is POV pumping this prospect up, which is of course inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, recreate should he play professionally. If he's as good as the article seems to want to make out, that should be in a year or two -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, recreate if he ever passes the ATHLETE guideline. -- BigDom 08:16, 31 March 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. JForget 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dancer (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. Ekerazha (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The anonymous user 188.25.194.157 removed the "notability" tag and insulted me on my talk page. Ekerazha (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally non-notable. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Non-notable software,does not need an article on Wikipedia.It's interesting that 188.25.194.157's only edits are the ones that Ekerazha mentioned and one edit to another article on programming, in which they undid an edit. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I don't believe it to be non-notable, or I would not have taken the time to write the article. Dancer is an actively-developed and used framework; with up to 20 developers committing, and over 100 watchers on Github, I think that illustrates that it's a notable project and not just someone's own little pet project which nobody else uses. I tried to make the article as non-subjective as possible, drawing inspiration from the article on Catalyst, another Perl framework. How do you make the distinction between notable and not notable, anyway? Bigpresh (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have multiple, reliable sources, as per WP:GNG. Ekerazha (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some other sources referencing Dancer; do you consider those acceptable, or would you like to see still more? Bigpresh (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have multiple, reliable sources, as per WP:GNG. Ekerazha (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, and spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 31 March 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 Closed As no rationale given for deletion. Presumably the AfD was malformed but I can't see any reason in the edit history etc so closing discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sister Mary (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)
(insert reason why this article should be considered for deletion here) The Zwinky (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 March 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. JForget 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WrestleMania XXVIII (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 future sports event which violates Wikipedia:Notability (events), because it has no published sources (yet). I've recently removed a section which contained original research and Non-neutral statements, but now I think the article should not be kept unless it is ready to be included. Minimac (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to WrestleMania. No such event has even been announced yet. -- Θakster 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Has yet to even be announced. Just rumored to occur.--WillC 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it, it'll just be made soon anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratstercs (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's crystal balling at the moment to assume that the event is happening. Any announcement would probabily be made February next year at the earliest, so it's hardly soon. -- Θakster 07:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as epitome of WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no announcement that it's going to happen, therefore no article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/No sources. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:34, 1 April 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. Tone 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was wir sind (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: WP:NSONG. Reaching rank 15 in the Austrian top 75 is not sufficient to make this single notable. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to WP:NSONG - "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" - so reaching number 15 in the Austrian charts would most certainly lend credence to its notability. I'm not going to side either way in this discussion though, I suspect there may be some Austrian sources but my German isnt what it used to be. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing long standing notability criteria wording without any talk page discussion and then nominating an article on the redefining criteria seconds later is bizarre. I find this nomination disruptive. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assumed it is clear that having a song somewhere in a top-75 or top-100 chart doesn't make it automatically significant, and wanted to clarify this. As presently phrased taking this rule literally would lead to absurd results. If it reached position 74 our of 75 in some chart would it also be notable in your view? How about a song reaching place 98 in some local radio station top-100 chart? In my view that a song ranking 15 out of 75 and with no coverage by reliable secondary sources is totally insignificant. And of course needless to say my attempt to clarify the rule and this nomination were both done in good faith. Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines are changed by consensus, so your attempt to arbitrarily change this one was wrong. The criteria say "national or significant" charts, so one only on the outer reaches of a local radio chart would probably not be notable, no. Also, did you check for suitable third party coverage for this song before bringing it here? Like I said above, there's probably some Austrian sources, did you check Austrian music press? Austrian newspapers? Things like that? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I checked and found no coverage from reliable sources in English. I don't speak German so that's the best I could do. Do you seriously think that we need an independent article about each song that was ever listed in the Austrian top-75 charts? Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Until recently it was a top 40 chart, see Austria Top 40. This article is for a song charting at 15 so the question is moot. I found plenty of sources but unsure of quality due to them not being in Eniglish. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I checked and found no coverage from reliable sources in English. I don't speak German so that's the best I could do. Do you seriously think that we need an independent article about each song that was ever listed in the Austrian top-75 charts? Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines are changed by consensus, so your attempt to arbitrarily change this one was wrong. The criteria say "national or significant" charts, so one only on the outer reaches of a local radio chart would probably not be notable, no. Also, did you check for suitable third party coverage for this song before bringing it here? Like I said above, there's probably some Austrian sources, did you check Austrian music press? Austrian newspapers? Things like that? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assumed it is clear that having a song somewhere in a top-75 or top-100 chart doesn't make it automatically significant, and wanted to clarify this. As presently phrased taking this rule literally would lead to absurd results. If it reached position 74 our of 75 in some chart would it also be notable in your view? How about a song reaching place 98 in some local radio station top-100 chart? In my view that a song ranking 15 out of 75 and with no coverage by reliable secondary sources is totally insignificant. And of course needless to say my attempt to clarify the rule and this nomination were both done in good faith. Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, probably by SNOW I have sometimes thought the song guidelines a little over-broad, but they are well-accepted here, so this is not the way to change them. As for various national charts, the basic principle is that the enWP covers everything in the world equally, not just English speaking countries predominantly, except to the extent it inevitably reflects the interests of the contributors. The"English" part of the name means it is written in English. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of active editors from German speaking countries contribute to it--and similarly from all other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect [refactored after swinging from delete to keep previously] - there is still only one source, and this might not be enough to satisfy the significant coverage requirement; however there is more to the source than just a statement of its chart position as the German appears to describe both the song and the reaction to it in detail. However, merger seems the best way forward for now --Jubilee♫clipman 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep I've added a reference to verify its chart placing. The reference is in German, anyone who can translate will probably find more information to put in the article, but the chart placing can be easily seen whatever language you speak. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Simply being listed in a chart does not constitute "Significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV, which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail". Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:N 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.' The problem I have with your comments is that they are not the rationale that you nominated the article with. Why are you switching rationale? That smacked of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a person of good faith would accept the rationale was invalid and move on. Google finds 20 Million hits for this articles name. Obvious most are not about the song, but the onus is on the nominator to check them, see WP:BEFORE. In this case you seems to have failed to do a reasonable job in that at least one has been uncovered already. How long did it take you to check through the 20 million hits? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Google finds 20,000,000 hit for this particular combination of words which happen to translate as "What we are". I'd image that that phrase is fairly common in German. 634,000,000 for "What we are" what ever that proves. The onus now is for all of us here to check the hits. I have and I only found one, that being a WP:BADCHART. Someone else managed to find one other ref to a better chart. That's it so far. SIGCOV is all we have to go on. Any word on your "plenty of sources"?
- BTW, I am fully aware that the nom wishes to rewite the rule book: he, I and several others are presently scrutinising the notability guidelines for music following this nomination. That said, this particular song has to stand or fall on its own merits or demerits according to the present guidelines, which are somewhat fudged on the matter as you point out elsewhere. The nom has raised genuine concerns regarding the guidelines.
- On the other hand, changing the rules then noming according to those changed rules is not the way to go. I suggest the way to proceed is to ask the nom to withdraw this nomination, sort out the guidelines between us all and come back if the song still seems to fall short of WPs requirements after that --Jubilee♫clipman 05:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The guildelines at WP:NSONGS only say that a song is probably notable if it has ranked on a national chart, this is something that is often overlooked. It still needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG and I've tried looking, but I can't find anything to help keep this article. --JD554 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:N which WP:GNG is the first part actual contradicts that assertion. 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.' It's not ideal that two policies should have seeming contradiction but I think at least it would be wise to be aware of it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Probably" does not equal "definately". Which is probably why were are here --Jubilee♫clipman 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Jubileeclipman is correct, and the first part of WP:NSONGS also says: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That doesn't appear to be the case here. --JD554 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm happy with the 'probably' wording and understand that it gives editors leeway to apply common sense. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergethe reference for the chart placing to Nadine Beiler and redirect. We simply don't have enough information here to make a stand-alone article worthwhile.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Newly added coverage may be enough for a keep - sources are unfamiliar (unsurprisingly) but it looks like there may be enough there.--Michig (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - After some thought, my final word on this is to keep the article, and that speedily. Keep: there are now several sources for this article. Speedily: the nomination was based on a sole editor's (=the nom's) personal reworking of the guidelines. Furthermore, most of the above discussion re the guidelines, while helpful in other respects, is not especially relevent here: the article stands or falls on its own merits. In this case it stands --Jubilee♫clipman 09:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found an online posted image from a newspaper. [19], it seems more will be available in the Austrian press. If anyone has access to Austrian press archives in the April-May 2007 period then adding sources would be welcome. The performance in the final of Dancing with the Stars also should have courage it's a major TV show and the final especially so, sadly the official sites link of the event is now dead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I still think this song is not significant enough to warrant an independent article, the recent addition of quality sources improves the article greatly to the level we expect from Wikipedia, so the nomination was not in vain after all. I invite you all to the talk at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) to discuss my proposal to clarify the music notability guideline. Marokwitz (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - True, it isn't significant enough, we should merge it with Nadine the singer. Whenaxis (talk) 12:19, 4 April 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. JForget 01:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chase D. Waggoner (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)
City ward councilor for a small town. Elected with 493 votes. Found passing mention here, but could find no detailed discussion of him in sources not published by the respective council. Does not appear to meet notability thresholds, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Far too local to meet WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No notability, I could not find any good sources on him. Google search showed; the article, his facebook page, a Wikipedia mirror,a question/answer site that used the article as a refrence,election results,and a ton of unrelated news articles that had nothing to do with him. Fails bothWP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 March 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. Tone 14:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Voli light vodka (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 new vodka. References include a few blogs, one or two passing mentions in newspapers guide-to-nightlife blurbs stating that it is served at some bar, and a sixteen-second mention in a YouTube video from GuideToCool.com (skip to 1:50). Fails WP:N. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Very few results on Google that are about the product, 3 of which have something to do with the article,and no results on Google News. Not notable at all. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a spirits blogger, I am very familiar with those listed on wikipedia and sourced in other material. Seems that a number of wikipedia listed vodkas have similar levels of notability. Im not a wikipedia cop, but those are my two cents.I would be against deletion. -SpiritHound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.0.91 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the industry, never heard of this and can't find any solid info on it. Seems shady (looks like they claim it's light in calories and smooth, but don't mention that it's simply because the proof is lower- less vodka). Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinker5 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drinker5's comments are way off the mark. First, they claim to be up to 40% less calories than other brands, but their alcohol content, according to their website, is 60 proof. That's only 25% reduction from unflavored vodkas and only about a 10% reduction from most flavored vodkas, which are 70 proof. I'm not a math whiz, but those calorie savings are from more than alcohol, probably sugars and congeners, too. Also, by Drinker5's logic, all light beers are shady. What do you think makes them less caloric? Answer: less alcohol. When have you ever heard that mentioned? Here, it actually seems to be much more than that. What is in fact shady in the industry is the notion that being diamond filtered or gold filtered or whatever filtered or being in a black bottle or curved bottle or whatever bottle says anything about the product. We all know that's not true. I came across Voli because they sponsored a nationwide event at Equinox gym a couple weeks ago and people were raving about the flavors, then I learned they were lower calorie and electrolyte enhanced. As a spirits blogger, I looked into them. They are distributed by Southern Wine and Spirits in Florida. They are sold in NY, Ca and Fla. - found numerous outlets and have ordered and tasted them to blog on. I think these guys or gals or whoever have something really exciting in the spirits market. They're about the only new and different vodka brand I've seen since in a while. --SpiritHound —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardFontleroy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quote: "I think these guys or gals or whoever have something really exciting in the spirits market. They're about the only new and different vodka brand I've seen since in a while." Why does that make COI come to my mind? This article looks to me like carefully worded spam. References? Blogs in the main or reports of events where Voli were giving or sponsoring the giving of freebies or cheapies. Proves the stuff exists. Nothing more. "voli light vodka' gives 8 ghits (including the article in question). No quotes gives more, but so far as I went, not any to establish anything more than existence. Peridon (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC) sorry about that - missed signing[reply]
I'm with Spiritshound -- just spent over an hour looking at other vodkas and their sourcing. Voli is in the same boat, if not atronger than others. Let's be fair here, if Voli is considering being deleted, so should most of the others. 68.171.235.67 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Ben Harshaw[reply]
- Yes, that sounds good to me! Glenfarclas (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Non-notable vodka. Very simple page and not divided up like a 'real' article. Whenaxis (talk) 12:20, 4 April 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 G1. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TIWYAMB (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)
NN Term, only G Search results is the WIki page. CTJF83 chat 05:30, 28 March 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. JForget 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- English as first foreign language initiative (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 page has been tagged under three speedy deletion criteria (G12, G11, and A7) and userfied here. It was almost immediately resurrected in mainspace by the creator, this time as a soapbox. Two of the three original speedy criteria still apply, and the creator has been unable to come up with anything but a blog to establish notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the creator of the page "English as first foreign language" User:mahdi.mrabet. Following my discussion with User:Nyttend I added a section about the relevence or importance of the subject and I changed a few more things. Then, As User:Nyttend told me I replaced the article when ready.
"The article is now at User:Mahdi.mrabet/English as first foreign language initiative. When you believe that you've demonstrated its importance AND its notability, feel free to move it back to its old title. If you're not sure how to move a page, see Help:Moving a page. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)"
Followin my discussion with you User Talk:Blanchardb, I added an independent third source about the article which is a news website created and maintained by professional journalists, check it here : Europa 451 About us. I think calling it a "blog" is not accurate. I assume then that I have answered your requirement of an independent third party talking about the initiative. Besides, the initiative is remarkable in what it is trying to achieve and is already known by tens of development organizations. For the promotion issue, I've rewritten the article many times introducing many new angles on the the initiaitve including a "Critique" section and changing, as you required, the "Goals" section by an "Achievement" section. Although, I did not see what was wrong with the article informing about the goals of the initiative ? After all it is an article about the initiaitve, so if you don't know what are the initiative's goals, I don't know how you can have any idea about it.
I consider the notability and importance issues as addressed. You didn't add any specific concerns nor elements about why these issues are not answered. There is nothing promotional about the article, I checked every sentence and every statement is presented as a consideration of the initiative.
Do Not Delete--Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Mahdi.mrabet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Google shows nothing but a small number of forum posts: [20]. Problems with WP:PROMOTION and WP:COPYVIO: parts of the article copy [21]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright issue has been solved. Search on Google can be extended (see last page of search google search)--Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I excluded these results from the search for a reason. Wikipedia, Facebook and Linkedin are not reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright issue has been solved. Search on Google can be extended (see last page of search google search)--Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any other place where I could talk about this important issue for the development of African countries (which is the subject of the initiative ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi.mrabet (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does contain some valuable information about a very important issue related to development as well as some figures. The users of Wikipedia could therefore benefit and make their opinion on those elements if the article was there ... --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to publicise things. Facebook, LinkedIn, aboutus and so on are places where you can put your views forward (so far as I know - I don't use them myself). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a soapbox. Googling for the 'Initiative' gives me 24 hits, seemingly all Facebook, LinkedIn and similar, or forums. While I think the idea of the initiative is perhaps a good one - at least it won't do any harm - it doesn't yet seem to have reached the necessary notability yet for an article here. I've only searched in English. There might be other-language sites. If there are, once again no blogs, forums or editable sites. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read the Europa 451 article. OK - that's a start. It doesn't look like a forum based place - actually looks interesting if you enjoy politics... Peridon (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One additional source doth not an article make. Shii (tock) 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the importance or significance of the subject make up for the notability ? --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No,it can't make for the notability, not when all the Google results on the subject are from forms and social networking sites. As said before, Wikipedia is not a place to publicise stuff,use sites like Facebook instead. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously a potentially good idea, considering the predominance of english as a lingua franca, but we dont have third party coverage. Mahdi.mrabet, as you are obviously close to this, and will know if and when its mentioned anywhere, when you can collect more (really, any) international coverage, you can recreate it. however, regardless of whether you have released copyright, you will not be able to recreate the whole article, unless all the details of the organization come under discussion. At first, you would have just a stub with pointers to the website and all the references. later, say when the org. wins the nobel peace prize (one can dream, right), then the details can go here. sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:01, 29 March 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 keep. Nomination rationale lacks credibility, borderline vandalism. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Typewriter (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 notable enough. JMartin44 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Jafeluv (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis Tombs, Baron Tombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP, no indication of notability, fails WP:POLITICIAN , fails WP:BIO –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, withdraw nomination, obviously I was using the wrong search terms. Can someone close this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the article says, Tombs was an industrialist, only a politician to the extent that he obtained a life peerage after retirement. Googling him by name turns up references in for example, debates around nuclear power in the UK ([22], [23], [24]). One for improvement, I think. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google Scholar search leaving out the title ([25]) also turns up many additional docs by and about Tombs about industrial matters. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now referenced from a variety of sources (Hansard, House of Lords, etc.) indicating notability. AllyD (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a life peer and prominent businessman, now adequately sourced. By the way, what does "In July 2008 he ended it" mean. Is he dead? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it means he ended his leave of absence, it is badly worded. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 28 March 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. JForget 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IPContact (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. DimaG (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see any RS in the article and a cursory search doesn't reveal any either Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertising: It supports high-quality multipoint videoconferencing (up to 8-way), can interoperate with most major brands of H.323 equipment. It is one of very few products that provide full 8-way conferencing with full video resolution and quality without any need for an MCU (Multipoint Control Unit). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 29 March 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neocladura (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 has very little information on the subject and it also seem's too minor in order to include as an article on Wikipedia. Joker264 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Encyclopedic topic. Tag for expansion rather than deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Encyclopedic topic. Tag for expansion rather than deletion. Its our duty to ensure that information is online. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all living species; and other levels in the taxonomic tree are notable. Article could be WP:BETTER, but that's no reason to delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dywane Thomas Jr. (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 musician. Searched GHits/GNews and didn't find anything beyond sources that -verify- his existence (e.g. Amazon, iTunes, Rhapsody purchase pages, etc.). Nothing that I could find confers notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:56, 28 March 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. JForget 01:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Doused in Reverb EP made by the above musician was deleted per A9. --JForget 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Humphrey (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability (also possible autobiography or conflict of interest. He doesn't seem to have made any impact in the music world. I googled his name and didn't get anything, except the blogs used as references by the author of the article. Karljoos (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A google search only returns a series of sites unrelated to the musician which means that he isn't all that notible. Joker264 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, also apparently written by the subject. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 23:27, 28 March 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. JForget 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is not shown. DimaG (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is has no referrences what so ever and I am also not too sure whether the google search I made searching for the name of the person is all that reliable either. Joker264 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Conducting a proper search is quite difficult with this guy, especially as he could be confused with the much more prominent Australian radio announcer Grant Goldman. Nonetheless, I haven't found anything that would amount to significant coverage in reliable sources, which isn't surprising for someone who appears to be a fairly small-time radio player. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 28 March 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. JForget 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First Bounce Fly (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 game. DimaG (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I included a reference link on the page. Joker264 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lone contribution from User:Firstbouncefly. The lone source is someone's posting to a discussion board about backyard games. Mandsford (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Often it's hard to find references for childhood games, but here we've got only 38 total Google hits to work with. Naturally none of them is a reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Non-notable, only source is a form post, very few hits on google, not worthy of an article. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 28 March 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. JForget 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Malayala Sudra (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)
Multiple issues. Questionable noticeability. Article used for POV pushing. Contains defamatory / derogatory information. Neutrality of the article contested. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The usage of this term is irrelevant and obsolete and used in wiki only for name calling and POV pushing. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No need for a separate article, as there is a Sudra article already. Axxn (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per above. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agree that this article is not meeting the noticeability requirements. Kshatriya.Knight (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, it is definitely POV and there are no reliable sources anyways. prashanthns (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:: pure POV article.Rajkris (talk) 15:51, 30 March 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. Black Kite 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When Brummies Met Sindhis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits or GNEW. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even accepting that documentary films rarely get the coverage that do big studio blockbusters, I am unable to find any RS for this film. No awards. No coverage. Perhaps suitable for a redirect to the filmmaker Azfar Rizvi ...maybe... but an article on him does not exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep Modified my opinion per the continued efforts of User:EssRiz, which are underscoring the terrific difficulties faced in sourcing a Pakistani film, documentary or not, with English sources. I am willing to accept in good faith that he will continue his search for sources and will present them as he finds them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I certainly understand the importance of including worthy subjects; however, notability has not been established via the use of reliable sources. I've seen the argument used in conjunction with other articles in AfD that the lack of normalized support avenues used by Wikipedia are few and far between; however, that argument is never supported by valid alternative avenues of reliable sources that might approach the Wikipedia criteria. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ User:Ttonyb1: Yes, at en.Wikipedia we have many problems in showing English-notability for films from non-English countries. It is an unfortunate bias inherent in that the majority of editors at en.Wikipedia are themselves from English speaking/reading countries... not all.... but a great majority. Such is the problem of even an unintended anglo-centricism, and I am not tossing mud at anyone... only acknowleding the problem. For instance, consider WP:NF's stating "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". As written, the caveat gives greater weight to films that have the bigger budgets or the greater press toward commercial profit through their theatrical release and distribution... unfortunately assigning a greater burden to films from non-English countries and to documentaries that are not themselves theatrically/commercially released films. While accepting that such a caveat is fine for a domestic release of a major studio's or even an independent's film, the guideline seems specifically inclined to give preference to those films intended for a commercial market, it would be quite tough for a Pakistani educational documentary to get reviews from "nationally known critics". We do have at least one RS that sources the article and an an editor determined to improve the article. WP:CSB was set up in attempts to level the playing field... and I do understand how very difficult is their task. Given this, our setting aside Anglo-centric doubts would serve to improve the project. I believe that since we do have at least the one RS, it serves the project in this case to be patient and allow additional, even if non-English, sources to be brought to an article as they become available. Few article are created already perfect and without flaw. As this one is showing itself to be a work-in-progress that is getting better edit-by-edit, why not let it continued to be worked on? The Article might always be revisited in a few months and returned to AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Oh Michael, you are just too wonderful! Thanks so much, once again. I have been in contact with the university officials from Bahria University and Greenwich University, which are both established private universities in Karachi. They have confirmed that filmmaker Azfar Rizvi is a professor of media and communication studies at their respective schools, and that When Brummies Met Sindhis (among some of his other films) is a part of their curriculum in that department. However, there is no system of posting the curriculum online, in order for it to be visible by everyone. This is understandable but rather unfortunate. I am working with them on this, though, and hopefully something can materialize soon enough that will supplement the current sources available. On a separate note, it's crazy over here. I am originally from Canada, and the system is incomparable - media, education, you name it. Fundamental structural flaws manage to cripple whatever little progression is made in any of Pakistan's facets. There are exceptions, but very few. In agreement to your response, the only thing I can say is that expecting articles on films from a 'developing' third-world country to live up to the manageable standards available in and of that of a developed first-world country is unfair. And I am truly grateful for the good faith that you have in me :) just one, tiny correction - I am not a 'he'! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks Michael for pointing out that documentary films rarely get the coverage that big studio blockbusters do. Add to this the fact that this is a third-world production with just a fraction of resources and media presence available to us, when compared to that of big players like the States or the UK. I'm still in the process of working on this article to add more information about the film, and the ways in which it has contributed to society. This will cater to the very argument that there is no coverage. There are many documentary films, pieces of written work, paintings, other forms of creative expression all the across the world that I may be unaware of. But I am aware of the disparity that exists in terms of accessibility and media presence for different countries. Hence, just because I don't know about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't notable. There are many things that I have learned just by browsing Wikipedia, as opposed to coming across them somewhere else. As much as this may sound like an ode to Wikipedia, that is just how good this information portal really is! Please bear this mind while recommending your chosen course of action. Thanks much! EssRiz (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To EssRiz... With respects, I have a pretty decent personal track record for rescuing articles just like this... articles about minor or documentary or independent or short films... films with small or non-existant budgets and/or from non-western filmmakers... this through my researching, sourcing, cleaning up, and ultimately delivering back to folks in these discussions the results of my labors. Yes, the big films get the press. Yes, their articles are usually quite easy to improve. But it is because their lessor brethren do not get the coverage of their big-monied cousins that I work extra hard... and is why I can sincerely appreciate that you are working as hard as well. If the article is not improved in time to meet the concerns toward sourcing and notability, by all means please request from whomever closes this discussion that it might be userfied to you in a workspace such as User:EssRiz/workspace/When Brummies Met Sindhis. I do not anticipate any problems in it being moved so that improvements can continue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, I commend you for everything that you have accomplished in this regard. It is very inspiring to come across people who are willing to invest time and energy for a worthy cause, without getting anything of material significance in return. I've been collecting more information in the past few days. The notability factor seems a tad bit limiting but I am working on researching, as well as sourcing. Thanks for everything so far. I really appreciate both your kind words of encouragement, and the advice that you have given. Warm regards :) EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I'm on it! I am trying my best to ensure that I use only that research and resources which on some level, follow the Wikipedia advisory. Thanks for your patience! EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, I commend you for everything that you have accomplished in this regard. It is very inspiring to come across people who are willing to invest time and energy for a worthy cause, without getting anything of material significance in return. I've been collecting more information in the past few days. The notability factor seems a tad bit limiting but I am working on researching, as well as sourcing. Thanks for everything so far. I really appreciate both your kind words of encouragement, and the advice that you have given. Warm regards :) EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – There are certain criteria that need to be met in order to insure the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supported by reliable sources that support verifiability, not truth. There is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia notability, per Wikipedia guidelines if it cannot be verified, it is not notable. ttonyb (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To EssRiz... With respects, I have a pretty decent personal track record for rescuing articles just like this... articles about minor or documentary or independent or short films... films with small or non-existant budgets and/or from non-western filmmakers... this through my researching, sourcing, cleaning up, and ultimately delivering back to folks in these discussions the results of my labors. Yes, the big films get the press. Yes, their articles are usually quite easy to improve. But it is because their lessor brethren do not get the coverage of their big-monied cousins that I work extra hard... and is why I can sincerely appreciate that you are working as hard as well. If the article is not improved in time to meet the concerns toward sourcing and notability, by all means please request from whomever closes this discussion that it might be userfied to you in a workspace such as User:EssRiz/workspace/When Brummies Met Sindhis. I do not anticipate any problems in it being moved so that improvements can continue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA significant amount of information about the film and several contextual components has been added to the article. Notable resources, following the Wikipedia advisory on notability have been added as well. Please keep the article! Thanks much :) EssRiz (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note to EssRiz. With respects, I have struck your second !vote, while keeping your comment. I will revisit the article now, but please know its only one vote per editor, but you are always welcome to coment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, no worries :) I actually wasn't aware about the one vote limitation. Take care! EssRiz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EssRiz, as you may have noticed, I just went through the article... giving it some cleanup, correcting the reference format and the internal wikilinks. The film seems to be a very worthwhile project... but an issue that editors will point out is that the film itself does not (yet) have reliable sources speaking specifically about it or reviews about the film itself. As this may easily change as the films is further distributed, I would still encourage it be userfied to you for continued care. One of the things to keep in mind is that notability criteria for films allows that even without significant coverage, it might be found notable if it proves to be historically notable, wins awards, is accepted into a national archive, or becomes part of the sylabus at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, thanks for the cleanup! It looks much better now. I have a question for you. After reviewing your comment, I have highlighted the film's review by Bina Shah, who is a renowned Pakistani journalist and writer under the film's synopsis. Maybe I am not using this source efficiently enough for it to be considered? As well, I am pretty sure that the film is also part of the curriculum across media studies courses at several universities in Karachi. I will have to look into that though, and update the article as soon as I come across something. Thanks for all your help so far :) Take care! EssRiz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews best belong in a "Reception" section. I moved it there and included a direct quote from Bina Shah. Keep up the good efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, thanks for the cleanup! It looks much better now. I have a question for you. After reviewing your comment, I have highlighted the film's review by Bina Shah, who is a renowned Pakistani journalist and writer under the film's synopsis. Maybe I am not using this source efficiently enough for it to be considered? As well, I am pretty sure that the film is also part of the curriculum across media studies courses at several universities in Karachi. I will have to look into that though, and update the article as soon as I come across something. Thanks for all your help so far :) Take care! EssRiz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EssRiz, as you may have noticed, I just went through the article... giving it some cleanup, correcting the reference format and the internal wikilinks. The film seems to be a very worthwhile project... but an issue that editors will point out is that the film itself does not (yet) have reliable sources speaking specifically about it or reviews about the film itself. As this may easily change as the films is further distributed, I would still encourage it be userfied to you for continued care. One of the things to keep in mind is that notability criteria for films allows that even without significant coverage, it might be found notable if it proves to be historically notable, wins awards, is accepted into a national archive, or becomes part of the sylabus at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Michael, no worries :) I actually wasn't aware about the one vote limitation. Take care! EssRiz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to EssRiz. With respects, I have struck your second !vote, while keeping your comment. I will revisit the article now, but please know its only one vote per editor, but you are always welcome to coment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just crept over into Keep - cognizant of the efforts of two editors to bring up to standard the background and information on this documentary. Both the subject matter and the form are worthy of interest, though I would suggest rearranging the entry into more standard format, starting with a synopsis of the film, factual background, and then the British council funding arrangements in that order. Moloch09 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What bothers me is the lack of reliable sources. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm bothered too - but not to the point of 'delete'. I'm waiting for more substance and cross references, but the article seems to be receiving the right attention from editors, so my inclination is to let them continue with their work, Moloch09 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Dear Moloch, thank you so much for your appreciation! I will get to work on the rearrangement as per your suggestion as soon as possible. Unannounced power outages have taken over this city! I really like your idea of following the standard format. Thing is, I am new here, and learning just a little bit more every day! Take care and have a good one! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What bothers me is the lack of reliable sources. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review. All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This Documentary is not noteable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia IMO. The Director/producer have no real fame; maybe wait and see how this film does at these festivals. Lets at least hear some critical feedback and please get some realiable sources.--intraining Jack In 18:52, 4 April 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AOL Radio (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 contest the notability of this application, after all it is just another internet radio application for the iPhone. All references in the article are to the press release of guess who: Time Warner. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that since July 2008, this article has a tag that the article is a pure ad, and that has not been removed yet. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, It does need a clean up, but with 1400 G News hits, and with coverage by the Washington Post, USA Today, Reuters UK, NY Times, among many others, it is clearly notable. CTJF83 chat 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly asking: just because any product is done by any major corporation is enough to have it included in Wikipedia? Any product done by any corporation will have million of news sites to reference to it. Honestly, I am just asking; since the concept of “noticeable” may be different for some people. Thanks. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand your question. The sources I've linked cause AOL Radio to pass the WP:GNG requirements, which means it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. For the other part of your question a product may be part of a major corp and not meet the GNG requirements. Not the best explanation, note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where next?. It is an Iphone app, which Iphone and Apple is a major product/company, but if you check my G News link, it doesn't have the significant coverage to meet the GNG requirements linked above. I hope this helps a little.... CTJF83 chat 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is a relevant product that is featured in radio advertisements produced by CBS Radio who actually runs both the AOL Radio and Yahoo Radio services. If anything, the AOL Radio and Yahoo Radio articles should be merged into the parent product CBS Radio Online, but by no means should the articles and their facts be deleted.--KJRehberg (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, the article should still be Keep but they should not be merged. In the interest of historical significance, AOL Radio article should be adjusted to reflect the history of the product and that its current incarnation is the CBS Radio Online product, whatever article that may be.--KJRehberg (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after understanding the previous explanation, I also consider this article should be kept, but I aslo strongly suggest to get those two articles merged. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:07, 30 March 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 Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Governance, risk management, and compliance (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'm not able to find any sources that specifically indicate that these topics are specifically notable when combined, as opposed to their established notability as separate concepts. Each of the three primary related articles, Governance, Risk management, and Regulatory compliance, already offer comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of these topics, making this article redundant at best. --Darkwind (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep When I removed the PROD, I added a source which specifically addresses the topic: the Governance, Risk, and Compliance Handbook. The nominator therefore does not appear to have read the article and has made no effort to discuss the matter at the article's talk page where I have added links to other sources such as The ABCs of GRC. This process is therefore premature per our deletion policy and WP:SK:
- "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected"
- "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question"
- Note also that our article is cited in Governance, risk management and compliance and what it means to you - a good testimonial of its value to our readership.
- Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, I have read the article, and I did look at the reference you provided. While the book's title does indeed match that of the article, I don't see where it provides any information about the synthesis or union of these three topics (which are already covered by other Wikipedia articles). What I don't see is what this article adds that isn't covered by the individual separate articles on these topics. It's like writing a book about Pork, beef, and venison - that doesn't mean that Pork, beef, and venison is a useful or required Wikipedia article, even if you might cook them the same way and use similar or identical tools to manage them. Also, I don't believe WP:SK (specifically the "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected" clause) applies to rejected PROD discussions. By the nature of PROD, you were the only one who had objected to the deletion before it was discussed here. Listing it at AfD is a perfectly acceptable way to bring the discussion to a larger audience and garner a consensus. However, that being said, if the consensus is that this book makes the topic notable, then I'll withdraw the AfD. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per references added.[26] Google news archive has 511 references. Google books has 61 books with this term, including some with that term in the title. google scholar has 91 references to the term. Okip 02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - per objections above, it's apparent that the consensus is that this article is useful. However, it needs a lot of cleanup, and I trust that there won't be any objection to it being tagged appropriately. --Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Always check Google news search and Google book search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion, and try to discuss things on the talk page. Dream Focus 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep This should run the full time. for one thing, I am not convinced this is the standard term. "Corporate regulatory compliance and risk management" is apparently the actual topic, as close as I can get to it in ordinary English. The term actually used more in the management literature cited by the article is "Governance, risk and compliance" . Ref.1, the example offered to us by Colonel Warden as an example of the title does not match the article title, but uses that phrase--"Governance, risk and compliance"). Ref 2 in the article uses that phrase also, as does ref 3; Ref 4 has a different title altogether. --WorldCat gives only a single use, and that only as a subtitle in a more complex phrase "Data protection : governance, risk management, and compliance" [27]. It gives more under "governance, risk and compliance [28] This is not just a title dispute overrwhich form of the words -- but my thought that we are going very much down the wrong path if we start adopting every current combination of catch phrases used in management. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The common TLA for this topic is GRC and there is naturally some variation in its expanded forms but it is still the same topic. Expressing business concepts in this way is a common form of expression, e.g. BPR and TQM. We see this in Wikipedia too - AFD, RFA, RFC, DYK, &c. Anyway, for numerous hits on Worldcat, please see this search. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 29 March 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. JForget 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Division Theory (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)
Original research. DimaG (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent, objective, reliable sources are found to establish notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain why the sources are unreliable? SilverserenC 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a "theory", it's clearly a fringe theory, and one that hasn't been referenced extensively and in a serious manner in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. And no, the "Tranceformers" book dealing with "communication with the dead", nor the Pyramid Bookstore title promising to reveal "what really happens to the soul after death" qualify as serious, independent coverage of a theory. However I suspect this "division" is not actually a "theory", but a mystical belief, and if it can satisfy WP:N as a belief, should be be redirected to an appropriate article such as New age, Afterlife or Soul dualism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added in some links. Though, "original research" isn't necessarily a reason for nomination at AfD. SilverserenC 08:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable and appears to be just spamming by fringe author. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no indication that independent sources have ever identified this idea as notable. Much of the rest of the article is original research as the OP states. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are plenty of people making up "theories" everyday; we only need articles on those that are notable. There are no reliable sources for this topic, only fringe, and it is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is heavily masked in searching by a band and a variety of mathematical terms. but even so it only seems to show up in the fringey press as a slight trace. The sources are for the most part books and conference presentations by the author of the theory, from what I can see. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem notable to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, newly created religion (i.e., group) with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Syndal Voodoo (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 cult practice E Wing (talk) 01:06, 28 March 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. Black Kite 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- José Bonilla Observation (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)
Too obscure for its own article (the subject of a few paragraphs in a 19th century astronomy journal). Lacking third-party sourcing and independent acknowledgment outside of the community of proponents who dug up this observation in the first place that Wikipedia requires of fringe proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Bonilla observation has been written about in many books [29]. However, the article should be rewritten to focus on Bonilla's life and career. Warrah (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These books are all poor sources: unreliable UFO sensationalism and one book that actually uses this article as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the publishers of these "poor sources" include Science Digest and a pair of peer-reviewed university presses, University Press of Kentucky and University Press of New England. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going by the first source, we should redirect this article to goose. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly significant mention in either of those texts, I might add. The first attributes it to geese unequivocally and
- Keep Unsure what is meant by the wording "requires of fringe proposals". I would think this incident has been covered in numerous locations over the past 127 years. Wouldn't it be better to put the emphasis on digging up references that are likely to exist rather than moving for deletion? __meco (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can point to someone who isn't a credulous ufologist discussing this, that would help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any independent sources covering this "observation". It doesn't have any traction outside of a few UFOlogy publications desperately trying to interpret it as a UFO related milestone or Fortean mystery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The aforementioned Google book search [[30]. Warrah (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Books whose titles use phrases like "unsolved", "unexplained", "secrets revealed", "conspiracy", "monsters, mysteries" etc. aren't authoritative sources for notable astronomical events. What remains from University Press of Kentucky and Science Digest are trivial passing mentions of the subject, maybe worthy of a Merge with UFO, but not a separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some other sources and translated the French one. It appears to be a notable event, especially if it is the first ever photographically recorded sighting of a UFO. SilverserenC 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obama has promised to tell the whole truth about extraterrestrials" ??? That's one of the links that was added. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Occidentale is a legitimate paper, regardless of the title of the article link. If you do not have any legitimate reason to remove the link, some legitimate concern about L'Occidentale, then it should remain, as disliking the title of it is not a reason to discredit it. SilverserenC 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should explain why you feel that L'Occidentale is a reliable, trustworthy source for objective facts. The story is about Obama preparing to "reveal the truth about space aliens", and is clearly a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rest of the sources are then as equally unreliable? SilverserenC 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That only counts for two of the titles, what about the other two? SilverserenC 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two? You might want to specify which titles you feel represent an independent and objective discussion of the subject, and why they are of significant depth and detail to warrant its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That only counts for two of the titles, what about the other two? SilverserenC 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rest of the sources are then as equally unreliable? SilverserenC 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should explain why you feel that L'Occidentale is a reliable, trustworthy source for objective facts. The story is about Obama preparing to "reveal the truth about space aliens", and is clearly a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Occidentale is a legitimate paper, regardless of the title of the article link. If you do not have any legitimate reason to remove the link, some legitimate concern about L'Occidentale, then it should remain, as disliking the title of it is not a reason to discredit it. SilverserenC 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reading the article I would think that this would be notable, but without independent in depth coverage ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and Improve - Reading this article it is small but you can easily improve it. It is obvious this observation location is real, it is semi-notable and if you just add some more bulk onto the article it will become more notable and 'readable'. Whenaxis (talk) 11:16, 5 April 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. JForget 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crane Plumbing Corporation (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 DimaG (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A well known consumer brand. Oodles of relevant hits in reliable sources when you drop "Corporation" from the business name. Meets the "I heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, also the article may be small and just a stub but it dose not make it non-notable the sources that have been found could help expand the article. Kyle1278 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. A very important company in its field. Adequate sourcing available. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 2 April 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) 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prema Vakayil (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:PROF StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No GS cites found for either Prema Vakayil or P. Vakayil. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. RayTalk 19:54, 29 March 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. Black Kite 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellen McCarthy (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 (former) urban planner doesn't seem to pass WP:ANYBIO; Google only turns up trivial mentions of her. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not entirely sure. She has does have one award that may qualify as passing WP:ANYBIO here. [31] I'm not sure if that is a note worthy award. ZacBowling (user|talk) 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; however, when I Googled for that award, her name was the only thing that came up. Maybe it was a one-time thing? Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The award linked above is to a press release. I tried to find coverage about her receiving the award but drew a blank. Looking around at just her in respect to her development activity, I can find her being quoted or mentioned in news articles, but I'm not finding coverage specifically about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 08:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added new sources. I believe being Director of Planning is enough to establish her notability. There are numerous mentions of her in the 293 hits] I found on Google News, enough to give notability, I think. SilverserenC 08:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Disambiguating two women of the same name who both become well-known in a major city at the same time is a reasonable and useful public service. Keeping this article may be a modest step in the war against misinformation, but why not take it? Both historic preservation and the doings of the Washington Post are certain to remain topics of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilliumz (talk • contribs)
- Weak delete - The new sources are good but, you have to add more information to the body of article for the reader to think its notable enough. "Former" urban planner, she may of been important before but not now. I understand there are sources and she won award but that's not enough. There are many people out there that win swimming medals, sports stuff, business awards, etc. Their not in Wikipedia - neither should she. Whenaxis (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of an article is not one of the criteria for notability. Either the sources establish notability on their own or they don't, that is all. Furthermore, notability is not temporary, if she was important once, then she is important still. That does not change over time. SilverserenC 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - once notable, always notable. She was director of planning of DC - in effect a city-state, and ED of the downtown BID. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 5 April 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) 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawson (pornographic 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)
Poorly sourced BLP of gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poorly sourced how? I see a number of good sources. SilverserenC 08:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Note: This user appears to be a single purpose account that goes around to AfD articles and votes delete with this same exact wording every time. SilverserenC 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do the sources not establish notability? SilverserenC 08:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meat Packing" - Sex Herald
- I found these three new sources and added them to the article. SilverserenC 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed the sources listed above from the article, saying they are spam. Can another user please explain to me how they are spam? SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling all of those spam seems unhelpful. They are correct though that our standards for external links (see WP:EL) likely don't support thos as external links. The best bet is to ensure each is considered a reliable source and use them as in-line citations instead. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Benjiboi is hardly being candid. All three "sources" are retailer-created pages intended to sell product, and on their face fail WP:RS. There's nothing "tendentious" or "unhelpful" about describing self-evident marketing material as "spam," especially since these "sources" typically don't source article content in any nontrivial way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling all of those spam seems unhelpful. They are correct though that our standards for external links (see WP:EL) likely don't support thos as external links. The best bet is to ensure each is considered a reliable source and use them as in-line citations instead. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed the sources listed above from the article, saying they are spam. Can another user please explain to me how they are spam? SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm with Silver; I have a hard time seeing what about this article is poorly sourced. Ravenswing 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doubtful notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of what? Can you please be more specific? SilverserenC 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I forgot to vote before. The sources that I have here and are already on the page are enough to establish notability, taking into account that porn actors do not have the same type of news as everyone else does (as you're not going to find news articles about them in mainstream newspapers.) SilverserenC 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Within gay porn, barebacking is considered controversial. As such videos extolling the practice as Treasure Island does are seemingly shut out altogether. Ergo a new awards that recognize this genre have been created and apparently this is one of the big winners of the year. So it certainly meets PORNBIO and likely GNG as well. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only "evidence" of notability is that the subject may have received, or appeared in videos which received, "awards" that various retailers and video companies have created to market their own products. That isn't enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO or the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are still legitimate, notable awards, regardless of their reason for being created (or what you believe their reason is), so they do still satisfy WP:PORNBIO. SilverserenC 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hullaballoo, you can denigrate the awards all you want. But we as contributors are not in the position to judge the quality of the awards. The awards were properly given by the organizations in question, and properly reported by neutral third-party publications. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's utter nonsense. There's a clear consensus that marketing gimmicks dressed up as awards don't amount to evidence of notability, whether they're given by vanity presses to their authors or porn marketers to their own products. And despite what you say, there's no evidence that, for example, the "Spoogie Awards" have been "reported by neutral third-party publications." Neglible Google hits, no GNews hits, no GBooks hits. The case against these "awards" indicating notability was made pretty clearly by Benjiboi, who acknowledges that the awards were fabricated since the products involved weren't winning any legitimately notable awards. As for Wikipedia contributors not judging the "quality" of awards and distinctions, you're dead wrong. It's done all the time. WP contributors have decided that Rhodes Scholarships don't confer individual notability, or various British crown honours, or White House presentations, or most military honors,or high school and collegiate prizes, or many other forms of recognition. Nothing exempts sex workers from this principle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's absolutely no consensus on whether these awards are marketing gimmicks, Benjiboi's claims notwithstanding. The awards you mention (Rhodes scholarships, for example) have each been considered on their merits, extensive discussion made, and consensus reached. That's not true of the awards mentioned in the Dawson article. Absent such consensus-building, good faith must be assumed and the awards accepted as evidence of notability. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More nonsense. The burden of proof rests with the editor asserting notability, and here it's nowhere near met. You're not entitled to add whatever promotional rubbish you find into BLPs absent a consensus against the specific item. Quite the reverse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep I think these claims of notability could be called borderline, suspect, or marginal. However, given the specialized nature of the genre, the awards satisfy anybio1 if verified. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO, meets general notability guidelines given the citations already included in the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets PORNBIO; requests for better sourcing are not a rationale to delete articles. Ash (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO and has many reliable citations. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO, has many reliable citations, and is a notable porn/pop-culture figure who also is sometimes referenced in discussions of condomless sex in the (gay) porn industry. His '50 Load Weekend' video became an internet meme as per '2 Girls, 1 Cup' due to the outrageousness of the concept. In summary: far from trivial, the entry serves as a important sociological reference. Engleham (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Many reliable citations"? Not so. The article has 8 references. Five of the eight go to retailer promotional pages, which are at best dubious under WP:RS. One source is a blog, that's not appropriate for a BLP. The other two appear to be self-published sites, albeit somewhat elaborate ones. If there's an "important sociological reference" here, there ought to be a genuinely reliable source (which typically wouldn't be wallpapered with sexually explicit advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just added an AEBN award and BBVA (for a video in which Dawson was the title star). Hope I got the formatting correct. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already mentioned and cited in the article; linking multiple times to the same retailer promo pages is more in the nature of spamming than referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't intend that. Many (if not most) other actors in this category have separate sections for their awards (as per PRONBIO, to keep clear their notability). I can remove the links but the section should remain, yes? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Dawson is a very common name and there are no intersections from reliable independent secondary sources (see: WP:FRANKIE)). Assuming that all information belongs to the same person is WP:OR. We should be really careful in cases of WP:BLP because WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may actually be verifiable (WP:FRANKIE). According to WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." "Do not use primary sources, such as public records that include personal details, unless a reliable secondary source has already published the information" Algébrico (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm not misunderstanding, are you suggesting that there is a strong possibility that the porn actor named "Dawson" who starred in Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 20-Load Weekend" is not the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 1)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 2)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Loaded (Dawson's Cream Pie Video)"? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 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. Black Kite 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Omnify (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)
Promotion for non-notable company, article by a company PR representative. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, advertising. Unsupported. The only ref provided is a dead link. Google search turns up press releases but no independent coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link to article that led to originally inclusion on PLM vendor listing was changed, therefore appeared broken. Has been fixed on product lifecycle management page to be http://www.mddionline.com/article/software-systems-breaking-boundaries-device-makers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.218.185 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Billy Childish. Clearly doesn't pass WP:MUSIC as it stands, redirected to the notable member's article to preserve the history should it be able to be improved. Black Kite 23:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vermin Poets (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)
Do not be deceived by the apparent references. The BBC page is just a playlist and the other does not appear to be a reliable source. Notability is not inherited from the members of the band. Unless and until this band becomes notable in its own right it is just like so many other non notable bands and has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged the article for rescue. SilverserenC 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perhaps the best approach would be to add some of this article's material to the Billy Childish article, and let this article be deleted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMy opinion remains the same as above, especially if some other editor adds to the Billy Childish article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not vote twice. it makes it seem like you are trying to game the system. SilverserenC 21:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, the first time most people see "relisted" they wonder whether they should restate their view. I know I wondered the first time. This editor made it clear that their opinion was as stated previously and did not deserve that hard slap. It is quite sufficient to tell someone that it is not necessary to restate an opinion stated above the relisting line. Please educate and remember to assume good faith and don't slap. Any irony perceived may have been intentional. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, i've just had a lot of people doing that lately. I didn't mean to slap, my fault. SilverserenC 07:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, the first time most people see "relisted" they wonder whether they should restate their view. I know I wondered the first time. This editor made it clear that their opinion was as stated previously and did not deserve that hard slap. It is quite sufficient to tell someone that it is not necessary to restate an opinion stated above the relisting line. Please educate and remember to assume good faith and don't slap. Any irony perceived may have been intentional. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable doesn't necessarily mean famous or wealthy. They are established and have published their first album. Only time will tell whether they publish more albums or hit the charts in a big way but since they are already noted then any discussion on our part whether they are notable is simply a matter of perspective from people who don't know them and are not qualified to summarily dismiss them. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 05:52, 30 March 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 Christine Shin. Black Kite 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Journey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable short film. No explanation as to what the Hollywood DV Festival is nor why an award from them would be notable. No independent sources. Woogee (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the original editor has a habit of removing afd tags. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect to Christine Shin, as the film does not yet have sorcable notability. I did clean up the article somewhat... so if can be sourced to show that it has been in a festival 5 years after initial release, I would be glad to reconsider my !vote. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The then MiniDV Festival has an interesting history, and might itself merit an article. They began in 2003 as "Pure Digital/Video Film Festival". In 2004 they changed their name to "Mini DV Festival" (Journey's win year). In 2005 they changed to "Pure DV & HD Festival". In 2007 they changed to "Hollywood DV Festival". In 2008 they changed to "Hollywood DV & HD Festival". And now they are called "Hollywood MiniDV Festival". Seems they've been having an identity crisis... but there's lots of search options. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Christine Shin, per Michael Q. Schmidt. Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Fake Husband, although references for this one seem to be harder to find. I have found the press pack for this film ([32]), which does verify most of the information in this article, but it isn't independent and couldn't be considered entirely reliable. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Shameless self-promotion. Can't find independent sources. Racepacket (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I an unaware of any evidence showing that the author was Christine Shin, and even though the article now belongs to Wikipedia, I do not see how "shameless self-promotion" applies. However, since the filmmaker's article has assertions of notability through WP:ANYBIO and awards, I have included information about this film there. A redirect would serve to delete as you wish and yet send readers someplace where the subject is dealt with in context to the filmmaker. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 30 March 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. I can't see a consensus to delete here. The discussion (which was in several places was happily nuanced) acknowledges that the subject has a measure of notability, but there was disagreement as to whether it reached the level of sufficiency necessary for a separate article. Since it's already been relisted, I'm ended this one as no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Vellanickal (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)
As a scholar he fails WP:PROF, since his doctoral thesis has been cited 18 times, but that's about it. As a churchman, he is was a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and is vicar general of Changanassery, but neither of those positions seem inherently notable.. StAnselm (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, sounds like a resume. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he is a member of Pontifical Biblical Commission then that would appear to be notable, but I can't see clear evidence that he actually is a member. In the WP article on the Pontifical Biblical Commission it says "The Pontifical Biblical Commission is a committee of Cardinals" but the subject does not appear to be a cardinal. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I had assumed he was one of the "consultors", but I can't get any confirmation either. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that any Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church is ex officio notable but it seems that the subject is not one of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Consultor to the Oriental Congregation, apparently. See here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, not a cardinal. He's not on this list. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that any Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church is ex officio notable but it seems that the subject is not one of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. Fails WP:PROF, and his roles as consultor to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and vicar general of Changanassery don't seem quite enough for notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and he is one of three vicars general there, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This discussion does raise the question of the ex officio notability of clergy of major denominations who hold leadership positions. There don't seem to be WP guidelines on this. I suggested that in the church of Rome Cardinals would be notable. Would this extend to bishops? Where would it stop? I note that this subject is one rank below a bishop. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- That's a very good point, and it's a pity there are no good guidelines. By analogy with WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN, I would argue that you could perhaps take ex-officio notability down to bishops, but I don't think you can possibly take it further than that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've been working with bishops as the rule of thumb. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am also inclined to include bishops ex-officio. If the false information in this article-that the subject is a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission- is removed I would be prepared to vote keep as the input to doctrine as an consultor is important. One problem is that a large number of inferior articles have been created by this creator and the adequate ones can get lost in a flood of dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Good point; it may be appropriate to flag the article for rescue. I've tried to rescue articles by this creator before and failed; the key issue will be whether there are any sources describing his work as consultor, rather than just stating the bare fact.
- I don't think being one of three vicars general is notable. Taking another look at the article, though, I saw (buried at the bottom) "President, Paurastya Vidyapitham (Pontifical Oriental Institute of Religious Studies)," which may contribute to notability. However, the article is woefully short of reliable third-party references (and one of the ones that exists says simply "I'd like to thank Dr Vellanickal"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:PROF for his administrative role a head of a seminary. That by alone is sufficient. Not that he seems to be a bishop, but we have generally included bishops of territorial churches as notable, on the basis that there administrative role is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think headship of the seminary, as a key to notability, will depend on its size (I don't know what that is), but that is probably the key notability claim. I don't think being one of three assistants to the bishop counts as notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above. I feel that he meets enough criteria overall to be notable and applicable to Wikipedia. SilverserenC 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seminary administrator and not-bishop. Author of a lot of monographs which don't get cited. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to South African pound. Tone 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- South African Republic pond (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)
To my knowledge, this was not an independent currency, but merely coins issued with the Afrikaans word "pond" instead of "pound" minted onto the face. Basically, a currency-union with the South African Pound, where the "pond" is already mentioned in the article. I therefore put this (thus far unreferenced) stub up for discussion.
Also nominating: Transvaal pound (for the same reason) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If it's already mentioned at the Pound article, then no need for a move or merge, as there isn't anything sourced here to move. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Supposedly written by a numismatist, but no sources for either article. The days of "This is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by doing the work that I don't feel like doing" are over. If you can't tell us where you got the information, don't ask us to take your word for it. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to South African pound. Since it is mentioned there, that is a good reason to merge it. Do not delete and then recreate as a redirect, since this will destroy the edit history. Dew Kane (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Dew Kane. Reasonable, cheap, and will save the edit history. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 29 March 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) 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe) (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)
Original research and synthesis based on two single episode appearances of the character in two separate series and cameo appearances in a third. The PROD was removed with a call to "merge or reirect, not delete"... The Lead, the only section dealing with Doctor Strange, was copped in full from Doctor Strange in other media#Animation. The section on the Ancient One from Ancient One#Ancient One, Dormammu - Dormammu#In other media, Eternity - Eternity (comics)#Other media, Baron Mordo - Baron Mordo#Television, and Wong - Wong (comics)#Television. There is nothing to merge. And redirecting makes little to no sense since the dab is not a likely nor reasonable search point. J Greb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable and without sourcing Dwanyewest (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Begone! This should never have been spun out of into Doctor Strange in other media, and maybe both of those can be returned to the article about Doctor Strange. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 28 March 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) 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abnormal Waltz (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:NALBUMS, can't find coverage Hekerui (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreDDup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this album. Also WP:NALBUM frowns upon stand-alone album articles consisting of little more than a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:59, 29 March 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. Tone 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bor-Bor Zan (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 game. DimaG (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be made up, or at least I'm not finding much other than mirrors of this article. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The game probably isn't a hoax because it has a facbook group, and a number of people who feel it is legitimate. However, with a lack of sources available it fails WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeForeigner (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 April 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) Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assyrian International News Agency (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 proof of notability, or reliable sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See references to the agency here (by UPI) and here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We run into the problem here where we have a news agency that's clearly notable, but that it is extremely hard to find sources that descibe it. There are a number of hits out there, but they are all "according to" and such. I feel that notability should be able to be inferred from this, because you are not going to find news articles about news agencies. It's just not going to happen. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In combination with some other articles, the notability of this news organization can be inferred. Improvement of the article is needed, though. I added two templates to the talk page, and perhaps those projects could provide improvements and expansion of this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News search shows 161 results. They are notable enough to be quoted by other news agencies even. Dream Focus 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge There doesn't seem to be much to say about it but we should keep it as an informative stub until a suitable merge target appears or more sources turn up. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 3 April 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. Tone 14:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clifton "Elvis" Wolcott (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 biography with few sources. His notability seems to come from the film Black Hawk Down. It will never be more then a short stub. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they get notability from the same reason and are of similar quality.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I detest these nominations. Heroic young men, some with multiple awards for valor aren't "notable" enough to have an article, but some wasteoid who managed to rap his way to #199 on the Billboard charts between stints in prison is forever "notable". But based on our unrealistic standards, I have to hold my nose and say delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree whole heartedly. On most I would say go ahead and delete (they will likely be put back in the future anyway) except for Wolcott. Keep Wolcott. Delete the others. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was tempted to say keep Wolcott, but he doesn't meet but I can't see how to get him past WP:MILPEOPLE. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Partly I am saying keep because he is a very well known figure of the event and because there are plenty of references naming him specifically in relation to the event. I also believe he wrote a book about it making him an author (as are a couple of the other people who were there) but I can't find it at the moment. Related to Milpeople though I would say he meets criteria 5.--Kumioko (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As others have pointed out, he died when his helicopter was shot down. Awards get written posthumously, but I don't think he wrote any books posthumously. I'm not aware of any of these names being authors. Give me a plausible reason to change my !vote and I'll thank you for it.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumioko, I'm not sure he does meet Section 5, because his performance in the battle was limited to having his helicopter shot down. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although his life wasn't limited to participating in that battle. He had a Silver Star also, which didn't come from that battle, so apparently he distinguished himself prior to, just not enough to pass the current notability guidelines. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Niftshift, though I agree with your sentiments. However we don't help ourselves by only writing very short articles about them. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All, per Niteshift. You beat me to it on this AFD Rin Tin Tin! I think Kumioko is thinking of Michael Durant who I would keep (of course he isn't part of this AFD). Wolcott died in the battle, so any book would have been difficult for people on this plain of existence to read : ) I am slightly tempted to think keep for Wolcott based on his awards though... depends what others think. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered trying the awards angle, but he doesn't meet that. WP:MILPEOPLE says multiple awards of the second highest award for valor. Wolcott's highest was a Silver Star (third highest) and it goes further down the order of precedence from there. Again, I'll thank anyone that gives me a way I can legitimately !vote keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and redirect. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with the nomination and believe that these articles currently do not satisfy the relevant policies listed above and thus should not exist on the encyclopedia. I would like to say, though, that I suspect that the reason these articles are getting written is because of all the redlinks in the parent article (Battle of Mogadishu (1993)), which encourage editors to create the articles. So, what can be done about this? I have two suggestions. Option one, delete the articles and remove the redlink wikilinks from the parent article. Option two, redirect the current articles to the parent one (this appears to have been done with Matt Rierson already). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this passes (and I think it will) I would redirect the articles. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 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.