Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 8
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close since no deletion is required. I'll perform the redirect and merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doom Troopers (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 reliable secondary sources that cover the game directly in detail. Explodicle (T/C) 22:36, 8 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) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. We are not MobyGames or GameFAQs. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I hesitated when I saw that this previously passed an AfD, but I'm not sure why it did in the first place. The best argument for inclusion appears to be that the game exists. There is, as far as I can tell, a total absence of reliable secondary sourcing on the topic. And I say this making a sad face because I have a soft spot for obscure SNES titles :( ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article reads: "The game was known for depicting blood and mutilations of the enemies killed. For example, the common enemies in the first level are usually decapitated before they die." I don't recall Nintendo licensing any games for the SNES that had blood, mutilation, or decapitation in them. They had rules against any realistic display of blood, and refuse to allow Mortal Combat to decapitate enemies, so why would they allow this game to do so? How popular is the card game it was based on? That article says they have over a thousand cards. If nothing else, you could merge it with the article for that series, although I see no reason why every game ever officially released shouldn't have its own article. Wikipedia is not paper, and no sense not being thorough. Dream Focus 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"although I see no reason why every game ever officially released shouldn't have its own article." Well that may be your opinion, but there are guidelines here that tend to disagree with you opinion. Why stop with videogames? Should we extend this to software? Should Wikipedia have an article on every piece of software ever released?Striking previous, this shouldn't turn into a policy debate! The general notability guideliness clearly preclude including "every game ever officially released."That said, if this was based on a card game, there's pretty clear precedent for a merge, so we are possibly agreed there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Ginsengbomb, WP:N should apply but a merge sounds like the best idea. If JBsupreme consents I'll withdraw the nomination and perform the merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay... I'm not opposed to a redirect. There isn't much of anything to merge here, and the target article is also lacking in reliable sources as well. So this is a pretty weak redirect but perhaps something can be done with the target page. Wishful thinking? JBsupreme (talk) 18:19, 9 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dewey, Cheatem & Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since forever. Nothing but an examplefarm, absolutely unsourceable. Largely untouched for past couple years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep admittedly the article needs sources, but there's references to this through The Three Stooges, Leisure Suit Larry, and many other pop culture icons. WP:SOFIXIT--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'll bet this is searched for more than most real law firms for which we have entries. bd2412 T 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note also: literally hundreds of Google Books hits. Granted, most are mentions as a placeholder name, but we have articles on placeholder names for their memetic value (Blackacre, Joe's Diner). bd2412 T 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, every law professor, including me, uses this name. The article just needs more citations. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of sources. The only issue is that they don't agree whether it's Cheatam, Cheatem or Cheatum but we can address this by use of redirects. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Is nominator in their employ and trying to clear their name????? Hmmmm.--Milowent (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is exactly the type of information I come to Wikipedia to look up. I might not know how to justify it in terms of WP policies but it is an extremely useful article and to delete it would simply detract from the power of Wikipedia.--Modelmotion (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Searching by "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe" stooges gives a return that says "Perhaps the most famous trio of names associated with the Stooges — lawyers Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe — was never actually used ..." but I cannot read the rest due to the snippet view. By varying the spelling, other (admittedly weaker) sources abound. Some people have actually used the name to pass bad checks, and went years without being caught. Abductive (reasoning) 08:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I love this article! Who knew there was such good, encyclopedic, well sourced material on a flippant old catch phrase? My compliments to the editors. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator please stop nominating things without searching first yourself. Click the Google news search and Google books search links at the top of the AFD. It comes up enough time to indicate its probably notable, and clicking and reading some information, would verify that it is. Many references have been added to the article since the AFD. Dream Focus 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic, numerous GHits, GScholar hits, GBooks hits, etc. There's non-trivial coverage present in reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep TomCat4680 (talk) 17:36, 14 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) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New Independent Directors Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was PROD'ed again after a deletion in February. Reason given was "Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources" Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence it has any claim to notability as a coaching company. Also no evidence of significant notice taken by the wider uninvolved world. Every company is slightly different, this one is too. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources.--PinkBull 13:51, 15 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 ANTM 4. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keenyah Hill (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)
Second runner-up on one season of America's Next Top Model, probably counts as WP:ONEEVENT. Previous attempts to redirect to the parent ANTM article were reverted. Would support returning to a redirect until the subject has significant accomplishments beyond appearing on the show. Note that she does have some hits in Google news, but none of those hits are for anything other than appearing on ANTM, as far as I can tell, so nothing outside the context of the show. Prior AFD closed as delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ANTM 4. I found no significant coverage outside the contest and redirects are cheap. TheTito Discuss 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - The article itself makes no assertion of notability aside from ANTM. There is no indication in the article that she has gone on to major notable modeling work, or has otherwise done anything noteworthy. A search for sourcing uncovers no coverage about her aside from that related to the TV show. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:49, 13 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 Tomás Ó Criomhthain. Merge: Add a paragraph or two to the article on the author, describing him and the other key characters. That would seem to be the best compromise solution. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Diarmuid O'Se (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 person, known only as a character in his nephew's writings. Other than the description provide as a quote from Ó Criomhthain's book, the article consists entirely of a genealogy of O'Se's descendants. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thomas O'Crohan purpose on writing was so that people would never forget
what life was like on the Blasket Islands, and what better way to do that was to give the most colorful character his own page. The page was to inspire people to read the Islandman, not to promote the sale of the book but so that people would know what life was like on the Blasket Islands, as life there was unique to any where else...ever..-BettySheaMagee
The list of decendants was meant to show that just 3 of the Rake's children produced more offspring than the entire population of the Great Blasket Island at any one time, and to show the closeness of the families that The Blasket Islands produced, that continued even when they were voted off the Island becasue the Island could not support a population more than 150 people. It is also meant to show what the emigrants were up against when they got to the United States.BettySheaMagee —Preceding unsigned comment added by BettySheaMagee (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not Wikipedia's purpose to promote anything, as you have stated it is your intent to promote The Islandman, even if you do not stand to gain personally by anyone's reading of that book. The fact that O'Se produced more offspring than his hometown contained is not entirely relevant or remarkable. And the hardships faced by Irish immigrants to the United States are documented in the Irish American article; any additional information can be added there. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This person is a main character in published literature. This satisfies WP:BASIC. In addition, according to the Blasket_Islands and related pages, "The islanders were the subject of much anthropological and linguistic study around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries". The person was part of an isolated population and culture that has been of anthropological interest, and thus the page is a starting point for some of that information. Also mentioned on the related pages are the geographical disbursement of descendants of islanders especially around the Springfield, MA, USA area.Maybe it could use to have some additional information added and the descendants section de-emphasized or reduced. -Johnm4 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Comment calls for the person to be the subject of "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Being a character in one's nephews memoirs hardly counts. And while the people of the Blasket Islands may, as a group, be notable, there is no indication that this particular person is individually notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-This is not a random uncle of a random person. All Irish school children are required to read about the uncle called the "Rake" in the Islandman...-BettySheaMagee —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The following has been added to the article, showing secondary sources that makes it WP:BASIC compliant.
- Diarmuid was one of the most important characters in the Blasket 'Story'. He was one of the main characters in An tOileánach (The Islandman). Tomás Ó Criomhthain (Tomás O'Crohan) who was encouraged by Carl Mastrander in 1917 to write about life on the Blasket Islands. His books are considered classics of Irish-language literature containing portrayals of a unique way of life, now extinct, of great human, literary, linguistic, and anthropological interest. Regarding mentions of him in other books, he has quite a central role in Seanchas ón Oileán Tiar ('folklore from the western island'), a collection of folklore which the renowned folklorist Seamus O Duilearga (James Delargy) collected from Tomás Ó Criomhthain. Diarmuid is mentioned several times in the review of same by Máire MacNeill which was published in The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 71, No. 280 (Apr-Jun 1958).
- Content has been added to the article.
- In regards to the list of descendants, there is a great deal of interest in what has happened to the Islanders who immigrated to the United States. The Blasket Centre in Ireland has an exhibit that fills an entire room about this subject. In 1996, PBS did a 90 minute documentary called Blasket Roots American Dreams about this subject. ..BettySheaMagee
Above comment reformatted for readability.
- Reply You have already established that O'Se was a character in O'Crohan's book. As for his mentions in other books, those are merely derived from his appearance in O'Crohan's initial work, and so do not add to the notability of the subject. As for O'Se's descendants: if the decision of this discussion is to keep the article, then it would suffice to say that O'Se had over 150 descendants across the northeastern United States. It is not necessary to provide the detailed genealogy including the names of all of the descendants' pallbearers. None of the descendants are individually notable, and Wikipedia is not a genalogical database. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:05, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE unless much better evidence. Rationale:
- The article covers an individual whose asserted significance relates to being a pivotal character in a classic Irish work of literature. However the problems seem fatal.
- The claims for notability are poorly supported and tenuous. Not every person mentioned in a classic story or folk history is notable. Some are, some are not. I would judge that to be notable, Diarmuid O'Se (as an individual or as a folk history character) would be covered in multiple reliable or academic sources. I would expect academic papers or books with significant (non-trivial) coverage of him. I would look for the article to focus on what these secondary sources say of him, with citations of its claims. I would also expect more than just two collections of folk tales (one written by a relative, the other explicitly derived from the first), if notable. But I see none of this. There is a claim that he has "quite a central role" in a collection of folklore, and in the context of reviewing that same collection is named "several times". Beyond this the evidence in the article relates to notability of Tomás Ó Criomhthain, the author of the book mentioning him and his blood-relative. There is no strong evidence he himself was considered notable by third parties. A further quick search online (by either spellings and on books and scholar materials) shows no significant references.
- I also have further concerns over possible WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issues. The author is a relative and there is no evidence of discrimination in his own selecting of material - if his uncle were notable in folk history then others would have written, not just a relative, and again other academics would have provided coverage. (And we cannot deduce that there should have been more coverage if actually there was none.)
- Accordingly delete. Notability requires good evidence that the subject has obtained significant secondary coverage by the wider world. Being described in a folklore book by a nephew, which then has very minor related mention elsewhere, is not anywhere close to "significant coverage in secondary sources". FT2 (Talk | email) 00:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the following are not reasons to keep or delete. They are however worth noting to ensure a good focus for the discussion:
- Style and content problems - The article as it stands appears to be written in a very unsuitable style. It is not neutral, and its bulk is not a summary of what reliable sources say on the subject, so much as a full genealogical history of the subject's descendants. Style and content issues are not a reason to delete but if the article survives it would need massive trimming and cleanup -- almost stubbing -- to fix the encyclopedic tone.
- Inspiring readers - "The page was to inspire people to read the Islandman" is an argument that lacks force. The question is whether the subject is encyclopedic, not whether an article could inspire some readers to perform some real-world action. We don't assess articles by their author's intent though.
- Notability of islanders in anthropology - "The islanders were the subject of much anthropological and linguistic study... The person was part of an isolated population and culture that has been of anthropological interest". This would be notability for the islanders.
- Entry point for information on islanders - "The page is a starting point for some of that information [on the islanders]". Not an encyclopedic basis for this article.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the following are not reasons to keep or delete. They are however worth noting to ensure a good focus for the discussion:
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Liberty Scotland (Campaign and Pressure Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator removed the advertising style and the prod, but regardless this fringe organisation is still not notable as a quick glace at its Web site news page will indicate http://www.liberty-scotland.org/LS-News.html Ajbpearce (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete New organisation attempting to use Wikipedia to establish its presence. No pre-existing notability demonstrated or visible by web search. AllyD (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What AllyD said. Can't remember seeing a mention of this groupuscule in The Herald or The Scotsman and this Google news search tends to support my vague recollections. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article reports the creation of a new (fringe or fledgling) organisation and conforms to all of Wikipedia standards (it is a new organisation and the fact of there being no sources, except the organisation's own web page, self verifies). I am the creator of the entry and Liberty Scotland and we are very actively promoting and campaigning and hopefully that will become apparent. At the moment it is a new organisation and that is what is being reported - therefore, keep. Thanks for your time and consideration of this. Tlmglasgow (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tlmglasgow, I'm afraid you've strengthened the case for deletion. Start by reading WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for self-promotion, soapboxing, and not being notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 10 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Natalia Sosnina (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 assertion of notability, due to poor-sourcing. BLGM5 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In January and February 2010 I had a conversation on my talk page with Natalia Sosnina about the kind of sources necessary. (Preserved in this archive.) She seemed to be sincerely trying to find sources which satisfied Wikipedia's criteria, but unfortunately failed to do so. My own searches had likewise failed to find suitable searches. The external links and references in the article were all to promotional sources not independent of the subject. A few hours after the article was nominated for this AfD a new user with no previous editing history started editing the article in an attempt to establish notability. (This user put on their own talk page "Hi, i am trying to collect more information for wikipedia page to get this in line with your guidlance and rules, please delete the note that the article sent for deletion i m atrying to collect materials now (RE: Natalia Sosnina for wikipedia page) Thank you!!"). Amongst other things the new user added ten links. Of these links one was to the Wikipedia Category:Ballroom dancers: presumably the idea is that we can see that Sosnina is listed there (with the editor not realising that all this tells us is that a link to the category has been placed in the article). Another one of the links is to a search page: presumably the idea is that we can search for Sosnina there if we like. The other eight links are all to advertising pages or press releases, whether advertising for Sosnina herself, for organisations she works for, or whatever. Consequently the result of this editing is no change: we do not have as much as a single independent source of any kind, reliable or not, substantial or not. Since several editors (including myself and Natalia Sosnina herself) have made concerted efforts to find such sources and failed, I am much inclined to think they don't exist. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One might appeal to WP:ATHLETE as she has competed in Dancesport. According to the article, she has won an International DanceSport Federation 2003 Open in Belgrade amongst her other accomplishments. If that can be verified as a top level competition, then she would arguably is competing at the highest level of her sport. Note that there is a dancer named "Natalya Sosnina", see here. I'm guessing this is just a different spelling of her name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and insufficient sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per nom, and WP:ATHLETE doesn't seem to apply since the 2003 event doesn't seem to be on par with the Olympics or the like. Novaseminary (talk) 22:08, 15 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carpal Therapist (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 Article is a bit of an advert. Nothing in the way of third party coverage. Only links are to the company that makes and sells this product. Does anyone even know if the refs for this product are legit? Bonewah (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is a total advert. If the argument is that this is a new type of medical device, then if anything it should go under a general article on medical devices. It doesn't matter if the refs for the product are legit. It's still a product advert. Makana Chai (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:07, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry Perino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The individual who is the subject of this article fails WP:N per WP:ONEEVENT because he appears to be significant (for WP article purposes) only for his participation in Battle of Mogadishu (1993). While it would be better than a stand-alone article, I also think redirecting this article to Battle of Mogadishu (1993) would be inappropriate because the individual is not mentioned in that article. He is mentioned in Black Hawk Down (film) as a participant in the battle, but only peripherally. A prod on this article was removed. Novaseminary (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same failure per WP:ONEEVENT. Like Perino, prods on these pages were removed.
- Shawn Nelson (Ranger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ed Yurek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Matt Eversmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paul Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And though the prods had not been removed from the following at the time I created this AfD, they were in place for the same reason, so I replaced the prods with this AfD as well.
- Dale Sizemore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John Stebbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Novaseminary (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable military personnel, having reviewed all 7. As regards a redirect, no evidence at this point that they were particularly central to the Battle of Mogadishu, nor that they will be looked up enough to warrant a redirect to that article. Specific comments:
- Ed Yurek - having taken cover in a school building for a few hours is not "notable"; Matt Eversmann - Bronze star, large bulk of uncited unreferenced claims, including "lecturing all over the worldd" ("lecturing on ones life" is not a basis of notability either); Paul Howe - authorship does not reach level needed for notability; John Stebbins "soldier convicted for rape" isn't sufficient for notability.
- In each of these evidence of sufficient notability is lacking. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E refer. Most of the notice is either showing they are routine people mentioned in passing for one event, or coverage of a film of that event, but in either case no good evidence they are notable on their own merit. Perhaps a redirect for one or two but lacking good evidence the claims that might underpin even a redirect cannot be evaluated. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fails notability and meets criteria for wp:oneevent; thus not sufficient for inclusion in WP. N2e (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't believe that Perino, Sizemore, Stebbins, Yurek, Nelson and Howe meet WP:N. However, I'm not so sure about Eversmann given the amount of coverage his character receives in the movie and in the book. Also there are appearances on national television and his own book published by Random House (ISBN 978-0-345-45966-4), so one would assume that it might be possible to find enough information to fix the issues with this article. Having said that, currently the article is a walking BLP issue waiting to happen and if others believe that he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I'm not going to disagree. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 14 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Rights in NSW (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)
Implicitly contested prod. Opinion piece. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or blank to a one-sentence stub. Potentially a notable topic but this article is hopelessly and unsalvageably POV and original research, both of which are valid grounds for deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV only.--Grahame (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per WP:NPOV. N2e (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Because the lack of content and reliable sources is not sufficient enough to meet guidelines. Western Pines (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a POV disaster. I don't see that a decent article could be written about this subject, although perhaps there could be a brief mention in Human rights in Australia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per Lankiveil Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 13 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) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rend collective experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND. One album released on a redlinked record label. Minimal sourcing (one review in a non-mainstream publication). I found a few other sources out there but practically all are niche (i.e. Christian music sites) or blogs. PROD removed without comment. Black Kite 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--non-notable band per WP:NBAND, and notability not demonstrated by references. N2e (talk) 18:50, 10 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Observer-centered formalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the place to host original synthesis. While many interpretation of physics are indeed observer-centered, there is no such thing as an observer-centered formalism(s). Not even worth redirecting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteStrong delete. The closest I can find is a few mentions of an "external observer formalism" used in the past, which is not the same thing. If this is to be kept, references would have to be added showing that a) this is a concept known to the scientific community, and b) this is noteworthy enough to be useful to include (i.e., not a single authour's pet concept). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to strong delete per WP:OR, as this is self-promotion of the article author's original work, which hasn't been published anywhere that satisfies WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepDelete. I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Dc987 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: That only applies if it's actually encyclopedic material. If it's this person's own invention, as the nominator seems to be indicating, it violates WP:OR. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. I've had some reservations, because the original article contributor is new to Wikipedia, and judging by the name is from Russia. The article potentially could be a translation from some Russian publication. And this new user, being unfamiliar with the policies, could have left it hanging, without any references. The closest concept I'm familiar with is Wheeler's "participatory universe", I've never seen this OCF. But again, it could be some translation from Russian. Anyway, I don't think it is "noteworthy enough". So I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. --Dc987 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete per WP:OR. Referenced link is self-published non peer-reviewed work. --Dc987 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. I've had some reservations, because the original article contributor is new to Wikipedia, and judging by the name is from Russia. The article potentially could be a translation from some Russian publication. And this new user, being unfamiliar with the policies, could have left it hanging, without any references. The closest concept I'm familiar with is Wheeler's "participatory universe", I've never seen this OCF. But again, it could be some translation from Russian. Anyway, I don't think it is "noteworthy enough". So I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. --Dc987 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That only applies if it's actually encyclopedic material. If it's this person's own invention, as the nominator seems to be indicating, it violates WP:OR. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: OCF introduces a mathematical object Я describing the Observer and suggests that the laws of physics must explicitly include Я. The observable laws are therefore different for different observers and different branches of Physics might become asymptotic idealisations corresponding to Я-functions that are orthogonal, and thus can not be observed simultaneously. Mr. Sokal, is that you? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Bearian (talk)
- I added some references Deniskrasnov (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your supplied reference link is broken; it redirects to the splash page for the free web-host you were using for it. Also, please read WP:RS for guidelines about what types of sources are acceptable for scientific topics. Peer-reviewed journal articles are good. Self-published works on free web-hosts, not so good. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think i fixed the link now. I realise it's not a published article, but how much of a proof do you want? For example (and it's just a first that poped to my mind) this Gravity as an entropic force is an original thought. What's the difference? Alright Erik Verlinde has published an article about it; he's known scientist, but it's still an original thought -- all thoughts are original, arn't they? Can you just read through it and see that it makes scence (and it's not just something i made up and noone knows what it's all about) and let it sit for a while? I mean do i really have to give you a list renowned scientists who voiced an oppinion about OCF? What's the threshold of non-originality? If two people are pondering an idea, is it original? What if seven people are, but three of them disagrees with the rest? I mean we're not talking about Paris Hilton trying to copyright the phrase "It's HOT!"; we're talking about science -- you can see that the concept of OCF has been formulated, so it belongs at free enciclopedia!Deniskrasnov (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "all thoughts are original, arn't they?" Depends on your definition of original thought. We're using this definition here: Original Thought. So, gravity as an entropic force doesn't fit that definition because it is "attributable to a reliable, published source". "do i really have to give you a list renowned scientists who voiced an oppinion about OCF?" Yes, but you must also show where they have published papers about OCF. "What's the threshold of non-originality?" Verifiability, not truth. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think i fixed the link now. I realise it's not a published article, but how much of a proof do you want? For example (and it's just a first that poped to my mind) this Gravity as an entropic force is an original thought. What's the difference? Alright Erik Verlinde has published an article about it; he's known scientist, but it's still an original thought -- all thoughts are original, arn't they? Can you just read through it and see that it makes scence (and it's not just something i made up and noone knows what it's all about) and let it sit for a while? I mean do i really have to give you a list renowned scientists who voiced an oppinion about OCF? What's the threshold of non-originality? If two people are pondering an idea, is it original? What if seven people are, but three of them disagrees with the rest? I mean we're not talking about Paris Hilton trying to copyright the phrase "It's HOT!"; we're talking about science -- you can see that the concept of OCF has been formulated, so it belongs at free enciclopedia!Deniskrasnov (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a search for "Observer-Centered" in google returns 236,000 results. The term "Observer-Centered" is nothing new; the word "formalism" at the end is a general word and is just one of the ways to describe the consept of using "Observer-Centered" way of looking at things. Again I just summorized the idea (isn't that what the enciclopedia is about). Unless someone thinks that the article doesn't reflects the common use of the term, or someone is using it in a conflicting sense, i think it should be kept.Deniskrasnov (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "i think it should be kept." Ok, but it will likely not be kept and you have been told why. In summary: Wikipedia is not for original research or non-notable subjects. If in the future, OCF does become "a subject of hot discussion" as you describe, then someone will readd it. Until that time, however, it'll likely get removed for the reasons above. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of OCF is relatively new, but it is a subject of hot disscussiion in the scientific comunity. Yes you're correct it's originated in Russia. Why do you think it doesnt have a place in here? This entry is not Original Synthesis, it's a concise description of the term and brief list of the reasons of it being a topic of current discussion. I of couse am going to improve and expand it.Deniskrasnov (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You state that it is a subject of hot discussion. Do you have any proof of this? I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere (save the one link you provided). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - except for the one reference in the article (which is published by the author of the article) I don't see any proof that this isn't original thought. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone with at least a MS in Theoretical Physics show up and say something, please.Deniskrasnov (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Headbomb, who has nominated the article for deletion have a phd. Not that it matters.
- You are doing it almost exactly wrong. I would recommend you reading this text (by Gerard ′t Hooft, 1999 Nobel Prize in physics): [HOW to BECOME a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST] and this [HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST]. Good luck. --Dc987 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually... while I don't have a PH.D. in Physics (I graduated from the Bronx High School of Science and have a Juris Doctor), I have in fact written and submitted articles to, and been rejected by, the finest of scientific journals. Even the late Ralph Alpher, who reviewed two of my submissions, told me I was onto something. Alas, my original research can not get published here, and neither this. Thanks, Dc9873, for the interesting links. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sorry, the paper is interesting (look out — there are a few spelling errors on names), but like everyone else's original idea, it will have to be recognized by 3rd parties before it can be in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how strong the original idea is; it really doesn't. Please read WP:OR. -Jordgette (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While interesting, and to my somewhat undereducated mind seems to make sense, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain established concepts, not introduce new ones. (that would be "notable" and "original research") I hope that the author contributes to other established articles which explain modern science. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The meaning of "original research" on Wikipedia is quite unlike a physicist's understanding of the term. Here, if challanged, edits have to be supported by references to published reliable sources. The reference given, by itself, does not meet WP:RS requirements. As such, the entire article is unsatisfactory. At the present time Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such material. Thincat (talk) 11:43, 12 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 Subject is notable. Article needs improvement not deletion
- P90X (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)
Although there are numerous references this article is one big advert for a single product. It's all written from the product's POV and nothing negative, no criticism. There's even a blatant contravention of WP:HOWTO. I'm not sure how this could be rewritten as a full-blown article without it turning into an advert. A one paragraph mention with a few cherry-picked refs could possibly do it, but as it stands this should not be an encyclopaedia article. Predominantly written by BHealthy (talk · contribs) and a range of IPs, I wouldn't be surprised if WP:COI was an issue too. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can add my own two cents here: I didn't create this article, nor did I contribute the majority of information in it. I began editing it precisely because other users were complaining about its objectivity and lack of sources -- and I've put a lot of effort into dealing with those issues (as have several other contributors). At the same time, I've repeatedly requested that users with detailed criticisms of the article state them on the talk page, which for the most part they haven't done. And if anyone has "negative" or "critical" information about the topic, they haven't bothered adding it to the article itself. The fact is, this article has existed for almost a year and has been edited by dozens of users. I don't think anyone believes the notability of the topic is in doubt. (A quick search of Google News shows that P90X has been seriously discussed in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and CNN/Fortune magazine in the last two weeks alone.) Deleting an article merely because it discusses a commercial product seems entirely wrong to me. BHealthy (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This page gets 3-4 thousand hits a day[1], which suggests to me the topic is notable. This is one of those things I hear about frequently despite having no interest in it. Probably the article needs some hacking down.--Milowent (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean. Fred, you've described in your nomination statement things that are wrong with a particular article (and I agree that it is poorly written for an encyclopedia), but make no case for deletion. "A one paragraph mention with a few...refs could possibly do it" is a plea for clean-up, and ironically "there are numerous references" is an actual assertion of notability. So clean it. (or implore interested parties to clean it - is there a wikiproject that could help?) This is the wrong forum for a discussion about cleaning up a notable article with a poor tone/advert languaged article. Keeper | 76 02:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hits don't matter much, but it's a well known workout system, that I think has enough notable coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; It is possible to have an article about a notable product without it being an advertisement. Fred the Oyster claims there is no criticism in the article; So add it, if you can find some that is properly sourced. Buck O'Nollege 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has some issues - one is that some editors try to turn it into a linkfarm: [2], [3], [4].Autarch (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does indeed have some issues, but that editors try to turn it into a link farm isn't one of them. Just delete the links. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the "link farm" criticism either... most of those examples were added by IP users with no other edits, and were removed immediately after they appeared. BHealthy (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - that the article requires cleanup is not a reason for deletion. The material is not in such a state that it is irredeemable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article I had no idea what the P90x was until reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.52.12 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, unless it is re-written according to encyclopedic guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.229.166 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, This is nothing more than a ploy to market a product by adding an extra listing to Google a workout program does not need its own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.115.129 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, A workout product such as this does not need it's own page. Hundreds of these types of products are created every year. I think the best soloution would be for beahcbody to create its own page and have a portion about p90x included in what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.111.199 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Clearly notable as can be seen from the large number of newspaper articles referencing the program. Does not read as an advert to me, nor a how-to. This seems to be a well-sourced description of a well-known work-out program. --Wicked247 (talk) 23:55, 15 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jokeroo (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 website. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage, and references given are either self-published or unrelated. Haakon (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Forbes link doesn't work; insufficient sourcing to establish WP:WEB notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 8 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 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (UK Parliament constituency)#2010 election. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oliver Colvile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable election candidate; there is no sign of any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources, just the usual list-entries and party websites etc. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.The article links from three long-existing Wikipedia articles on the constituency in question and therefore performs the useful and intrinsic purpose of expanding Wikipedia's breadth of coverage. The Guardian is a recognised and reliable source. The article is information-based rather than politically focused. 93.97.43.71 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (UK Parliament constituency)#2010 election. Succinct relevant content can then be moved over by any editor. WP:POLITICIAN requires redirects as a "general rule" for candidates for the purposes of preserving content. Here, "Oliver Colvile" is a viable search term and it would be helpful to searchers to go to the constituency page. This candidate is not notable and the article, save for the direct, would otherwise require deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, as with long-standing precedent on otherwise non-notable parliamentary candidates; we can always resurrect the article if he wins! Shimgray | talk | 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect as clear WP:POLITICIAN. 93.97.43.71: news sources that list numerical data on every single candidate do not count as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for reason stated and that the election isn't far away so is a relevent search term for the constituency. --Wintonian (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the constituency page for now, then we can decide what to do with it depending on the outcome of the election. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the constituency page, currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. We may get / find more of these as election agents, etc. think that having a Wikipedia page is part of their election strategy. These people are merely Prospective Parliamentary Candidates at the moment as they cannot be nominated until the election is called. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SaveThis last comment is not in fact the case. He won the nomination some time ago. I think if people are considering voting for a major party representative, particularly in a predicted gain seat, that makes him/her notable. Seems to be quite a bit of coverage about him online in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.43.71 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:POLITICIAN and the comments above to see why your assertion is incorrect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 15 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- China PR national football team results (1990–1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a list of statistics, and therefore violates WP:NOT RadManCF open frequency 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All it needs is a little bit of context, tossing in just enough buzzphrases and fluff to change it to a "therefore it doesn't violate WP:NOT". Easy fix. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add that this is one of several spinoffs of China national football team results and China PR national football team#Fixtures and results. These would be paragraphs in the main article except then the article would be as big as China itself. As a section, I don't think there's even the remotest chance that this would get deleted. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is no different from Republic of Ireland national football team 1990s results, Scotland national football team 1980–1999 results, and many other similar pages. I agree with Mandsford that there needs to be an introductory section to provide context and highlighting, with sources, some notable results would be good, also. However, these are editorial matters. If it is thought that pages consisting of, mostly, national football team results are inappropriate then that is a different matter; in that case a discussion should be started on the principle rather than trying to pick off random pages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the record, I nominated this page while patrolling new pages. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This, and other similar articles, are certainly deprecated by WP:NOT#STATS. There is no commentary, no context, no sourced comment. Encyclopaedia articles are made of more than just almanac statistics - and made of even more than just "buzzphrases and fluff". Knepflerle (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Encylopaedia articles are, but Wikipedia articles on sports sure aren't... Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do indeed hope that more of Wikipedia's sports articles aspire to be true encyclopaedia articles in the future! Knepflerle (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Encylopaedia articles are, but Wikipedia articles on sports sure aren't... Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in its current state per WP:NOTSTATS. I honestly couldn't give two hoots whether other articles have similar lists, that is no reason why this one should be kept. A page consisting of nothing but a list of football results would be fine in a yearbook or almanack but has no place on Wikipedia. -- BigDom 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is more than a conventional encyclopedia-as the basic principles say, it also contain many of the elements of an almanac, such as these. Perhaps we should make it clear by say it also combines ALL of the functions of an almanac. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall ever seeing in our basic principles that this project has all the functions of an almanac, yet we very clearly have WP:NOT#STATS in one of our core policies. I think you are mistaken. Knepflerle (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Knepflerle has a good point. If you think that Wikipedia should be an almanac, make the suggestion at the Village Pump. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Mandsford. There are lists of football results for most countries (see Category:National football team results) - why pick on this one, other than its being a new page? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is precedent for inclusion, and as has been stated several times, with a lead paragraph, it'd be a perfectly valid list. The article was nominated less than 12 hours after its creation, so there was hardly time allowed for the addition of prose. matt91486 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DGG stated "Wikipedia is more than a conventional encyclopedia-as the basic principles say, it also contain many of the elements of an almanac" then Knepflerle replied "I don't recall ever seeing in our basic principles that this project has all the functions of an almanac". This is a straw man argument. DGG does not say that this project has all the functions of an almanac he says that it also contain many of the elements of an almanac. Many not all and this is supported by Wikipedia:Five pillars that states it incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. A distinction with a clear difference. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a valid list and there is precedent for inclusion. --Carioca (talk) 22:44, 13 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Enrique Aguirre (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 found one random PDF that attributed to him the discovery that HPV causes cervical cancer, but I can't track down any actual record of a published paper. The Spanish article is more comprehensive but doesn't really say if he actually published a paper about this or was the lead author. Es. wiki says this discovery was published in the American Journal of Gynaecology. If a scientist is notable for one discovery, it should be something that's not merely routine and is cited by many other scientists. I can't find any indication that this guy is notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The discoverer of the link between HPV and cervical cancer was Harald zur Hausen. This is not exactly a secret: he won the Nobel Prize for it. Any claim that Aguirre discovered the link is at best mistaken. There's nothing notable about this guy. Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia should not get into the business of publishing 30-odd year old claims that can't be verified. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he did lead the group that made the discovery he would be notable, whether or not he did anything before or after, but one does not get to lead a research group without having published a good deal. The statement in the enWP is clear enough, so this is a little puzzling. But the article in the esWP, in Google Translation, gives him a much less important role in the work. There is nobody relevant under any version of the name in PubMed or Scopus or WoS. The source the enWP article uses to does not refer to him, but it deals with the later discovery of the vaccine, not the earlier discovery of the relationship: [5]. If I decide to check further and find something, I'll be back here to say so. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Questionable notability. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 11 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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 16 March 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}} . |
- Jayred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable drinking game. All reliable sources in the article are for the claim that binge drinking games have contributed to bans at various universities. However, none of these actually mention Jayred, the topic of the article. (EDIT: Unrelated material removed.) GlassCobra 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds kind of like it was made up one day. No notability evidence. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is true that the references regarding the banning of drinking games at various universities/colleges do not mention the game by name (few games are mentioned by name in any of the articles, with the exception of pong). These sources can be removed, however I feel they are relevant and do not claim that Jayred was the only game responsible for these bans. In context these references only support the concept that drinking games, including Jayred, are popular and associated with binge drinking, and were banned at some institutions as a result.
- Additionally it seems the other reliable sources are being overlooked. Both "101 Drinking Games" by Andrew Studdard, and "The Complete Book of Beer Drinking Games" by Andy Griscom list the game by its name, 'Jayred' and describe it in detail.
- As for notabillity, I'm sure the game was made up one day, but according to the abovementioned sources, it has been around since 1997.
Ryanb111 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Ryanb111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep About 300 people played this game at a national student medical student convention that I attended last year. While it had been made up recently, it quickly spread throughout my university as well (University of Adelaide).
- I was really psyched to see that a page had been made for it, especially one that was good and detailed. It would be unfair to anyone who wanted to look up the rules this game, even only those at the med school convention, if this page were to be taken down.
- I think there is definitely room on wikipedia for this page. Aussiesimmo (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — Aussiesimmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - There are [probably] more drinking games for med students than there are doctors. I don't see anything notable about this one. Shadowjams (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. I am a big fan of Pop Culture, but Wikipedia is not the place to look up new stuff made up a few years ago. When it becomes better documented, then it will be notable enough for inclusion. So far, there are less then four dozen Ghits about this game. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I fail to see how the removal of a unique game simply because it suffers from less notoriety than other games is really helping something that is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. The page is well documented and explains a *unique*, interesting game. Removing this article simply does not help anyone and is only a means to prevent people from attempting to find out the rules of a game. I would also be interested to see the citation on the "more drinking games than med students" comment. Slurrymurray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC). — Slurrymurray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I'm not finding any RSes. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to locate any reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Inclusion in a book about drinking games is not a reliable source? Also, "Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy." [6] should apply to drinking games. --Wicked247 (talk) 02:13, 16 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 Right Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article subject is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Article subject fails notability guidelines. Completely unsourced topic and nomination follows same reasons listed in the AFD's for Add 'em Up, 3 Strikes and Check-Out. Also, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per quickly growing precedent that none of TPIR's pricing games are individually notable. The list covers them sufficiently. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:55, 10 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Private Education in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded on 6 March by Andyjsmith (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Unreferenced original research in what seems to be a very bad translation. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR." The article creator explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page, thereby making deletion not uncontroversial, so I am relisting here.
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I prodded the article as unreferenced OR and it's now referenced OR. At the very least it needs massive surgery but IMHO it is seeking to make a point rather than simply relate what is the case, and as such is OR and possible WP:SOAP. andy (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - subject is notable. Article is referenced. And its only 2 days old. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perfectly reasonable start of an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New article can definitely be expanded no reason for it to be deleted. Kyle1278 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A perfectly legitimate subject.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the article needs to be wikified and improved (and possibly moved to Private education in Canada), that is no reason to delete it. There are sources and the article is about a notable topic. Intelligentsium 19:38, 13 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chatter Telephone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete as there are no references and it is advertising a toy. ChaosControl1994 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It does seem to be at least a somewhat notable toy--searching for references turns up many descriptions in reliable sources of the Chatter Telephone as a classic Fisher-Price product. Plus, the photograph of the 1960's chatter telephone is rather charming...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per cordelianaismith. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New Version
Please take a look at it again, I've added some references and text, and tried to make the tone neutral. I did try to dig up some dirt on this toy as I'm sure it has a sorid past--anyone with that kind of smile has something to hide. I've heard rumors of the Chatter Telephone drunk dialing old girlfriends--but a google news archive search didn't reveal any verifiable and reliable sources. I did find a photo of one drunk and grimacing in a bar with a cig in its mouth, but that's only available for non-commercial use, so I can't put it in the article. I'll keep looking tho. Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The current version has plenty of references to back up the claims of notability. Also, why is this AFD different than all others? There is no search thing appearing at the top. Dream Focus 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DumbBOT is a ninja. I did add the link to find sources, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an iconic toy and the current set of references establish notability. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nuujinn's work. The added references work to establish notability, though we will need to be mindful that no one adds any allegations of impropriety without sources, or else we might run afoul of our Biographies of Little Phones policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks better than it did on Friday. Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems acceptable at this point. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep classic toy. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rewrite including notability asserted with sourcing. -- Banjeboi 13:47, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 16 March 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}} . |
- Cryoshell (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:MUSIC. I cannot find a record label for them, nor charting for singles or albums; nothing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on this article's notability:
- Creeping In My Soul - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Face Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gravity Hurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bye Bye Babylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Creeping in my Soul (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Closer to the Truth (Cryoshell Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirected back to Cryoshell)
- Closer to the Truth (2008 Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete fails notability per above. (GregJackP (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, no sources. Rklawton (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any refs establishing notability either (I didn't knock myself out, I confess). -Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete all for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here is the link for the website: http://www.cryoshell.com/ ( its under oficiální stránka for some reason.)Also, cryoshell is mentioned here:http://blog.advance.dk/?s=cryoshell , and here: http://bionicle.lego.com/en-US/news/ByeByeBabylon.aspx http://bionicle.lego.com/en-US/news/CloserToTheTruth.aspx .User talk:Josh145
- Delete. A band formed by an advertising company to produce jingles for a particular product line, who have not even issued a single album, have no radio play, no hit singles, and have apparently never performed live, let alone toured. The references given above are the band's own website, the blog for the advertising agency that put the group together, and pages on the client's site offering tracks for download; none of these can be considered reliable sources independent of the subject by any means. Fails WP:BAND by a long shot. It's spam for advertisements. Nuke the song & EP articles too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThey are going to release an album this year. User talk:Josh145
- Comment - Josh145, you only get to vote once, but you may add additional comments. Second, deleting the votes of other editors, as you did with the vote by Gwalla is considered vandalism, and will result in your ability to edit being blocked. (GregJackP (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: One album not released by a notable label doesn't have any significant sales to suggest notability and therefore it violates WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate wikipedia! Cryoshell is real!!!!!!.User:Catman224 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.140.101 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Silly Anon, it's not a debate on whether they're real; it's a debate on whether they're notable! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate all of you! User:Catman224 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.140.101 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem here mate, the band does not HAVE to be extremely notable. They have already catapaulted Bionicle's 2008 year up like crazy with their singles and their EP does have quite good sales. Check out the facebook pages, simply look up Cryoshell there. They are really getting popular and deleting them would result in someone making it again, I'm very sure. 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BTW 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, WHY DO YOU WANT THIS PAGE GONE SO BAD??? As stated on your "Notablilty" page, it says an editor does NOT have to delete the article if there is proof the topic stated exists and made some kind of interesting achievement. How many bands can you think of that get to perform for LEGO, and then make that years line doubly popular? 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't meet notability standards, and wikipedia is not a junkyard. (GregJackP (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Link to EP on iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/dk/album/creeping-in-my-soul-ep/id348466180 . Also, they are not "Junk", they are up-and-coming. You really need to understand the difference between a band that never releases anything and a band that is coming out in a few months. 72.49.247.22 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't meet notability standards, and wikipedia is not a junkyard. (GregJackP (talk) 18:03, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This individual WP:BLP lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If you actually drill down on some of the cites provided you will find passing mention or no mention of this person within. JBsupreme (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR in my view. Pcap ping 17:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - doesn't he pass #3 of WP:AUTHOR? i.e. lead programmer of the seminal Dungeon Master? Marasmusine (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Even apart from the obvious notability, substantial publication, surviving prior AfDs, etc., the bad-faith nomination was made solely as wikistalking because I had worked on the article. LotLE×talk 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If he is the lead developed for the game, he is notable, and I think the references are good enough to show it. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on similar reasoning I would be notable, which I hadn't considered thus far. :)
The references currently in the article are rubbish (his amazon.com reviewers profile (!), an autobiography at jGuru.com, a masters thesis that doesn't mention him, and an interview in a niche magazine about development of one game) and none offer significant coverage of the topic, so he clearly fails WP:N. Most of the information has to be thrown out if this is kept.
There are five books and four notable video games where he played a significant role, so he is somewhat significant. I don't at all see "obvious" notability, like Lulu thinks, lots of people write books, lots of people have significant roles in video games. WP:AUTHOR#3 isn't enough, in my opinion: *every* video game released these days gets coverage (previews, tests) in multiple sources – that makes the product notable, but not the authors, and I can't believe it was intended that way.
Based on that, I would favor deletion, and seeing that there is no significant coverage of the topic at all and we'd be relying only on the indicators from WP:BIO, I quite firmly believe this should be deleted. Amalthea 16:43, 15 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 for lack of actual nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flags of unrecognized and partially recognized states (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 has no encyclopedic value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep for the same reasons as Gallery of sovereign-state flags, though IMO basing this solely on being on the list of states with limited recognition (especially for those with only limited non-recognition) is overbroad--especially for Armenia, Cyprus and the Koreas (whose "non-recognition" is limited to one or two nations each). --RBBrittain (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep No argument made by nominator. Article has immense encyclopedic value. This discussion should be speedy closed by an administrator. Outback the koala (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep for reasons as stated above, this is clearly encyclopedic content. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Encyclopedic and useful. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable subject. Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 8 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura Kelley (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 macrakis (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Laura Kelley does not meet our notability guidelines. Her main claim to fame appears to be that she has contributed to several articles for the American Enterprise Institute and other organizations and has self-published (with iUniverse) a cookbook. None of this constitutes notability. None of the cited references (other than personal blogs and her own web site) talk about her as an expert or as an authority. She has no papers in scientific journals (or even articles in magazines like Harper's or Scientific American). Several of the papers pointed to by the article as written by her don't even mention her as an author. The only book she has written is self-published, and the cited reviews are on non-notable blogs. This is well below the threshold for notability. It is also not a good sign that most of the content on the page comes from a single editor who has edited no other articles. The article has been up for several months; in response to a PROD, the editor added several external references which don't establish notability. --macrakis (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that she has co-authored an article for Foreign Policy magazine. But one published article does not make her notable. --macrakis (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per macrakis - no good establishment of notability has occurred. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks third party authoritative sources establishing notability. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:56, 8 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 Non-notable Athlete fails WP:ATHLETEMike Cline (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Raheem Sterling (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 played a professional match, so non-notable Soleil levant (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has significant coverage in the Mail Online, London Evening Standard and BBC, among others. EuroPride (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Player for the youth team of a Premier League Club, Wide Media Coverage also. DharmaDreamer (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Player for a YOUTH TEAM is certainly not notable. Scant media coverage: all sources are either transfer speculation or unreliable sources (e.g. goal.com). Media coverage on his transfer to Liverpool is pretty much the only thing you can find as sources: clearly not significant coverage.Craddocktm (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Didn't you already agree with the deletion proposal above? He is given significant coverage in the BBC, Daily Mail and London Evening Standard. Significant coverage in mainstream media is enough to pass WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you seriously consider the coverage as "significant"? The only coverage on him is about his transfer to Liverpool, which is highly trivial in nature. Unless there is coverage on other aspects of his career, he is not significant enough. Regarding the criteria for sportsmen, see Wikipedia:ATH. He is not competing at professional level nor has he competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.I reckon he does not deserve his own article until he has signed a professional contract and appeared for the first team. Craddocktm (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Didn't you already agree with the deletion proposal above? He is given significant coverage in the BBC, Daily Mail and London Evening Standard. Significant coverage in mainstream media is enough to pass WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - footballer who hasn't made it. fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league, only youth appearances, nor has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. Fails WP:GNG as there is nothing but routine coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. per WP:NOT#NEWS. --ClubOranjeT 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with ClubOranje that the media items argued to make him notable fail WP:NOTNEWS and aren't significant to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Player does not pass notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE, so deletion is appropriate per WP:ONEEVENT. – PeeJay 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per PeeJay. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails notability guideline. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Player fails ATHLETE and NTEMP -- BigDom 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As already stated, this player fails WP:ATHLETE, and the sources provided are insufficient to establish notability. Bettia (talk) 12:48, 16 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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SM City Santa Ana (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)
Previously a speedy deletion and proposed deletion of the article of the hearsay mall. - Gabby 11:16, 09 March 2010 (PST).
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hearsay SM mall. Does not site sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.66.173 (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, no g news hits. CTJF83 chat 10:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like covert advertisement. --Wicked247 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I've passed by the place described in the article and, so far, it doesn't look like a mall is being constructed (yet). So the article looks speculative at the very least...I'd say, delete the article unless the real thing gets built finally. Or until more reliable and substantiable sources can be found. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:07, 15 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) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The_Society_of_the_Whitehall_Masque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
The organisers of the Society no longer feel that the time they have to offer is enough to do justice to a revival of Masque on a long term basis.
Therefore as the Society will longer continue to exist it will not achieve the minimum standard of notability required of Wikipedia entries so that the entry should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupertpearson (talk • contribs) 2010/03/06 14:19:00
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This article probably should have been nipped in the bud in the first place for lack of notability and borderline spam. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilkent Symphony Orchestra (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 independent reliable sources to establish notability Dlabtot (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Though they are foreign language sources, I found many[7] by searching under its Turkish spelling, "Bilkent Senfoni Orkestrası" (its on the Turkish wiki that way [8]). There are some English references to it too, under the English title of the group, enough for me to conclude it is more than just a random orchestra.--Milowent (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The search does return results but... could you specifically point to one or two of those results that fulfill the "independent" and "significant coverage" parts of WP:N? Thanks in advance. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't translate them all before nominating? (Just kidding.) I will dig a little deeper to find some of the better examples (other readers of this discussion are welcome to assist, especially Turkish speakers). The sources are not the Bilkent college newspaper.--Milowent (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were such sources, you would think they would appear on the Turkish version of the article. But that's an unreferenced stub just like this one. Dlabtot (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Other language Wikipedias do not necessarily have the same standards for sourcing that the English Wikipedia does. I wouldn't give that too much weight. — Gwalla | Talk 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were such sources, you would think they would appear on the Turkish version of the article. But that's an unreferenced stub just like this one. Dlabtot (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't translate them all before nominating? (Just kidding.) I will dig a little deeper to find some of the better examples (other readers of this discussion are welcome to assist, especially Turkish speakers). The sources are not the Bilkent college newspaper.--Milowent (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I added four sources to the article today. There really is tons of coverage in Turkish sources regarding guest players, each season, etc. (One english source is here if you want to search for more examples: [9].) I would also agree with Gwalla that other language wikipedias don't necessarily have the same sourcing standards. In fact, most other wikipedias have little sourcing; but because they are much smaller, they have much less fluff. The Turkish wikipedia has had an article on this orchestra since 2005.--Milowent (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per improvements to the article since afd initiation.--PinkBull 16:21, 15 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ran-Tan 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)
Contested PROD, and as it stands, fails WP:BAND. Sources mostly self-published, and one mention in a local newspaper and a handful of radio plays cannot make them notable. Rodhullandemu 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I hadn't realised this had already been listed in January, but then its authors didn't defend it, although somebody has contested the PROD. Well, the band weren't notable then, and nothing has changed. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - currently fails all points of WP:BAND. If their live shows in "many cities up and down the country" can be sourced by a non-trivial source, they might just barely scrape by - though, since their first show brought "16 people" and "descended into an anarchic demolition of equipment", I doubt it's possible. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ...for now they don't have notability (notoriety? This is a punk band after all). Perhaps soon they will, but then it can be re-created. --Kickstart70TC 00:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, delete the page if its upsetting so many people. Quite sad really. Surely more important things in life, than debating wether an article is 'worthy' of keeping. Oh, if it does go, and we become 'notable' at a later date, we will forbid our name to be used on this site. I dont like the idea of people 'only wanting to know' when it suits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the venues to the wiki we've played. Let me know here what proof of 'notability' we need here and i'll get onto it. Not that im sure its worth it, if the site is full of people with nothing better to do than find faults with articles that arent hurting anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your attitude is not helping the situation here. Just saying. If you want to convince us to keep your article, trying to threaten us with "forbidding your name" doesn't help. Threats don't work on Wikipedia. My vote remains delete. Your sources do not show that you have done a national tour, only one show that you have performed. This band still fails all criteria of WP:BAND. If you can find a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country, I will change to weak keep. Your article CLAIMS that you have, but it remains outsourced. And if you're really "not sure it's worth it", why add more sources? Just say you want it gone and it can be speedy deleted. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a real easy comeback: WP:NOTMYSPACE. The band member above all but admitted that they're using WP for self-promotion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if they are going to forbid WP from using their name in the future, why not do the same now? I was actually leaning toward "Weak Keep" because a couple of the recently-added references seem serviceable. But researching those sources was quite sad of me because there are surely more important things in life. Yes, so many other things are more important that I have already forgotten the name of this band. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I would agree that they're not doing themselves any favours with their attitude, neither are they familiar with our notability guidelines on bands. However, they may be very good, but this far have failed to meet our criteria for inclusion, and that, sadly for many such bands, is the bottom line. Should they become notable in some future form, fine. Until then, no. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone give me an example of "a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country". We have been in alot more magazines/internet sites, but i didnt want to add too many to the references because i thought people might get bored of it. Sorry for the attitude earlier, i just cant believe so many people are that upset at our page they are contesting it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.219.12 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is "upset" at your page, it's just that rules are rules, and the rules say that this page should be deleted. It's nothing personal, nobody is mad, it's just simply rules. That being said, no, I can't give you an example. If I had an example that proves you've done multiple shows in your country, I'd add it to the article myself. You claim you've been in magazines and websites, but have yet to show that. Nobody is going to "get bored" of having sources. Mostly, we are looking for something that is not a local paper or website, something that is national or, even better, international, about your band or your shows. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few links to the ticket details etc from gigs from the last tour I could find on the net... let me know if you need anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.89.16 (talk) 12:12, 14 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 Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California). Content is available under the redirect should anyone find it worth merging. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chae Hyun Moon (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)
Negative sourced BLP. Normally, I delete attack pages on sight, But it is sourced by NYTiimes. The key to WP:CSD#G10 being "that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." I'd like more eyes so I don't delete an article that turns out to be keepable through terms of significant coverage, though I've little doubt it will be SNOWED. There are 8 sources, including NYTimes. Thanks Dlohcierekim 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Info already in two places in Tenet Healthcare and related hospital article, so no loss to encyclopedia. NB that article created by WP:SPA whose edits are almost entirely about this case and creating articles about this case, so there are likely WP:COI issues. If the Coronary book is notable, create an article about that book, though it's far from clear that it is, given that the 2007 book has
0 GNews hits and hasalready been remaindered. THF (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: this better search provides a handful of book reviews and listings of book readings; NB the false positives pre-2006, though. THF (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Coronary is a common word. Therefore, I did a search of Coronary: A True Story, Coronary True Story, Coronary A True Story and it came up with 75,300 hits on google.com. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Coronary+True+Story&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.139.94 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — 99.71.139.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If the problem is that Coronary is a common word, then that exaggerates the number of hits, not
eliminatesreduces it. Can you describe for us your interest in the subject? THF (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC), updated 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per THF, but I agree the book is notable and would justify creating an article on it. -RobertMel (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any salient, sourced information to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) and leave this as a redirect. Looking back through the page history I don't agree that the article was overly negative, thats the nature of the BLP1E game when the one event is a bad one. However, one event is one event, so redirect this guy and his cohort to the medical centre's article, where the subject can be covered in more depth if necessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Partly based on WP:BLP1E - though the alleged wrongdoings were repeated over a number of years, it's effectively just a single notable issue. And partly because it is already covered by Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California), and that is the obvious place for it rather than individual articles about the two doctors involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with a redirect. I would normally say keep on this, because it is impeccably sourced, the accusations are a matter of public record, and reliably reported. That the NYT wrote about it indicates that this is a significant crime, and of general interest. But he is merely one of the participants, and there is a good place to merge to that will keep the material together. I see no reason to delete the history. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 16 March 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}} . |
- Cryoshell (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:MUSIC. I cannot find a record label for them, nor charting for singles or albums; nothing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on this article's notability:
- Creeping In My Soul - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Face Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gravity Hurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bye Bye Babylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Creeping in my Soul (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Closer to the Truth (Cryoshell Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirected back to Cryoshell)
- Closer to the Truth (2008 Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete fails notability per above. (GregJackP (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, no sources. Rklawton (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any refs establishing notability either (I didn't knock myself out, I confess). -Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete all for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here is the link for the website: http://www.cryoshell.com/ ( its under oficiální stránka for some reason.)Also, cryoshell is mentioned here:http://blog.advance.dk/?s=cryoshell , and here: http://bionicle.lego.com/en-US/news/ByeByeBabylon.aspx http://bionicle.lego.com/en-US/news/CloserToTheTruth.aspx .User talk:Josh145
- Delete. A band formed by an advertising company to produce jingles for a particular product line, who have not even issued a single album, have no radio play, no hit singles, and have apparently never performed live, let alone toured. The references given above are the band's own website, the blog for the advertising agency that put the group together, and pages on the client's site offering tracks for download; none of these can be considered reliable sources independent of the subject by any means. Fails WP:BAND by a long shot. It's spam for advertisements. Nuke the song & EP articles too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThey are going to release an album this year. User talk:Josh145
- Comment - Josh145, you only get to vote once, but you may add additional comments. Second, deleting the votes of other editors, as you did with the vote by Gwalla is considered vandalism, and will result in your ability to edit being blocked. (GregJackP (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: One album not released by a notable label doesn't have any significant sales to suggest notability and therefore it violates WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate wikipedia! Cryoshell is real!!!!!!.User:Catman224 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.140.101 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Silly Anon, it's not a debate on whether they're real; it's a debate on whether they're notable! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate all of you! User:Catman224 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.140.101 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem here mate, the band does not HAVE to be extremely notable. They have already catapaulted Bionicle's 2008 year up like crazy with their singles and their EP does have quite good sales. Check out the facebook pages, simply look up Cryoshell there. They are really getting popular and deleting them would result in someone making it again, I'm very sure. 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BTW 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, WHY DO YOU WANT THIS PAGE GONE SO BAD??? As stated on your "Notablilty" page, it says an editor does NOT have to delete the article if there is proof the topic stated exists and made some kind of interesting achievement. How many bands can you think of that get to perform for LEGO, and then make that years line doubly popular? 74.83.38.60 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't meet notability standards, and wikipedia is not a junkyard. (GregJackP (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Link to EP on iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/dk/album/creeping-in-my-soul-ep/id348466180 . Also, they are not "Junk", they are up-and-coming. You really need to understand the difference between a band that never releases anything and a band that is coming out in a few months. 72.49.247.22 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it doesn't meet notability standards, and wikipedia is not a junkyard. (GregJackP (talk) 18:03, 15 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 Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) . Content is available under the redirect should anyone find it worth merging. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fidel Realyvasquez (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)
Negative sourced BLP. Normally, I delete attack pages on sight, But it is sourced by NYTiimes. The key to WP:CSD#G10 being "that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." I'd like more eyes so I don't delete an article that turns out to be keepable through terms of significant coverage, though I've little doubt it will be SNOWED. Thanks Dlohcierekim 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 10 sources, including NYTimes and a book was written about him. Dlohcierekim 14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?Delete: Book here, Press release from US Attorney McGregor W. Scott, Eastern District of California here, we have a number of NY Times articles sourced in the article (plus [10]), LA Times article [11], court case details [12]. Providing it sticks to the facts as sourced (that there was a case brought, there was a settlement, etc), I'm not really sure I understand the rationale for deleting it -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean aside from being wholly negative and only being notable for one event? :). I should have stated that more explicitly. See THF below for more. But then, I brought it here for a full sounding of the issues, so it will be interesting to see how the discussion turns. (Actually, all those Keep reasons are why I thought there should be discussion.) Well said.) Dlohcierekim 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think being wholly negative alone is a sufficient delete reason, as long as the negativity is accurate and sourced. The "single event" thing might be important, but is it the single legal case, or the multiple medical cases that determine the number of events? (But I have changed my stance from "Keep" to "Keep?" :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought there might be some nuanced discussion. <grin /> Dlohcierekim 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my opinion partly based on WP:BLP1E - though the alleged wrongdoings were repeated over a number of years, it's effectively just a single notable issue. And partly because it is already covered by Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California), and that is the obvious place for it rather than individual articles about the two doctors involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Info already in two places in Tenet Healthcare and related hospital article, so no loss to encyclopedia. NB that article created by WP:SPA whose edits are almost entirely about this case and creating articles about this case, so there are likely WP:COI issues. If the Coronary book is notable, create an article about that book, though it's far from clear that it is, given that the 2007 book has 0 GNews hits and has already been remaindered. THF (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I might go with WP:BLP1E, but see comment above. Not sure the relevance of WP:EFFECT. Don't think WP:SPA is a good enough deletion on its own. And if you do the book search with the correct title ("Coronary: A True Story", not "Coronary true story"), you get a handful of GNews hits - [13]. The duplication of the information in the Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) article seems to be the strongest reason for deletion so far - lets see what others think, and I might change my opinion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Coronary is a common word. Therefore, I did a search of Coronary: A True Story, Coronary True Story, Coronary A True Story and it came up with 75,300 hits on google.com. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Coronary+True+Story&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
- Comment. Per WP:MULTI and basic issues of common-sense consistency and efficiency, it might make sense for someone ambitious to combine this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hyun Moon, which is essentially an identical article to this one with identical issues in the deletion discussion. The fact that these two BLPs produce almost identical articles once they're sourced demonstrates exactly why we don't need duplication with the Redding hospital article. THF (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any salient, sourced information to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) and leave this as a redirect. Looking back through the page history I don't agree that the article was overly negative, thats the nature of the BLP1E game when the one event is a bad one. However, one event is one event, so redirect this guy and his cohort to the medical centre's article, where the subject can be covered in more depth if necessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to a merge/redirect. THF (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge; I do not think ONEEVENT applies here, because it was first of all a continuing series of actions and investigations, and second a major matter of public interest. But it would be better to keep the material together. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge - The article's historical version is well-referenced and notable. It is perhaps too redundant to have different articles each "doctor", but don't lose this work, and maintain the name as a redirect. The claim that a "new editor who has only edited on one topic" has a conflict of interest is ridiculous - of course a new editor has edited one topic first. Besides, if it is someone who has had an unnecessary heart surgery, I don't call that a conflict of interest but just someone knowledgeable about the topic who deserves our consideration! A conflict of interest is when you're getting paid (one way or another) to push your POV, not simply when you have a strong opinion, even if it is well justified. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 12 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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Takemusu Aiki Intercontinental (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)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero returns on Gnews or Gbooks. 4000 ghits, many of which are various wiki's or mirrors, blogs or something from the assoc. itself. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found no independent reliable sources about this organization. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 8 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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Japan Karate Association, World Federation Of Kuwait (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)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, nothing worth merging, and a rd is not needed to find the main Japan Karate Association article. JJL (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discussion at the WP:WikiProject Martial arts. Implausible search term, so a redirect is a waste. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 9 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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- International Taekwondo Alliance (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)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
Wikipedia:WPMA/N WP:NRVE "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It fails WP:CORP (as a company that exists fro franchise other schools, I think that's the standard we should judge it by) and could possibly qualify for a speedy G11. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) jmcw (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no independent reliable sources. I also don't see much of a claim to notability in the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have been unable to find adequate sources to establish notability. Janggeom (talk) 03:27, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colleen Farrington (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 to meet the new criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Prod was rejected with the summary "Diane Lane's mother, seems like an AfD is in order", to which I reply notability is not inherited. People must be notable in their own right. NW (Talk) 12:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can reject a PROD on a coin flip, if I felt so inclined - that's why we have AFD. The objection need not be sound, so long as it is made in good faith - it just needs to be made. That said, you're right - notability is not inherited. Not being familiar with the new PORNBIO, let me ask - if this article was compliant before, and isn't now, is it reasonable to expect that the article could become compliant with some work? If so, then I'd say we keep and improve. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/Comment. Are you sure WP:PORNBIO is the proper rule for a Playboy model? I am also not an expert on that protocol but I'm pretty sure that it is more specific than just modeling and dancing, which is the case here. I would suggest looking at WP:ENTERTAINER, which might help Ms. Farrington, as well as the WP:NOTINHERITED rule, which might not. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looking over Google News and Google Book hits. It seems like she satisfies the general notability guidelines and criteria 4 of PORNBIO given her theatre roles have been covered by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources need to be in the article and not "out there" on Google or discussed here at Afd. I would like to see expansion before a decision is made on my part. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not the standard though. Bad articles which can be improved generally shouldn't be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I added a few more sources to the article. Maybe being a playmate by itself is no longer considered de facto notable, but that plus acting/singing mentions, plus coverage incident to her daughter seem to cross the line.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several references and credits seems to pass GNG for me. Dismas|(talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources added. keep per Milowent. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:26, 15 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Margie Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe that it matters whether or not this person was the "first centerfold"; that bit of information would be better served in the Playboy magazine article. Article fails WP:PORNBIO. NW (Talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being the first playboy playmate, if verified, would satisfy criteria 3 of PORNBIO for me. I am concerned about whether this claim is someone's original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep found and cited first playmate info. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as all hell. --Rebel1916 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with kudos to Morbidthoughts. Another source is Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds by Hugh Hefner & Dave Hickey... showing the first apearance of the first ever Playmate of the Month... Margie Harrison as Miss January 1954 and her return as Miss June, same year. Sure, while Marilyn Monroe graced the very first issue in December 1953, it was Harrrison who was the first "Playmate". Heff oughta know. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable first. If the deletionists win on this article, please userfy to my userspace so that I don't have to ask an admin for the article text. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as passing BASIC and Pornbio#3 - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - what ever happened to the guidance of ATD? It seems to be accepted that editors can nominate everything for deletion on sight without any consequences. Poor show. Ash (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and avoid the inevitable press coverage about how wikipedia thought the first centerfold wasn't notable. I saw recently that a slew of early playmates were prodded; I don't really care about these articles, but many people do.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 12 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. I had relisted this as references had been added during the last day of the original 7 days. However, it is clear that the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatcom Volunteer Center (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)
While the article looks good, it doesn't seem to serve any more purpose than the organisation's own web site could. Where's the notability? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student at Western Washington University. I've been working all quarter to put together the Whatcom Volunteer Center page as part of a quarter-long project to introduce the program as a social media tool. I'll agree that the concept of notability has been difficult for me, but I had thought I offered enough external references and documentation to ensure the page's survival. If you can help me grasp the concept better, and maybe give me a tip or two on how I might make it more notable, I'd really appreciate it. We present it and everything else tomorrow, and it would be nice not to have a big deletion sticker on it. I'll be checking back frequently for a response. Thanks. Geode333 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. Having external links is not a measure of notability, unfortunately. If your organisation has not been discussed by third parties -- newspapers, published magazines, television, other independent sources -- then it may well be a good organisation, but not notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia. Please have a look at WP:Notability and WP:NOT for more examples of what I mean. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless we can get some better references. I'm going to assume good faith on Geode333's part for finding the references we need (versus just references). Do this and I'll change my mind. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, needs references. Even if all the external links were switched to refs, there still wouldn't be enough to work for the entire article. If the article was drastically pared down, to something like a stub, and only included the stuff for which there are external links/references or if references could be found for the rest, than I'd change my mind. I think the comment made by the person who removed the PROD tag earlier is pretty telling, though. "This page contains information that is not available elsewhere on the internet" sounds a lot like original research to me, and doesn't inspire confidence in the availability of potential refs. C628 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) See below for more thoughts.[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Geode333, could you please tell me if you are connected to the username Alinwa06? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. C628 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kittensandrainbows/C628: If you have any evidence that these are the same user, then take this to SPI, otherwise please AGF - it perfectly possible for Alinwa06 and Geode333 to both be interested in this topic, and yet still be different people. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This looked to me like a worthy organization so I did some work on it. I added several references and converted some outside links to references. The sourcing which resulted may be a little weak but I think it's strong enough to establish notability. If you voted earlier, please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have relisted this as references were added within the last day, so this will give the original contributors to this discussion the opportunity to look at the article and decide whether to change their !vote or not. I will be contacting them all about the relisting. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've gone over this article and I only see one local news article (the New Tribune one) that actually contributes to establishing notability, which isn't enough. The other references include a reprinted press release (Bellingham Herald) and several that don't mention the subject, and thus do not attempt to establish notability. (The article also has some stylistic problems that could be fixed easily enough including inline external links and an unnecessary listing of the entire staff; I'll try to address some of them at the article in the meantime just in case the article is kept.)--~TPW 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merge into Whatcom County, Washington?--PinkBull 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that - I found another reference but I don't think it's quite enough for this to stand on its own, and news references seem anemic so I don't think it's reasonable to expect more to pop up over time. Clearly they do good work but I don't think it's notable work.--~TPW 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed article this AM in light of the changes made (thanks for the pointer!). I'm maintaining my !vote for the purpose - looking through the news bits, they don't really convey notability. There are more than one press release in there, and one is not so much a focus on the WVC, it's more a focus on homelessness and how WVC are helping. That last one is a maybe - I see blurry lines there. =) But frankly, I need something more substantial than press releases before I change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the discussion and assistance with this page. User Alinwa06 is a member of my group, and created an account to address the marked deletion when I notified her about it.
````
- I'm also going to retain my !vote, unless it was agreed to reduce this significantly in size, down to a stub. Although I can't claim to have helped in finding sources, I think that what's there is adequate for a stub-class article or a significant mention in Whatcom County, Washington, as suggested above, and I certainly wouldn't oppose that. Without such an agreement, I'd still advocate for deletion on the grounds of way too much not-notable, unsourced stuff, which far outweighs what is sourced and notable. Incidentally, I'm satisfied with the explanation of the two users here, Alinwa06 (talk · contribs) and Geode333 (talk · contribs); no concerns there. C628 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or perhaps merge a line of it into the article for the county. Excessively local, and nothing non-routine. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vasilijus Safronovas (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 academic. No secondary sources to support notability. Publishing articles and contributing to publications is an academic's "Day job". An individual needs to do something more than his/her job to be considered notable. WP:ACADEMIC provides guidelines for notability of academics. The criteria are quite demanding and Safronovas still falls well short of them. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lithuania discussions. Novickas (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. This person is a fresh graduate of a small newly-formed school and is now on faculty there. Claims are difficult to verify, even from the school's website, as most of their departments (including history) have no web pages. WoS shows not a single article published in the peer-reviewed literature and GS shows no citations either (h-index = 0). The article claims a published book: "At the age 17 he published his first scientific book – a synthetic work on history of the city of Klaipėda", however, this seems only to be an article within an edited collection that was actually edited by someone else and which seems to be held only by a single institution. It also claims he's a major contributor to "Encyclopaedia of Lithuania Minor", but this held by <20 institutions. All of these claims fall far short of WP:PROF #1. Textbook case of an article too early. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I beg to differ about two points. Klaipeda University is not small, has some 10K sutdents. It wasn't formally founded until 1991, true, but it's not a diploma mill. Re the notability of the Encyclopaedia of Lithuania Minor, aka Mazosios lietuvos enciklopedija, the first page of Worldcat shows it held by New York Public Library, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Library of Congress, Toronto Public Library, University of Toronto. [14]. (After that my search hangs). But its presence in those libraries alone makes it a notable publication. I agree this guy's notability will take some research. Novickas (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said Klaipeda University was a "diploma mill". Those are your words. Also, the issue with respect to book holdings is specifically not which libraries hold the publication, it's how many. For example, the NYPL and LOC are not very discriminating in the sense that they hold practically everything. From the Library of Congress article: LOC "receives copies of every book, pamphlet, map, print, and piece of music registered in the United States". WorldCat shows only 18 institutions holding the Lithuania Minor book – quite a low number indeed. For comparison, the vanity-published book "Off the Wall" (which has been discussed here before) is held by 75 libraries. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Oh no. I'm falling into the WP cycle of escalating rhetoric, following the real life cycle of same. No, you didn't call KU a diploma mill, but you did describe him as a "fresh graduate of a small newly-formed school" as a factor in his notability. As I say, I'm still forming an opinion about his notability. Novickas (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of luck in forming an opinion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Your way of establishing book's notability is disgustingly biased. Counting how many copies of a Lithuanian book is held by U.S. libraries is flat wrong. The count will obviously won't come nowhere close to any English book. You should count how many copies are held by Lithuanian libraries (but alas they are not part of Worldcat). Just FYI, the book is respectable & notable. It's published by Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, which publishes Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (Lithuanian equivalent of Encyclopedia Britannica). Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija was covered in press quite a bit (some quick examples mostly from last year): [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Renata (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WorldCat does, in fact, catalog many Lithuanian-language publications (they claim 26,272). It is the "the world's largest bibliographic database" (from WorldCat) and it is the consensus method (and not "my way", thanks) by which we do such evaluations. If you have something better, then propose it. And, let's also try to remember that we're really not even debating the red-herring merits of book indexing services, but rather Safronovas himself. And, I think the facts here remain: he's basically an entry-level academic who has not yet made contributions sufficient to pass any of the criteria in WP:PROF. He may do so in the future, but that necessarily remains to be seen. I'm sorry if any feelings are hurt, but this is almost always the verdict for new profs because they haven't yet had the time to make the necessary accomplishments. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, thank you very much for such a discussion on my article. I would say the guidelines for notability of academics are too strict, especially in context of such small countries as Lithuania. Anyways, just to prevent you from wasting time on trivialities, as an author, I would suggest to delete the article. RGB EN (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in support of user RGB EN. Also zero GS cites. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment worldCat does contain many Lithuanian books, but very few libraries in the US and canada collect them, and these make up about 95% of WorldCat's coverage.(It does contain a few libraries in other parts of the English speaking world, and a very few representative libraries elsewhere). Even if it did cover other language materials adequately world-wide, the number of holdings would be proportional to the size of the country and of its publishing industry, and the numbers would have to be judged accordingly. I consider holdings in WorldCat worthless as negative evidence for any non -English language publication. Positive holdings there for a small language are on the other hand very highly significant. That it is the best universal db for books currently available does not mean that it is adequate. Ditto for Google Scholar & Google books, even more anglocentric.
- Weak Keep The question is whether he is an authority on his subject, no matter how small the subject is. I'm a little dubious about how to count specialization in regional history as a specific subject. He's an authority on Klaipėda / Memel -- is that a sufficient subject? In -- Eight journal articles is normally somewhat below the standard for historians--normally at least one important book is expected I'm not sure though how to judge the extensive contributions to an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Klaipeda/Memel is quite significant regionally, altho the lead of its WP article may not convey that very well. It's better shown in other articles - Port of Klaipeda, Klaipėda Region, 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania, Klaipeda Castle, etc. Been fought over quite a bit, being a (usually) ice free port on the Baltic - this is reasonably well-covered in the K. article itself. Novickas (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dear Collegues, I would like to explain something. 1) The author I have described has written a book on history of Klaipeda ("Klaipėdos miesto istorinės raidos bruožai") - it was published in 2002 and you can find it mentioned in [Google Books catalogue]. 2) The historian I have described is an author of approximetely 20 scientific articles; I have included only some of them in English Wikipedia. Among them are articles in prestigious scientific journals of Lithuania, as "Lietuvos istorijos metraštis" (published by The Lithuanian Institute of History) or "Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis" (published by Institute of History and Archaeology, Klaipeda University). You can also find very profound article on contemporary Lithuania's politics of remembrance in "Ab Imperio" (2009) - the latter is an affiliated journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (Cambridge, Mass.). Isn't it notable enough? 3) Encyclopaedia of Lithuania Minor is a unique project, which was initiated by Lithuania Minor Foundation (USA-Canada) and realised by more than 300 specialists all around the world, including scholars from the USA, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Russia; of course, most of the contributors were the Lithuanians, as the project itself was oriented towards the Lithuanian-speakers. Safronovas was major contributor to the 4th and the last Volume, where he has wrote articles on German Nationalism, History of Germany, East Prussia after World War II, Politics of Germany towards Question of Memel and many others. Of course, all this points to the fact that Safronovas is a specialist on regional history, known in particular groups of historians at least in Lithuania and Germany. So how could you expect notability (as you see it) from such an author? He is notable in particular fields, which, of course, do not include the USA, Great Britain or other English-speaking states. Therefore you can't find a lot of information about him in Worldcat or Google scientists. I have wrote about this historian at least because of the fact he is a young man of great likelihood, who has astonished Lithuanian professors when he wrote his scientific book at the age 17. I would say he is wonder boy. Therefore I saw my task here to present this talent to English-speaking world. I don't know if my arguments convince you? Respectfully, RGB EN (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. His major contributions to the encyclopedia show him an authority on Lithuania Minor - thereby fulfilling a condition of WP:ANYBIO - that "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Novickas (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You misunderstand WP:ANYBIO entirely, which I grant is somewhat poorly worded. However, the footnote attached to the text you quote provides clarification: generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians... (bold-emphasis mine). In other words, the "enduring historical record" refers to the person discussed therein as the subject, not the person who wrote it. So, if Safronovas himself is indeed the subject of any of the encyclopedia articles, I'll be glad to change my position. If not, you might consider changing yours. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Dear Agricola44, actually Safronovas is the subject of article in Encyclopaedia of Lithuania Minor, Volume 4 (Vilnius, 2009), p. 168. I have used information from this article when I was writing the Wikipedia-article and I have made corresponding footnote. RGB EN (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense is that most commentators here will not be able to assess the article and its coverage of Safronovas because of inability to access the article. You appear to be extremely familiar with it. Might you be able to give some additional information and context so that we could get a better handle on it? For example, is it one of the proper encyclopedia articles, or is it an entry in the "about the authors" section? Does the article give incidental mention of Safronovas, or is it actually titled as "Vasilijus Safronovas", or some such, giving his actual biography? Answers to these questions should clarify matters tremendously. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Very well, as you wish: The article, named "Safronovas, Vasilijus" is about him as a historian. The size of the article is about 1000 characters. In the article the following information is given: his day of birth, his profession, his credentials, his range of scientific interests, his participation in particular scientific projects, his major works. I have used the information from this article creating the Wikipedia-article. RGB EN (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I presume you mean 1000 words, not 1000 characters? Also, can you identify any other publications that discuss him (per the multiple sources requirement in WP:ANYBIO), especially in something more mainstream (i.e. more widely distributed)? This could turn the tide in favor of keep. Thanks for your work. Agricola44 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Here [24] he is profiled in the newspaper Klaipeda diena. Another one in Vakaru ekspresas [25] Sorry we don't have WP articles on these news outlets. Briefer mention in Eurozine [26]. Novickas (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping that items that are both more mainstream and substantive could be offered. The first two seem to be briefs in local Lithuanian-language newspapers (pardon if this is incorrect, I don't speak/read the language) and the third is a brief in a netzine. I would rather like to concentrate on his article (i.e. the one that talks about him) in the Lithuanian encyclopedia, because I think that could satisfy (at least partially) the requirement about being "written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians" in WP:ANYBIO. I'm hoping someone can describe this article in more detail so that the panelists here can get a better understanding of it. I would like to change my vote, but I can only do this in good conscience based on evidence. Thanks again for all your work, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- A couple of other offerings. This is a strong one, IMO: [27], on Sep 11 2009, Vakaru expresas describes a 2-day conference of what it describes as 'starring Lithuanian historians'. Titled "Klaipėdoje - svarbiausias istorikų renginys" (In Klaipeda - a conference of the most notable historians). Quote: "Vakar prasidėjo ir šiandien Klaipėdos universitete (KU) tęsiasi Antrasis Lietuvos istorikų suvažiavimas "Tarp tradicijos ir naujų iššūkių: Lietuvos istorijos mokslas naujojo tūkstantmečio pradžioje", į kurį suvažiavo ir dar atvažiuos visas Lietuvos istorikų žvaigždynas - Alfredas Bumblauskas, Alvydas Nikžentaitis, Česlovas Laurinavičius, Zigmantas Kiaupa, Irena Vaišvilaitė ir kt." Because it only lasted 2 days there weren't a whole lot of participants (Dalyviai) - Vasilijus is one of them ("Dalyviai Vladas Žulkus, Nijolė Laužikienė, Rasa Čepaitienė, Vasilijus Safronovas.") This 2007 article focuses entirely on V.S. [28]. Lietuvos rytas reprinted his article mentioned in Eurozine. [29]. Eurozine, BTW, is better than a zine in the commonly used US sense; it has an editorial board. [30] Novickas (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping that items that are both more mainstream and substantive could be offered. The first two seem to be briefs in local Lithuanian-language newspapers (pardon if this is incorrect, I don't speak/read the language) and the third is a brief in a netzine. I would rather like to concentrate on his article (i.e. the one that talks about him) in the Lithuanian encyclopedia, because I think that could satisfy (at least partially) the requirement about being "written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians" in WP:ANYBIO. I'm hoping someone can describe this article in more detail so that the panelists here can get a better understanding of it. I would like to change my vote, but I can only do this in good conscience based on evidence. Thanks again for all your work, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After reading the article, there is no indication for me, why it should be kept. But maybe the problem is the way the article is written because it does not justfully present him. So, I'd like few questions answered which might help me and others take a decision. 1) If you were to make a resumé of one line describing his research and/or specialization, what would it be? 2) Who are the known researchers in that field (notable enough to have their article), provide at most 5 names. 3) How many of those have used his study in their work and/or reviewed his works. If that's hard to find, using a citation index could help. From my point of view, the most important aspect to show notability, is the number of times his studies have been cited elsewhere, particularly by those who are established notable enough to have their artcle. -RobertMel (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) + Since I vote in several AfD, I may not return here, so please warn me in my talkpage if you answer. -RobertMel (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My stance is that he's notable under the overarching guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people), basic criteria - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Bio entry in the encyclopedia + full length dedicated articles in two of LT's major newspapers. (LT has about 350 newspapers, per this ref from the European Journalism Centre, [31] which then mentions these 2 in its short list of 11; I think this addresses an earlier question about whether these newspapers are local). Further addressing DGG's question above as to whether the field of Klaipeda/Memel history is significant - a Gbook search on Memel shows over 6,000 results in several languages. [32] Novickas (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. Newspapers are not ideal, particularly when they only make a passing mention. For an accademic, anyone holding a position at university level will have some level of notability. So, assessing an accademician notability should be mostly based on citation indexes and reviews their works have generated by their notable peers. I will check his notability myself and come with an assessment. Regards. -RobertMel (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - OK, after checking, very interesting scholar and will probably become notable, but as of now, he is not enought notable. On the other hand, I think an article (of course if it does not exist, I have not checked) on the Lithuanian history writting during Soviet times with an appropriate title could be justifiable, better yet starting with Lithuanian historiography dealing with the different periods. If a similar article does exist, then Vasilijus Safronovas name could be redirected in an appropriate section of the article, if not creating an Lithuanian historiography which could accomodate a redirect in a relevant section which could be worthwhile. -RobertMel (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've actually taken time to take a look at a couple of his papers, and he seems to be a serious historian, with a decent publication record. Just the paper on the graves in Klaipeda could be a useful source for quite a few - perhaps not yet written - Wikipedia aritcles about the history of that corner of the world. It's not quite clear from the Wikipedia article whether the young historian (he's 25) has earned his [Lithuanian equivalent of] Ph.D. already, but I assume that he will eventually. If the person is considered not "notable" based on the formal notability criteria, I guess the article can be "userified" (moved to the main author's user space), and then the author can move it to the main space again in a couple years, when the historian in question actually has his thesis published as a book (he probably will)... Vmenkov (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on "a decent publication record" in light of the fact that the main indexing services show little, if anything, from him? I'm also a little confused by your "keep" because the second half of your statement tacitly indicates he's not yet notable. Thanks in advance for clarification. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I gladly will elaborate.
- (1) I have to admit that when I decide to create an article about a scholars or a writer, I do so not as a result of evaluating the person's "notability" with respect to whatever the standard guidelines may say, but rather because I am reading up on a certain topic, and want to fill in red links for things such as the "authorlink" parameter in the {{Citation}} template, or in an "according to X..." text in an article I am writing. So for example when I was reading on the Jurchens/Manchus, I ended up creating stubs for Herbert Franke, Daniel Kane (linguist), and Evgenij Ivanovich Kychanov, and added a bit to the already existing article on Pamela Kyle Crossley.
- (2) A couple of Safronovas' articles that I looked at ( Vasilijus Safronovas, „Identitätskonflikte, Symbolwerdung der Grabstätten und der Kult um die Befreier in Memel/Klaipėda des 20. Jahrhunderts“, in: Annaberger Annalen, 2008, Nr. 16, S. 205-226.; Василиюс Сафроновас, «О тенденциях политики воспоминания в нынешней Литве», in: Ab Imperio: Studies of New Imperial History and Nationalism in the Post-Soviet Space, 2009, No. 3, p. 424–458. [“On Tendencies of the Politics of Remembrance in Contemporary Lithuania”]) seem to contain solid historical scholarship: a study of extensive factual material, plus the historians "synthesis" based on such material. While I am not writing any wikipedia articles on Lithuania, I feel that if one were to write something, say, on the history of Memel/Klaipeda, or on National Holidays of Lithuania, s/he can certainly make use extensive use of these articles as sources - and thus, make the author of the articles a potential topic for an article too (under my "subjective criterion" above).
- (3) "Main indexing services"? I know all too well how incomplete those things are when dealing with literature in "minor" languages, published in journals (or by book pressed) of a "minor" country. Even libraries that hold such things (typically, at universities with an appropriate research program) sometimes don't catalog them properly. (I can tell plenty of stories related for looking for and finding books/papers needed for writing wiki articles on more "obscure" topics, but it's not too relevant here). So I mostly judged on the record based on the content of the papers listed in the articles, rather than on where they may have been indexed. I would imagine that the Lietuvos istorijos metraštis (Yearbook of Lithuanian History) and the Annaberger Annalen are probably as major journals on Lithuanian history as there are, but they still may fly below the radar of the "Main indexing services" of the English-speaking world.
- (4) "tacitly indicat[ing] he's not yet notable"? I do realize that my subjective criterion for "should I bother to write an article on X?" may sometimes produce different results from whatever the official notability criteria may say. I don't claim expertise on interpreting the latter, or to start a discussion on the merits of them (this is not the right place, anyway). But should the experts decide that the official notability criteria are not [yet] satisfied, I would like to note that they likely will be satisfied in a few years, considering that the historian in question has already been quite prolific. It seems like he is publishing articles centered around a certain group of topics (related to how the local history is viewed and commemorated by the people of today), which will eventually develop into a thesis and probably a published book. (This, after all, is a fairly topic trajectory that you see in many historians' CVs: from a series of papers to a Ph.D. thesis to a monograph). Therefore I felt that should the decision to delete be made, it would be good to avoid an unnecessary loss of material, since the article could eventually be legitimately be re-created later on anyway. Thus I suggested "userification" as an option for that eventuality. Vmenkov (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. You've repeated that you're making what is essentially a subjective argument and I guess I'll just say simply that the claim that his works "seem to contain solid historical scholarship" is really not at all what is it issue here. We assume this would be a minimum condition for anyone in academia. I don't buy for a minute your variation of the claim of "english" or "western" bias of the indexing services against his publications. It's easy to find boatloads of Lithuania-related humanities/history/literature-type publications in e.g. WoS. For example, searching "Topic=(lithuania*)" and refining by filters such as HUMANITIES, HISTORY OR FOLKLORE OR LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS OR LITERATURE etc. returns >1000 publications from journals such as Slavic Review, Journal of Baltic Studies, Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, Logos-Vilnius, Folia Linguisitica, Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, Acta Historica Tallinnensia, and so forth. Academics, conscious as they are of "impact" and "relevance", invariably try to get their work published in the most prestigious avenues possible. So far, I haven't seen any convincing explanation of why Safronovas is notable despite the fact that none of his work has apparently been published at this mainstream and not-necessarily-english-only level. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: There is a reason why the WP:NOTYET guideline exists. Although notability can sometimes be arguable, it is probably best for creators of new articles to understand the criteria and think äbout them before starting their new article. I think Vmenkov actually presents a strong delete case without meaning to! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment responding to some points made above. 1. His newspaper mentions are not in passing; the two linked articles are dedicated solely to him. 2. If an article on Lithuanian historiography were created, to include Safronovas, it'd need to discuss only the most notable historians; it wouldn't be worthwhile to include him if WP deemed him unworthy of a separate article. 3. Does he meet general notability guidelines, by virtue of his coverage in the two papers and the Encyclopedia of Lithuania Minor, or does WP:PROF override those? Novickas (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This AfD discussion seems to be an example of the longer the argument the weaker the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. There's still no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The article makes clear that he published a lot, but quantity of publication not one of the WP:PROF criteria — we're looking instead for signs that his research has made a big impact. If those signs are out there, they don't seem to have shown up in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. RayTalk 03:27, 16 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdelbasset Gemiey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article claims to be about a deceased Egyptian lawyer, but is actually mostly about his son, who appears to be the author of this article. There are no sources, and web/news searches don't come up with any reliable sources documenting notability of either gentleman. Favonian (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is written like a resume, it's missing any sources, none have been forthcoming on Google. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:NOT. RayTalk 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It probably wins an award for sentence length, but fails WP:BIO. No sources given. If we remove the bio of his son, the article would reduce to "Abdelbasset Mohamed Abdelkhalek Abdelmegid Gemiey (Arabic: عبدالباسط محمد عبدالخالق عبدالمجيد جميعي) was an Egyptian lawyer (October 11 1918 – 1983)." -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:47, 14 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Power System Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An essay about an unnotable subject. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Half essay, half list of items I have no idea what they mean. I think it is notable, as evidenced by the Google Scholar hits here, but would need a complete rewrite right now. fetchcomms☛ 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Power System Analysis" may in fact be a notable enough topic for an entry, but this particluar entry barely covers this topic beyond the lead, it's largely a strung-together collection of factoids and lists. This is salvagable only with a complete re-write. Hairhorn (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I get the feeling that this might have been created by a student who had written an essay for school and reproduced it here, see how one of the two references is a college course. Frankly I don't see how this article differs from power flow study, which seems like the same thing (the lead even says, "it analyses the power system"). -- Atama頭 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You can analyse anything; "Sausage Analysis" etc. If there was anything worthwhile, it'd belong in an article on power systems. Student essay; unreferenced; nothing here to salvage. Chzz ► 02:06, 11 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayonna Fabro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was deleted last night as unambiguous advertising, then was recreated. I've toned down the language (see User:JayFabFan), and it is borderline, but there's some assertion of notability so I thought it would be best to bring it here in case I'm missing some huge cult following she has, or a string of awards. From what I can find though ([33], [34]) I can't see that she meets general notability guidelines by having significant coverage in reliable sources, or that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER either. BelovedFreak 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 11:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable (GregJackP (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - Is not notable enough. -RobertMel (talk) 18:11, 8 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 8-bit (music). –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Picopop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another neologism. No real description of style or development. An unreferenced stub for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 8-bit (music) (which already lists several of the same bands). Verifying its existence, and therefore the legitimacy of the search term, is easy enough. Notability is a different story. The best reference I could find, via an admittedly cursory search, is this. I'd recommend a redirect to bitpop, but that was recently deleted by prod. (Tangentially, a merger of 8-bit (music) and the much more extensive and better sourced chiptune may be in order) — Gwalla | Talk 18:47, 10 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 ambient music. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Organic ambient music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another neologism, No real description of the music a lot of "tends to" Nos real description of style, or development history. I would remove the Brian Eno statement but that would be bad form since I'm nominating this for deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though there is a hint of coverage. There is, in fact, a statement by Brian Eno on the term, here, but I doubt he intends to make a claim about a "real" musical genre. I found two other statements in reliable sources, here and here, but given that those references are 15 and 7 years old that's not enough to establish notability as a genre. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ambient music. Eno's quote does seem to identify it as a subgenre of ambient, but it's a passing mention. The article in SF Weekly appears to be using "organic" adjectivally, not as part of a set term "organic ambient", and it's unclear how Miami Music is using it (again in passing, in an article on minimal techno; BTW, looks like that article is cited in minimal techno, so I added the link). Doesn't look like there's anything salvageable to merge. It'd be best covered under the auspices of the parent genre. — Gwalla | Talk 19:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ambient music per Gwalla. Jujutacular T · C 07:30, 16 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 hardcore punk. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New school hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New school hardcore would in fact just be Hardcore. A stub and unreferenced for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to hardcore punk. It's just hardcore punk made more recently than the original fad. Which reminds me, I should probably merge that stub at Nu Gaze into the main Shoegazing article... — Gwalla | Talk 19:40, 10 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimal electronica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another genre where someone slapped an adjective on the front of another genre. No real description of style or development, and unreferenced. Ridernyc (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even Trio (band) never used or were described by this term. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:48, 9 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manga pop (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 description of the style, no development history. To be honest not 100% sure it's not made up. Searching Google I kind find the term being used but never in connection with music. Ridernyc (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax. Borderline nonsense, in fact; the description makes no sense at all. The only bluelinked artist has nothing to do with it: O-Zone is just your basic boy band; their only (tenuous) connection to manga is the fact that their hit Dragostea Din Tei was popular as a subject for Japanese flash animations (which were popular on 4chan, so there's a strong chance this is somebody's meme-driven joke). — Gwalla | Talk 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular T · C 05:51, 14 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lion Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another neologism made up by one person. No description of the musical style or development at all. Ridernyc (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A genre of just one band isn't a genre at all. The most charitable resolution would be a redirect to Cud (band), but it's such an unlikely search term that hardly seems necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article makes it clear that it was a short lived neologism and it does not appear to have become notable, since it only was applied to one band.--SabreBD (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The term was used for much more than one band - see this, which identifies Cud, Pulp, St. Etienne, Suede and Lush.--Michig (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The source pointed out by Michig is a trivial mention, not substantive. Jujutacular T · C 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was used quite a lot in the British music press back in the day, but these sources are not available online.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 14 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Krautronica (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)
Neologism, another based on some mixture of genres genre. No clear description of style or development. Unreferenced for 2 years. Ridernyc (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is unreferenced and generally very empty. Also, I explored all four of the examples of music projects described as krautronica, but none of the three with wikipedia pages had been described as such on their articles. The other one without an article didn't talk about genres. This article doesn't seem to possess information that is redirectable, either. I'm totally for deleting this. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:48, 13 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Italo house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
another blend of various genres. No clear description of what it sounds like or how it is unique. Unreferenced for 6 years, and nearly every artist mentioned is a red link. Ridernyc (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sorry Rider, but this one is clearly notable--I added some references to the article and took the trash out; there are plenty more references available. BTW, no COI here--I can't tell you how much I hated this kind of music! Drmies (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see any problem with this one. It did get sourced by Drmies, and there is also a page on Italian progressive rock. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure what the existence of a Italian progressive rock article has to do with this debate. Ridernyc (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was saying that there are notable pages that exist that focus on pre-existing genres and their scenes in Italy. That may or may not be irrelevant, but I thought it suitable at the time. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the Italian progressive article is a mess and unreferenced this is a classic example of why you don't make WP:OTHERSTUFF statements. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it isn't a suitable argument then. Sorry about breaking that otherstuff rule; I'll keep that rule in mind. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the Italian progressive article is a mess and unreferenced this is a classic example of why you don't make WP:OTHERSTUFF statements. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was saying that there are notable pages that exist that focus on pre-existing genres and their scenes in Italy. That may or may not be irrelevant, but I thought it suitable at the time. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:53, 13 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Illbient (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)
Neologism made up by DJ Spooky, no development history, no clear description of a style. Just a word someone made up and a description of that person career. Ridernyc (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I despise rap music and even I have heard of this. It's best to Google something before you conclude that it's "just a word someone made up". It's in books and news and everywhere else. I first ran across it in the horror film Bones. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- none of them describe it past a neologism, as you will notice most of them put quotes around the word "Illbient", also if you look you will find sources like this one which baiscally call it a poorly defined neologism [35]. Nearly every source is about DJ Spooky and his "scene" not really about a genre. This is all more appropriate in an article about DJ Spooky. Ridernyc (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage for this genre. — Gwalla | Talk 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I google searched and found that there was no shortage of results. I find it notable enough. The number of sources on the wikipedia article itself should increase. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:55, 13 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) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Feffer (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)
Jason Feffer was the VP of Operations at MySpace but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about him - except the refs given to an interview he's done. → AA (talk) — 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though sodahead.com may have potential notability, just being its creator doesn't make this person inherently notable. Plus there's obvious COI issues here with the creator of the article. -- Ϫ 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One interview is not enough to establish notability. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular T · C 01:37, 9 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) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skwert (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)
Member of marginally notable bands. Microstub, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As INDK goes, so too goes his claim to notability. As an aside, I must say I'm somewhat amused to see one of your AfD nominations marked as incomplete ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:31, 8 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 as an A7 case. JamieS93❤ 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sway_cricket_club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
- Delete: Unreferenced, as well as the club not being in the Southern Premier Cricket League so therefore fails notability requirement of WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as of A7. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:24, 8 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Natasha Mostert (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)
Nominator's statement - This author is not notable per WP:N, WP:PEOPLE, or WP:AUTHOR. She has one award win, for Book to Talk About: World Book Day Award 2009, but the award itself is not notable. It's award is only mentioned on three Wikipedia pages[36] and only seems to be reported in the media as part of book publisher's announcements.[37] --Marc Kupper|talk 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —--Marc Kupper|talk 23:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--Marc Kupper|talk 23:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Besides winning the World Book Day Award as the nom already noted and being a major publisher author (Macmillan Books and Penguin Books), this author and her work has received very significant coverage by reliable independent sources [38][39][40] (many more), thus easily passing WP:N and the other guidelines the nom claims the topic doesn't. --Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The World Book and Copyright Day article is not mention the award at all. The award does not seem to be notable.
- Being published is not a notability point on WP:AUTHOR. This idea has been discussed with no consensus reached.
- The in.reuters.com interview is good and I've added that to the reference list on the Natasha Mostert article. I personally don't think much of interviews as WP:PEOPLE coverage as they tend to a glowing lead to hook the reader's interest and then it's short questions by the interviewer that get answered, sometimes at length, by the subject. The person who did the interview did not write "about" the subject rather it's the subject writing or talking about herself. Thus interviews are not independent though the fact that there was an interview is evidence the subject received some notice.
- The www.grafwv.com article is a review of one of the author's book and with one sentence of coverage of the author whose article is the subject of this AFD. It appears that while the author of the review is a long time blogger on this site that this article is one of the two that she's not written as a blogger. It might be WP:N coverage of the book. Of the 416 words in the review 27 words are coverage of the author, 128 words are coverage of the book and the rest is a story summary.
- I can't find the review on the femalefirst.co.uk site. I see the publisher's summary, followed by an author blurb but no review.
- Of the more 40 articles found by the Google news archive one was the in.reuters.com interview. I found another interview plus an award presentation both of which I added as references to the article. The remaining hits are book summaries or mini reviews and not coverage of the author. I think a few were for someone else with the same name or our subject is also on the Soutpansberg, South Africa chamber of commerce.[41]
- While I added three references to the article none were the "significant coverage" from sources "independent of the subject" that WP:N asks for. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, when somebody is interviewed by a reliable source, that source is giving significant coverage to them. And in-depth interview of this person by Reuters is in fact significant coverage of this person. If the topic were interviewing herself and then posted it on her blog, then your "glowing lead" point would be valid. In fact, "glowing leads" by reliable sources are still significant coverage per WP:N. And an in-depth review of the topic's work is in fact more significant coverage of this person. Remember, WP:N defines non-significant coverage as a "one sentence mention" in another work as an example. Defining the coverage that this person has received by reliable sources as anything like a "one sentence mention" would be opposite of reality. --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the context, such as Reuters, is important. My usual formula is I'll take an article, review, interview, etc. and to count the number of words about a subject. Thus I counted the Reuters interview as 147 words about the subject (the lead), and 457 words from the subject (essentially WP:SELFPUB material) in Reuters. I don't separate out the word count for the questions as it's supposed to be a fast and rough evaluation.
- WP:N is frustrating as it says one sentence is plainly trivial as you noted. Next up is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" but no definition of "plainly trivial" vs. "trivial" is given. Finally it's that 360 pages (roughly 6,400 sentences) is plainly non-trivial. If we used WP:N literally then that 147 word lead (or even the full interview) is less than one percent of the way between "plainly trivial." and "plainly non-trivial." :-)
- You do have a good point though in that people can see it as 604 words of coverage or exposure in a major media outlet. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, when somebody is interviewed by a reliable source, that source is giving significant coverage to them. And in-depth interview of this person by Reuters is in fact significant coverage of this person. If the topic were interviewing herself and then posted it on her blog, then your "glowing lead" point would be valid. In fact, "glowing leads" by reliable sources are still significant coverage per WP:N. And an in-depth review of the topic's work is in fact more significant coverage of this person. Remember, WP:N defines non-significant coverage as a "one sentence mention" in another work as an example. Defining the coverage that this person has received by reliable sources as anything like a "one sentence mention" would be opposite of reality. --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have removed the June-2009 themercury.co.za interview as a reference and possible WP:N source. It turns out to be word-for-word identical to the April-2009 interview on in.reuters.com with the following changes, insertion and removing commas, replace the following words, "witch doctor" with "sangoma," "feels" with "believes", "mobilize" with "mobilise", etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not sure I follow your "significant coverage" calculations, but I see significant coverage in the sources cited in the article.--BelovedFreak 11:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only saw one WP:N source which is the interview. Did you see something else? WP:GNG has "multiple sources are generally expected" and so it'd be easy to make this a "keep" if you saw a couple more independant/reliable sources. The calculation stuff is something I do to see if a source is trivial or not. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't really understand where you get the numbers from to determine "significant coverage". Anyway, I was meaning the Evening Standard article too, which I presume you're discounting. Also, an article in the San Jose Mercury [42], some other coverage I can't evaluate because links are dead, or behind paywalls, or not in English. All in all, I think it's borderline, but I think she scrapes through. The interview in Reuters is enough to demonstrate notability (as 1 source I mean); WP:SELFPUB is about verifiability, not notability. The fact that they are interviewing her makes it notable - as opposed to an autobiographical "about me" piece on her website or something like that. --BelovedFreak 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll write about the numbers system on my talk page and may later move it into an essay. That someone has interviewed her at all is the strongest case for notability. As I was going to sleep last night I was thinking it's a week-keep based on a combination of one interview, one non-notable award, and publication by a major publisher. I saw the San Jose Mercury item you mentioned earlier but was not comfortable with its reliability as it's an anonymous editorial. If it was reliable it would be one 16-word sentence of coverage in a 310 word article. WP:N is empathetic that material qualifying for notability be independent of the subject and that it be "works of their own" that "address the subject directly in detail" by the person writing the material. This is why I do not include most interview questions and direct quotes by the subject as part of the word count to see if something is non-trivial coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to read that essay, and will be interested to see what discussion results from the thread you started at WT:N.--BelovedFreak 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the San Jose Mercury News piece, unless it's a "letter to the editor" or the like, it is a reliable source per WP:SOURCES. It has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic. Frequently in major market newspapers the editorial pages aren't credited to specific writers as they come from anyone on the editorial board. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll write about the numbers system on my talk page and may later move it into an essay. That someone has interviewed her at all is the strongest case for notability. As I was going to sleep last night I was thinking it's a week-keep based on a combination of one interview, one non-notable award, and publication by a major publisher. I saw the San Jose Mercury item you mentioned earlier but was not comfortable with its reliability as it's an anonymous editorial. If it was reliable it would be one 16-word sentence of coverage in a 310 word article. WP:N is empathetic that material qualifying for notability be independent of the subject and that it be "works of their own" that "address the subject directly in detail" by the person writing the material. This is why I do not include most interview questions and direct quotes by the subject as part of the word count to see if something is non-trivial coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't really understand where you get the numbers from to determine "significant coverage". Anyway, I was meaning the Evening Standard article too, which I presume you're discounting. Also, an article in the San Jose Mercury [42], some other coverage I can't evaluate because links are dead, or behind paywalls, or not in English. All in all, I think it's borderline, but I think she scrapes through. The interview in Reuters is enough to demonstrate notability (as 1 source I mean); WP:SELFPUB is about verifiability, not notability. The fact that they are interviewing her makes it notable - as opposed to an autobiographical "about me" piece on her website or something like that. --BelovedFreak 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 11:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Several of her books are held in over 300 libraries, and have been translated into Polish, Dutch, German, Russian, and Modern Greek; such wide publication, along with the reviews, is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'd forgotten about library holdings and agree with "keep" for this. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 11 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. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaquelyn_McCandless (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 John 18:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is not established in the article although she is an author. Not everyone who writes a book or two is WP:N. This person G-tests pretty well. So she may be notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero Gnews hits, does not meet WP:BIO. THF (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I'm torn on this one. She is clearly a presence on the popular "autism circuit", presenting at many conferences and such. On the other hand I could find only two peer-reviewed articles with her name on them in PubMed, and her book Children with Starving Brains may be self-published (the publisher Bramble Books offers several options including publishing-on-demand, self-publishing and textbook publishing). On the other other hand, that book is in its second edition and is cited 15 times per Google Scholar. The book is often cited admiringly in Google hits, but those citations are all from blogs and online reviews and such - not mainstream sources. Overall I'd say keep. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Certainly not notable on the autism circuit, compared to genuine notables such as Rick Rollens, Bernard Rimland, Bob Wright, Simon Baron-Cohen, Paul Offit, etc., etc., etc. There are thousands of publications about autism: merely writing a book about autism does not make one notable. Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 9 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. Tim Song (talk) 22:26, 12 March 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}} . |
- Leading Families of Lakki Marwat (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)
There is already a full article Marwat on this topic and it can not even be merged with this parent article as this particular entry is full of vanity entries and mentions petty and unknown people of the area. Not at all in line with notability policy of Wikipedia either. MARWAT 08:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep
This article cites sources and the notability of the people mentioned is explained in descriptions of their achievements and positions.
Fascinating information about Lakki Marwat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.11.67 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) — 218.22.11.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Delete, My Self a Marwat, I am well aware of all the leading families of this tribe and they have been adequately included in the parent article. This particular entry is full of people who are unknown entities and it smells badly as a vanity effort. Besides important detail is already included in the parent article. -- MARWAT 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a long list of people, few of whom have individual articles, with lots of peacock words. The sources given are hard to verify, one of them is listed twice, and another is unpublished. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Sources are cited and also the notability is shown by the descriptions of the people. This is a valuable contribution to the encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.254.213.44 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC) — contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
if someone creats a page about his faction, you shouldn't nominate it for deletion. after all WHO are you to decide? you are not the only Marwat. there are hundred thousand Marwats who have equal right to have their share on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.212.246 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — 116.71.212.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, I am an old and good faith editor at Wikipedia and all of us who are well wishers of Wikipedia can distinguish between self praise and vanity. As for your above threat, I have already reported it to Admins. -- MARWAT 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing here that can't be adequately covered by Marwat. Nothing to suggest notability of the topic of the leading families that requires a separate article.--BelovedFreak 11:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Information has sources and is notable. This is why wikipedia was created, to be an encyclopedia of everything noteworthy.
Even the leading families of lakki marwat.
Fascinating information that should be EXPANDED ON, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.64.222.118 (talk) 11:30, 12 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of schools in the Philippines (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)
Nomination on behalf of User:Isko1901, see notices on both his and my talk pages.
Deletion rationale:
- This list is largely a subset of List of universities and colleges in the Philippines.
- A proper list of schools would be impossible to maintain, considering the numbers of schools in the Phillippines. Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this is List of universities and colleges in the Philippines with some high schools thrown in. Take out the universities and there's not much here except an illustration of nominator's other point, which is that it's impractical to make a comprehensive list of high schools, middle, elementary etc. for any place, particularly a nation that has 92 million people. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mandsford. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too vague and too difficult to maintain. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just to give a proper context: the Philippines (per the WP article) has 80 provinces, 120 cities, 1,511 municipalities and 42,008 barangays (municipal districts). This list would have to contain, at the very least, all the public schools and universities for each of these political divisions (there's at least one elementary school per barangay, one municipal or city high school, and at least one state university or college for each province). That means, maintaining a list of 43,719 schools, plus or minus a few dozen. And that's just the public schools, there are at least the same number (but most likely, more) of private schools. Listing them all here and maintaining the list is simply...impractical. The partial college/university list looks okay to me (although I'm not at ease with including every college on it, but that's for another discussion), but simply asking for a list to include even the elementary schools and high schools in the Philippines is overkill. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:15, 15 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 Beth Murphy. No objections to this suggestion, so closing as merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fighting for Our Future (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)
Appears to fail WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Beth Murphy. It's got enough coverage to verify the facts about it,[43][44][45][46] and would be fine as part of her bio. Fences&Windows 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:15, 8 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitrice Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy removed by non-admin user. One event, Fails notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I didn't think "missing person" was sufficient to confer notability -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, a local disappearance, while sad, doesn't meet notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE. THIS IS A MAJOR DISAPPEARANCE IN LOS ANGELES, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CITIES IN THE OWLRD AND THERE ARE SOME HIGHLY UNUSUAL ASPECTS TO IT THAT MAKE IT A PUBLIC INTEREST CASE. JUST SEARCH HER NAME IN GOOGLE. (Personal attack redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe67 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user, who created the article 19 minutes before it was nominated for deletion, was blocked for disruption. I have removed a personal attack from his/her statement. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable person. Anna Lincoln 09:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E as she is only known for disappearing. Wikipedia's not the news. Not to mention the WP:BLP implications of statements like "appearently may have been suffering from bipolar disorder".--BelovedFreak 11:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for same reasons stated above. WP:BIO1E Maybe a good WikiNews page, but not here. Avicennasis @ 08:01, 9 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 Notable but needs improvement Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- National revival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this falls in the CSD A3 category for speedy deletion, but a co-editor has a different opinion. JokerXtreme (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralAs the above-mentioned co-editor, I removed the A3 because the article does have "content" and A3 stipulates that even stub-level content passes muster -- it's a severe standard, as are all the speedy's. Article isn't just a collection of See Also's, it includes an encyclopedic definition of the concept (albeit a one sentence definition). That said, I'm neutral on the AfD -- the nomination doesn't give any reasons beyond the previous Speedy nom, and I disagree with that portion. I could lean either way on this (national awakenings/revivals are a noteworthy topic, but the article as-is really is just a list). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because it does not meet A3, it's useful content that should not be outright deleted. A merge or conversion into a list is a much more suitable option given that the stub never really developed independently. Mind, the original version that I put there had an explicit link to romantic nationalism, so that's a possible merge target. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What content? It's one sentence and it's unsourced. It's not like a lot of effort went into this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list means nothing to you? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list:Discography. It's not a collection of see also links. It also has substantial content. If you want the article to be saved, you better change something about it, in a way that it will make it useful to have. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- it is one sentence that, if the original author felt necessary, could be added to other articles, but it does not warrant it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E2eamon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep or Merge/Convert to list Aw heck, I should weigh in since I'm involved in a semi-related AfD. The concept is notable, the list is a good one, and the nomination here doesn't give a reason for deletion beyond the above-mentioned A3, which doesn't apply to this article. I think Joy's thoughts above re: merging/converting are good ones if there is no consensus to keep the article as-is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not opposed to merging. I'm not opposed to having an article about this concept either. What I'm saying is that it either has to be vastly improved or it should be deleted. Having this article in its current form is not worth it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't understand. Standard policy is that articles that aren't perfect -- ie ones that need to be "vastly improved" -- should be kept in mainspace and worked on...certainly not -deleted-. With all due respect, I think your argument here is not valid, given that you are saying you have no problem with having an article about the concept. That it requires improvement is literally not grounds for deletion unless the article is in such catastrophic disarray that a fundamental, ground-up rewrite would be required (which is not the case with this stub, natch).
If you think we shouldn't have an article on the topic, that's another thing, but you say you aren't opposed to that so... to me, you have no valid basis on which to argue for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't understand. Standard policy is that articles that aren't perfect -- ie ones that need to be "vastly improved" -- should be kept in mainspace and worked on...certainly not -deleted-. With all due respect, I think your argument here is not valid, given that you are saying you have no problem with having an article about the concept. That it requires improvement is literally not grounds for deletion unless the article is in such catastrophic disarray that a fundamental, ground-up rewrite would be required (which is not the case with this stub, natch).
- Comment Maybe re-name to "List of national revival movements"? Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a good idea. Right now the article seems to imply that all national revivals are successful. I'm tending towards keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets minimal content requirements, may yet develop into a proper article, or perhaps WP:SETINDEX. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but expand Patently significant phenomenon. The problem is probably that Macedonians are willing to take the time to write about the Macedonian National Revival, Latvians about the Lativian National Revival and so forth, but no Wikipedian has yet made time to write about national revivals as a phenomenon. Someone will, because the topic is obviously notable. But be careful what you wish for... this is a highly politicized topic.AMuseo (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too vague and too general in scope and likely to become a WP:COATRACK for nationalist POV pushing. If there is a potential for a reasonable article here, it should be first developed in user-space to a semi-reasonable form, before being posted in mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - within a handful of clicks, I also found national mysticism as another similarly small article, that is marked as a merge candidate. However, the proposed target, historiography and nationalism is tagged OR and NPOV. FWIW. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep CSD A3 doesn't apply + easily more than a notable topic: 7,480 returns on google scholar and 1,970 on google books.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is notable and widely publicized phenomenon.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although there is a lot of work, probably merging, to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be sufficient scholarly consideration of the concept to make it notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 16 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 Notability established Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Savannah Outen (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:BAND, charted on Radio Disney which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. No other claims to fame, no secondary sources save one listing in the Oregonian. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article has been struggling against a lack of independent reliable sources for over a year. I've been unable to find additional sources. No solid evidence of current notability. Potential future notability is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now passes WP:BIO/WP:GNG with the additional sources I added/re-added. Certainly not the most notable person, but there are enough sources to pass WP:BIO; the 2 Oregonian articles are substantial enough and many others provide a little more than trivial details. In other words, there are the "multiple independent sources ... needed to prove notability" per BIO. If I was plugged into tween culture I might find more sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course! --Brackenheim (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a reason for your !vote, Brackenheim? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Savannah Outen is a professional singer who is signed to a management company, and about tob e signed to a record label. She has her name on three Disney albums. I think that is enough notability for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.144.221 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Savannah Outen has two of her songs on rotation by Radio Disney, a major radio service. Therefore, she is considered notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.144.221 (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to the work by Aboutmovies there is evidence of coverage in multiple independent sources, enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, or the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 15 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 Escondido, California. Some merging may be possible.Black Kite 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hidden Trails Escondido (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 subdivision in Escondido, California. No third-party sources exist for this place to have a legitimate claim at being an established neighborhood, and it appears to only be a recently-built housing development. The only references I could find to it are the homeowners' association website and various real estate listings, neither of which are reliable thrid-party sources or have content which would establish notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a 290-unit development within a city of more than 120,000 population. Not even big enough to qualify as a neighborhood IMO, and zero news coverage or outside sourcing. I do a lot of work on articles about neighborhoods in the San Diego area, and this one would never rate an article in my book. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Escondido, California. Not notable enought for its own page, but this doesn't mean that the information can't have a place anywhere. Merging of information to this target is possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 10 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) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Muzni (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)
Cannot find mention of several of the references listed, the linked Press & Journal article is a list of things to do and only mentions Paul Munzi as one of a hundred things. Cannot find any news references or other mentions of the artist, and all of his awards are student awards. Does not meet WP:ARTIST. avs5221 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems an artist with a sound career, but not one who has garnered the coverage to meet WP:GNG. If anyone finds substantial secondary sources (which I haven't been able to), then I'll reconsider. The prizes all seem to be student awards, hence not sufficient in themselves. Ty 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-encyclopedic at this point, maybe later...Modernist (talk) 11:49, 11 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) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are a little bit happier than i am (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
i don't think that notability has been established. the links to the reviews don't work, or the review sites are questionably notable Theserialcomma (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a real book, but I can't find that any mainstream notice has been taken of it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge with Tao Lin article; does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:49, 12 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 Claddagh. Black Kite 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mian Kelly (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)
Case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe a merge to Albert Kahn (banker)? avs5221 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being portrayed in two photographs, even two "iconic" photographs, does not make her notable. As for Albert Kahn, his photo collection includes more than 70,000 photographs from 50 countries, so she sounds like a very small fish in that pond. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge per BHG below. Fully agree with the above. No indication of non-inherited notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Claddagh, the part of Galway where the photo was taken. There is no evidence so far of Mian Kelly meeting notability guidelines, but his image is indeed an iconic depiction of the distinctive style of women in the Claddagh at that time. It's a great pity that copyright prevents us from including the photo in the wikipedia article on the Claddagh; it says a lot more than prose can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 14 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) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenne Kuramochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines; article sources are the artist's myspace page and web-published music page. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kittensandrainbows. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:20, 8 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) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of locations in the Superman film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just reshuffling of existing material to create a new article, when the information is already in the "other media" sections of the main articles and the relevant films link through to them. Redundant replication. (Emperor (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would be more welcome over at the [Superman Wiki. I agree that it is a reshuffling of existing material to create, ostensibly, a new article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend putting in a transwiki request. Quite a few articles that crop up on Wikipedia but aren't needed or appropriate could easily find a new home on a wikia project where they can be reworked to fit their needs and if anyone spots something that could be useful bang in a request. It also means it isn't waste effort for the editors and it leaves on in some form elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep appropriate summary article. Not being paper, a little duplication of this sort is useful. We could avoid it if we had a more sophisticated hypertext system to include sections where they belong, but at present this is a convenient way to do things. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure OR and OS. Rather than being a short list with brief descriptions (a brief description would be "'Fortress of Solitude'-- Superman's Arctic hideaway") it goes into this mind-numbing comparison of a location's part in the plot of four specific films ("... after he throws it down, it melts into the ice and grows into a huge crystalline building..." in Superman), but ("Lex Luthor attempts to use memory crystals he stole from the Fortress to create a new continent" in Superman Returns). It's too broad and too narrow at the same time, and it's not much more than a comparison between films. With enterainment wikis, there's no longer a need, if there ever was, for this type of "I-watched-a-DVD-and-took-notes" article. Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- this is merely a rehash of other material synthesized in a new article. Violates WP:OR policy. N2e (talk) 23:09, 13 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. Although participation was not especially high in this debate, consensus seems to be that the topic is unsuitable for inclusion within Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of characters in the Superman film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. The result here is an over long, inconsistent mish-mash of plot summary and character bios. It is also a bit disconcerting that there appears to be an intent to treat the 5 films as a whole only to segregate the more recent one, making the list start to look like a semi-random colection of items. J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is another article just reshuffling the contents of "other media" sections into larger articles. The content should be on the relevant character's page and the characters linked from the specific film's articles and perhaps on the film series main page for recurring characters. This is just redundant replication of existing data. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Also worth bearing in mind this AfD where a swathe of similar articles were deleted, so there is strong precedent for not having such articles. (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This level of detail would be more welcome over at the Superman Wiki. In that we have articles about most of the characters, there's no point in going in writing long descriptions about each entry. In any case, this seems to operate on the premise that Superman did not appear on film until 1978-- it's basically "the Christopher Reeves films" and the more recent film with the new guy whose name that nobody remembers. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - it'd be worth organising a transwiki request for this. (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep appropriate summary article. Not being paper, a little duplication of this sort is useful. We could avoid it if we had a more sophisticated hypertext system to include sections where they belong, but at present this is a convenient way to do things. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The problem is that it's written as a summary of what's in articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. At 42K it's way too long to be considered a list. Do we really need four paragraphs about "Gus Gorman" after a statement that says "Main article: Gus Gorman"? And that's just for Gus Gorman. (For everyone wondering who the hell is Gus Gorman, he was the character played by Richard Pryor in the 1983 film). There's nothing "little" about this amount of duplication. I don't need a sophisticated hypertext system to tell me where this belongs. Take the hint, authors, go to the Superman wiki. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 14 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alec Thomas (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 sources found, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources updated , notability established - worked with Edward Sapir. Bobanni (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just added another good source establishing his importance. We can't expect too much documentation of the "notability" of someone of his era and remote location, so I think what we now have is pretty solid. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:17, 8 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Broken Rites (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)
Questionable notability. Sources mostly don't mention Broken Rites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the coverage here is more than incidental; it amounts to significant per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Weak article, very notable organisation - pretty much turned the Catholic Church on its head in at least two Australian states over the issue of sex abuse by clergy, and have been quite public during the recent and ongoing debates about child migrants. See e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50], (a possibly useful one) as examples (these are randoms - I can do a factiva search for anyone who wants to work on this article - if anyone wishes to take me up on that, contact me on my talk page). Orderinchaos 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated above. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 10 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) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zašto su danas devojke ljute (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. Every song on this five-song EP has an article, with the same two (non-inline) sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NSONG. hardly anything in Serbian press [51]. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:08, 8 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 Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. Black Kite 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heart of the House (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 song, unreferenced article. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. In addition to the passing mention in the article's MTV source, there are other trivial mentions of the song including here and here. The most significant coverage I could find is in a Billboard Q&A, which offers a few details, but enough to meet WP:NSONGS? I think adding a sentence about the song (inspired by her mother; femininity theme) in the album article's History section would be appropriate. Gongshow Talk 01:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 8 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 Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. Black Kite 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Not Come (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 song, unreferenced article. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. All I'm finding are trivial mentions of the song within album review articles (e.g. [52][53][54]). No significant coverage to warrant an independent article; does not satisfy WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:59, 8 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 Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. Black Kite 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One (Alanis Morissette 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)
Non-notable song, unreferenced article. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like the other Alanis songs currently listed at AfD (I suppose these noms could have all been combined), there are some trivial mentions for this song within album reviews, but I'm not finding any significant coverage to warrant a separate article; does not meet WP:NSONGS. The (Alanis Morissette song) in the article title makes it an unlikely search term. Gongshow Talk 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect to Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. As this is a stub from that particular album, all of the stubs just need to be redirected. No muss, no fuss. ShawnIsHere (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alanis Morissette is a notable artist with a lot of big hits. Articles about her songs should not be deleted. Dew Kane (talk) 05:41, 14 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 Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. Black Kite 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I Was Hoping (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 song, unreferenced article. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. I could find no significant coverage for this song, only passing mentions; does not meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 02:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is by a notable artist, so it must be notable, even if it is short. Dew Kane (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are mistaken; please see WP:NSONG. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 14 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Utah companies (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 an alphabetical list of companies within the state of Utah. Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested PROD. I42 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Swift Delete I agree with I42, this is not dmoz.org ShawnIsHere (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Part of a series of similar lists. This list also goes hand in hand with Category:Companies based in Utah (see WP:CLN). Once kept, it should be renamed to List of companies based in Utah. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING, the sole fact that there are other similar articles is not a valid keep rationale. I42 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is still a valid subject for a list with clear inclussion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a clear conflict between WP:LIST and WP:NOTDIR, as most lists can be interpreted as directories. I have raised this (at the end of a related discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. I42 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is still a valid subject for a list with clear inclussion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING, the sole fact that there are other similar articles is not a valid keep rationale. I42 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nothing wrong with this list's existence esp. when it links to only bluelinks. WP:CLT does state that each method should "not be considered in conflict with each other" so this can exist along side a Cat. well focused and verifiable. Which part of NOTDIR are you specifically referring to in this Nomination? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite clearly a Yellow Pages directory, all the more so since Lugnuts added industry categorisations. I42 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite clearly you are mistaken as any Yellow Pages also include listing the contact information of the Business'. This is a List, like a lot of others on WP, plain and simple. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently aren't reading the same policy as I am as the entry for "Yellow Pages" quite clearly states that for it to be considered that it must include contact information such as phone numbers, email addresses, or fax numbers. In fact, that same entry specifically indicates that "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference", and states that only those lists which are loosely associated are not acceptable. In this case, the list is very clearly defined (but not too-narrowly defined) so that it is not indiscriminate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry clearly says "yellow pages" and the link which explains what that means says "an alphabetical listing of businesses within a specific geographical area (e.g., Greater Chicago), which are segregated under headings for similar types of businesses (e.g., Plumbers)" - which is exactly what we now have. The entry also states that contact information etc. is unencyclopedic - I believe you are reading something which is not there when you assert that yellow pages must include that. I42 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite clearly a Yellow Pages directory, all the more so since Lugnuts added industry categorisations. I42 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is pretty much a directory listing. There's some confusion here over what CLT says. It doesn't give a licence to duplicate every category with a list. Categories and lists are two different processes and as such they have different standards associated with them. Naturally these standards don't synch up so that every category should be backed with a list and vice versa. This is a good example where a category is acceptable and a list is not, since this list violates WP:SALAT (the topic is too broad for an encyclopedia article to be written about it) and WP:NOTDIR. ThemFromSpace 06:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment Rather than a A-Z list, I've updated the article (to mirror the List of companies based in the Philadelphia area) to have a table showing location, industry and year formed. IE - more than can be gleaned from simply looking at the category. Lugnuts (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per changes made by Lugnuts. This list clearly does not simply duplicate a category, and is more than just an alphabetical list of companies. WP:NOTDIR does not apply here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd like to see some clear criteria for what should appear on this list though. For example, some of the companies that have been included that aren't truly based in Utah, though subsidiaries are, or the company was founded in Utah. This includes Kennecott, which is just a division of the British-Australian Rio Tinto Group, Browning Arms Company, which is basically one of Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's brands, and IM Flash Technologies, which is really just a specialized manufacturing facility owned by Micron and Intel. Also, some major companies are missing, such as ICON Health & Fitness, Lifetime Products, W.W. Clyde Company, Mity-Lite, and RC Willey Home Furnishings (which, to be fair, is a Berkshire Hathaway company). GreenGlass(talk) 05:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kennecott was founded in Utah, though. It was only recently purchased by Rio Tinto ("recently" being in 1989). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that Browning Arms Company was founding in Utah in 1927, and IM Flash Technologies is a jointly-help subsidiary of Micron and Intel which was founded in Utah in 2006. So they do belong on the list. I've added the others you mentioned which weren't already on the list. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kennecott was founded in Utah, though. It was only recently purchased by Rio Tinto ("recently" being in 1989). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Categories and lists go together; we need to watch the lists, of course, but they are two alternate ways of organization. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia , and we should keep all systems we can maintain. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good topic to make a list about. There should be one for every state. Dew Kane (talk) 05:42, 14 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.
- Keep Twenty other states have "List of StateX Companies". All 50 should be done. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't close this as a Merge because there is nothing to merge to. Consider renominating if someone finds a home for this info elsewhere, e.g. in Wikipedia space. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Texvc (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 software plainly fails WP:GNG. There are now a fair number of books about MediaWiki, but this piece of innards isn't even mentioned in them [55]. Bad case of WP:SELF. Pcap ping 04:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to a LaTeX-specific site such as http://latex.wikia.com/ and consider whether coverage at MediaWiki and/or Help:Formula is appropriate. Ideally, put a redirect so as not to break links elsewhere (e.g. http://www.oxideinteractive.com.au/articles/practical-mathml/ ) since this page is longstanding. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment page was started in 2003 and has been widely edited. Don't know how to list this on math-related discussions, but that ought to be done. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done [56]. The Math wikiproject does not have a WP:DELSORT queue because a bot automatically lists relevant articles at WP:WPM/CA. This article isn't automatically considered relevant though. Pcap ping 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment page was started in 2003 and has been widely edited. Don't know how to list this on math-related discussions, but that ought to be done. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentation of texvc is sorely lacking. On the other hand, this is not a topic for an article. Solution: move this to the Wikipedia: namespace where it can be expanded into more complete documentation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning toward Keep. Everybody uses TeX or LaTeX or the like every day (except some non-mathematicians) and although the article is phrase in such a way that a naive person might get the impression that Texvc is used ONLY within Wikipedia, it doesn't actually say that and it's easy to imagine enormous potential if it can be used on web pages generally. Can anyone inform us of the current extent of the use of Texvc? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) There are a few papers on tug.org which say Wikipeida (meaning MediaWiki) uses a dialect of LaTeX known as texvc, but I did not see anything indicating that it's used elsewhere, unless you count the fact that MathType 6 supports the Wikipedia/texvc dialect (but without using texvc itself). There are some non-MediaWiki latex to image web services, but those use dvipng directly, because it can run as a persistent server process, which makes it very fast for that job—I read a conference paper about it a while back, but I can't find it now. Texvc now uses dvipng too. Texvc is not included in any TeX distributions, unlike dvipng. (By the way, there's also a dvi2svg these days, [57]). Pcap ping 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting: most of the references that mention TeXvc in the scholar search appear to rely on our own article as a primary source. I think CBM's suggestion is a good one: move this into the Wikipedia namespace and expand. Given that our article appears to be referenced in the literature, would a soft redirect be warranted? (is one allowed?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the right namespace would be the meta/mediawiki one m:texvc or http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Texvc. Pcap ping 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm agnostic about which namespace it goes to. A soft redirect would be nice, though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the right namespace would be the meta/mediawiki one m:texvc or http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Texvc. Pcap ping 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is really not notable enough for a main space page, but this info should exist somewhere in the wikiverse. The definitive page should be http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Texvc, but I think there is enough justification (count the number of links to the page from project space pages) to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace with a link the the MediaWiki page. --Salix (talk): 21:38, 23 February 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 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and revisit later This article has some potential. With a little love and some decent contributions, this could grow into a decent article. ShawnIsHere (talk) 08:10, 8 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- K.K. Saman Kumara (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 referenced BLP that is so poorly written that it is difficult to understand. The subject fails WP:CREATIVE so far as I can tell. It's worth looking at the Google Books results, but the three hits appear only to verify that Kumara is a published author – not to establish notability. Same thing with this and this. Other references in the article are dead links, blogs, Facebook pages, and the like. An addendum I have not searched in any language (or alphabet) other than English because, well, I simply cannot. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A part of this article reads like a negative unreferenced BLP, another part like a hoax. Minimum of sources, very little on G-Books, World Cat has no entries about his books, most of his works refer only back to Wikipedia. The book about him doesn't seem to exist, as well as its author. No independent reviews of his books published by reliable sources. Perhaps people familiar with the culture of Sri Lanka could help? --Vejvančický (talk) 22:14, 8 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. The argument that offline sources "surely" exist, and establish notability, are not particularly compelling; everything must be verifiable, and assumptions cannot be used to justify editorial actions. However, consensus to delete does not exist presently. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur (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)
Nomination per suggestion at WP:COIN. This may well be notable, but I can't find any reliable sourcing for this school's details, only a lot of rather low-grade clone listing websites. There also appear to be WP:BLP issues; User:Gonzinuk, after an initial confusion over how Wikipedia works, has raised what appear to be valid doubts about the truthfulness of the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The proposed deletion tag was removed from the article because of the presumption that all secondary schools are notable. That's usually the case, but that also assumes that information on the school is verifiable. I can't find any reliable sources to show anything beyond the existence of this school, there is no potential for a meaningful article here. -- Atama頭 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to clarify what I mean, if we were to remove all of the unverifiable information in the article, we'd be left with a single sentence saying, "St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School is in Udaipur, Rajasthan, India" Surely something like that would be better served in some list, not its own article. -- Atama頭 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per above, and it's had an "unreferenced" tag for 20 months. Another possibility would be to merge it in to Udaipur or List of schools in Udaipur, Rajasthan, although both of those are just lists now. Rees11 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what are the "valid doubts about the truthfulness of the article"? Ignoring the obvious FUTON bias, the school appears to exist. tedder (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another non-RS mentioning the school. tedder (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another couple of sources saying that the school exists, and it's in Udaipur, and nothing else. Again, is a single sentence enough for an article? -- Atama頭 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, no WP:RS, but it probably exists. Note I haven't said "keep"; just showing that there are some hints to existence, even if no depth of coverage to even make a step down the path to WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I think we have enough for inclusion in a list as Rees11 suggested above; it's clear that the school exists at least. -- Atama頭 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, no WP:RS, but it probably exists. Note I haven't said "keep"; just showing that there are some hints to existence, even if no depth of coverage to even make a step down the path to WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another couple of sources saying that the school exists, and it's in Udaipur, and nothing else. Again, is a single sentence enough for an article? -- Atama頭 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another non-RS mentioning the school. tedder (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - verifiable senior high school. The arguments for keeping are at WP:NHS. Indian schools rarely have much of an Internet presence so, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. TerriersFan (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That essay states the following:
- "Our practice is to retain articles on high schools. This is for the pragmatic reason that, because of the importance of high schools, and that there is almost always suitable, sourced material available, it is more sensible to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one to try to eliminate the very occasional school for which coverage is hard to find."
- But in this case, there isn't any suitable, sourced material available. If and when such material can be found, then the article can be created. I don't buy the, "well, maybe some day there might be some sources for this article somewhere" argument. What the essay about high schools says is usually true, but there are exceptions. This is one of those rare exceptions where we can barely show that the school even exists. Surely you have more to your argument than an essay that you wrote yourself? -- Atama頭 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there is enough material to show the school exists, it should be kept. Most school articles here grow when people from the school discover them, & sources are almost always available. It is much much easier to keep than all than to argue over each possible exception. Before we had the rule, we had dozens of these debates every week, and they were a real waste of time and trouble. the point is to write articles, not argue over just which ones to keep in marginal cases. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - DGG, I have the utmost respect for you, but doesn't that argument seem somewhat irrational? "Sources are almost always available", "not argue which ones to keep in marginal cases"... It sounds like you're talking about other articles in hypothetical terms and not addressing this article itself. There just aren't any sources for this school that anyone has found, WP:BEFORE has been done. This isn't a marginal case at all, everything but the school's name and the city it is in are unverifiable. I'm not even 100% sure what the name of the article should be, since I haven't seen what the school's "official" name is. There's really something wrong with having an article about a subject that we have absolutely no information about. -- Atama頭 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Offline sources almost surely exist, but will require someone with access to a library that archives newspapers from India. DES (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin: Please delete this article unless those who vote keep provide actual sources instead of just hand waving that they must be out there. Woogee (talk) 21:00, 14 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Beam (webcomic) (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 comic, no G News hits created by players of a free online MMORPG....A7? CTJF83 chat 05:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB. The connection to the notable game is arguably enough to let this escape WP:CSD#A7, but only barely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails everything: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, etc.. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 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. The article meets WP:ORG in that there are newspaper sources which deal with the event in a non-trivial manner. There is concern though, that there are no sources cited in the article itself, and that the bulk of the article is a list of people which impacts upon BLP considerations. While accepting both the consensus view of this AfD and the consensus of the appropriate guideline to keep the article, I am concerned at the state of the article. As the content concerns BLP matters, and the content has been challenged, I shall remove the contentious list of people from the article. None of the people should be replaced in the article until there is a reliable source for them. SilkTork *YES! 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss Globe International (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 a non-notable pageant. The article was created by the organizers and being maintained by 7 people from the Miss Globe Organization, as per statement of the owner. The owner, Rasim Aydin, and his staff continue to edit the article despite the issue of Conflict of Interest. They have been warned several times. The winners of the pageant have no (or barely) any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and personal non-notable websites. The content of the article is based on original research as claimed by the organizers. The organizers are not even sure of the history of the pageant and its previous winners. The list of winners seem fictitious and unverifiable. Here's the Wikipedia User Talk of the president of Miss Globe pageant. Angel Clinton (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: if the article goes, then so go the winners, such as Jennifer Schooler, if they have no other claim to fame, right? (I ask this not just of the nominator but of any knowledgeable passer-by.) Drmies (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Never mind my question above; a Google News search reveals pretty quickly that the subject is notable--see [58], [59], and [60], for instance. The terrible state of the article and the obvious COI problems do not take away from the fact that this pageant seems to be notable enough to pass WP:N (note, nominator, that that is of the essence here--not the editors or the current state of the article). Drmies (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because the behavior of some editors is suspect, doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.--Rebel1916 (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' per Drmies.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 9 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 Idoli. Non-contentious Black Kite 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dok dobuje kiša (u ritmu tam-tama) (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. Every song on this five-song EP has an article, with the same two (non-inline) sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:08, 8 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 Idoli. Non-contentious Black Kite 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nebeska tema (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 song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- User:Milosppf, who created all these articles, and seems to have reverted efforts to redirect them without responding to issues brought in edit summaries, should be directed to Wikipedia:Notability (music) and warned not to keep creating these articles. Oh and redirect this to the album/musician, of course. Equazcion (talk) 02:14, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:07, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Los 40 Principales number-one singles (Spain) (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)
- List of Los 40 Principales (Spain) number-one hits from the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Los 40 Principales (Spain) number-one hits from the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would think that if the chart meets WP:BADCHARTS, then there's no reason to archive the #1 hits on it. Fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Jujutacular T · C 06:10, 14 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paulina Pukowska (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 sources available to substantiate notability as a voice-over artist. Google News shows only a few tangential matches under alternate spellings, nothing demonstrating significant impact. Ash (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 14 days listed and no proper sources to demonstrate notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 15 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) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Sumthin Productions (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 reliable references cited to support assertions of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. No coverage of them online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)2010 March 8[reply]- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- creator has had two weeks to add reliable sources to the article, but has failed to do so. I couldn't find any mention of the subject in Google News. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:10, 8 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) 03:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't Not (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 song, unreferenced article. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Fails WP:NSONG, was never released as a single and there are no notable covers. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie. No significant coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 16:42, 9 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) 03:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of .NET obfuscators (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 orphan article, and it is simply a list displaying a grid. There is absolutely no reputable source for any of this (hard to know if the products and/or companies even exist!), and there is no indication that the topic is notable or even if any of the companies/products described are notable. Finally, it appears the article only has one true editor (all others made minor tweaks and/or added tagging comments). I cannot find a reason to keep this article. Timneu22 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, simply a report without proper references, little encyclopedic value. JIP | Talk 06:53, 8 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. Consensus is to delete. *Fr@nkl!nG* offers no justification for how this article "meets all the specifications of Wikipedia" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MTV Ao Vivo 5 Bandas de Rock (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)
can't find anything notable about this compilation album Alan - talk 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Not sure if this will help in the search for consensus, but note that *Fr@nkl!nG* has offered the exact same "Keep" rationale for about 7 different recent AfD's involving the band Fresno. The same comment is repeated above. No offense to this person but he has not considered WP:NALBUMS fully. For this particular album, most of the possible sources are in Portugeuse and may need to be fully inspected by someone who can read this language, but to me it looks like mostly file-sharing and internet radio/video sites. So lack of reliable sources is a reason for deletion and I am leaning in that direction. But on the other hand, someone may argue that the album has been released by a notable label and features three bands that have so far reached notability themselves. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:10, 11 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marlon Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP that fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The subject's last significant role was in 6-episode series in 1991. Pinkadelica♣ 23:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The actor had a significant role in the high-budget film It and had a starring role on a short-lived television show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Buizel (talk • contribs) 15:34, 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, CTJF83 chat 04:57, 8 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. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brendan Penny (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 WP:ENT. Two significant roles, one on a series canceled after two seasons. avs5221 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Two significant (TV) roles, plus eighth billing in I Love You, Beth Cooper. That's (barely) enough for me, despite the lack of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Seems notable enough - several roles including one lead, and nomination for an award, probably makes the cut. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The filmography looks sufficient to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:08, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Furnace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ENT. only 1 role. WP:ENT requires multiple notable roles. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searched, but can only find the one role -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I could not find significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 19:37, 13 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robby Diesu (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)
Protester with limited mentions in Washington Post for participating in DC Metro protests. Does not meet WP:GNG. avs5221 (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One article in the Post, does not meet WP:GNG. Also fails as WP:ONEEVENT. Jujutacular T · C 19:35, 13 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. Consensus is to delete. Once deleted, Sister Mary (2009 film) will be moved to Sister Mary -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:18, 15 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)
Fails WP:GNG, can not find anything that makes this comedy notable NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If deleted, move Sister Mary (2009 film) to this title and maybe add a hatnote for the comedy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete.' I believe so also. No hits found anywhere, and personally, I could care less about one deleted edit. of mine. Buggie111 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of this play. Agree with moving Sister Mary (2009 film) here after deletion. Jujutacular T · C 19:26, 13 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 deletion of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of video games considered the greatest (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)
Completely OR list with no clear criteria for inclusion. It was created by an editor with a history of disruptive behavior who recently returned from an indef block which was placed, in part, for repeated introduction of OR to articles. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utterly lacking in inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The title is a dead give away, this article is all Original Research. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per aforementioned reasons. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a list without proper inclusion criteria, making it nondiscriminate and subjective. Few of the listed items have sources. JIP | Talk 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates WP:NPOV. ShawnIsHere (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced/OR. Anna Lincoln 09:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and WP:SNOW should be considered-- the article isn't by a new contributor. I note that the article's author has now been banned indefinitely, with some mention of "impersonating an administrator". Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Entirely original research. The only sourced section is Super Mario Bros. Also, user has been warned and blocked many, many times for adding original research to articles, so I'm even more convinced that's all this is. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 15:08, 8 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) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I second a Snow Delete - this article has no chance at all at staying. Axe it so we can focus on articles that can possibly be rescued. Full of WP:OR which could never be backed up. "Considered the greatest" is a relative term to everyone. Nobody could ever come up with a hard-lined set of criteria for this article that could be agreed on. --Teancum (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In the article's defense, I think it is meant as an appropriate counterpart to the article List of video games notable for negative reception. So it's not the subjective, OR-based article that the title makes it sound like. However, even the "negative reception" article gets into a lot of debate over grey areas, and for every video game notable for negative reception, there are 10 notable for positive reception. If this article isn't deleted, it's simply going to become a hotbed for debates over which games to include in the list.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:16, 10 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 in light of previous recent AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Berthe-Evelyne Agbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. limited coverage in gbooks [61]. nothing in gnews [62]. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep - Survived AfD one month ago. Plenty of sources can be found in the deletion discussion (I'll try to add them myself to the article ASAP). --Cyclopiatalk 13:26, 8 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) on its own merits. In addition, it belongs to an article that was previously deleted per A7. This is analogous to A9 which requires the parent article to be created and notable. –MuZemike 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NWA Pro Wrestling Roster (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)
NWA Pro Wrestling was speedily deleted (A7), not seeing how this article is any different. Lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:56, 8 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 g7, author blanked, would have been a7 anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian Macedonian Student Association of Victoria Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this could possibly be speedily deleted, but the article creator has removed problem tags without changes several times so I am taking it to AfD. It doesn't pass WP:ORG. There are no references listed and no claims of notability. I cannot find any reliable sources, only facebook links. Clubmarx (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable - no coverage shows up whatsoever. There may be an argument to delete under A7 or G11. I wouldn't actively dispute such an argument but it's not a clear enough case on either for me to tag it as such. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear failure of WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, massively non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete . Fails WP:NOTE. Also, would meet CSD G7 based on this edit. Per {{db-blanked}} Avicennasis @ 07:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unambiguously non-notable. -Quartermaster (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as G7 (blanked by author) Reach Out to the Truth 21:11, 8 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. –MuZemike 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bedroom Window (Musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not finding coverage of this musical in 3rd party sources. The only mention I'm finding is of a 1987 film by the same name. Does not meet general notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only thing i can find about this leads it to be a work in progress musical.--Steam Iron 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 8 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. (nominator !voted keep) —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chwele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not seem to meet any notability guidelines. Additionally, it has no sources and I feel it relies on personal views. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looks like a town to me. [63] A quick g-book search brings up reference to the area as an agriculture center [64], as the text of the article indicates. Nominating an article that's not patent nonsense or the like within 4 hours of its creation [65] is not helpful to this project and only serves to discourage new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Quite some issues with the article (tone, references...), but notability is not one of them. It's a small place, from what I found on some searches, but some sort of a regional centre. noisy jinx huh? 02:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The town, though small, is the home of Kenya's second largest open air market. Notability is straightforward. You can complain about the article being poorly sourced, but that's an argument for WP:BETTER, not deleting the thing. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep correct me if I'm wrong, I've been away from AFD a while, but I thought that human settlements and geographical areas were inherently notable. Certainly this town is, as indicated above. The article is vastly improved over its condition when nommed. (Eventually I'll be able to look up the inherent notability.) Dlohcierekim 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could not find anything accept per outcomes, articles like this have generally been kept, particularly in its present state. Dlohcierekim 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Dloh, this article has gotten much better since I had nommed it. I also agree it should be kept. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 05:30, 8 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 List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes#Season_4:_2008-2009. As ArbCom have pointed out twice - Television episodes and Unclear status, the community are not applying the appropriate guideline consistently. Under that guideline this article should not yet be created. Such a view is supported by the long-standing NOT policy - WP:PLOT . While the article can be developed, our policies and guidelines and current thinking is that articles are not created which are both unsourced and contain no encyclopedic content, so the development should take place in a suitable arena until the article conforms to policies and guidelines. Satisfactory content can be built up in a parent article and then moved out in WP:Summary style to a standalone article when ready. SilkTork *YES! 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Naked Man (How I Met Your Mother) (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 because it fails both the general notability guidelines and the film guidelines. It seems that every episode of How I Met Your Mother has an article, and most of them are just plot summaries with some additional WP:OR labeled as "Continuity" and "Cultural references". Articles should not be just plot summaries - Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. In addition most of these, like this one have no citations to reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. The guidelines specifically exclude, from notability consideration, sources: such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. Because I do not expect this Afd to go smoothly, I have nominated only one of the episodes, one with no proper sources, in order to get a sense of what the community believes. My predilection would be to see just one article per television series, except for series, like Startrek (TOS), where every episode has, in fact, had significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reliable sources subsequently discovered below, and failing that:
- Move to How I Met Your Mother (season 4). High level plot summaries in seasonal articles are ok (this one will need condensing), virtually writing out the entire script is not (both from policy and potentially copyright points of view). -- samj inout 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sorry to disagree here, but I found several independent - third party - verifiable sources that covered this specific episode, as shown here [66]. Hope this helps. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, sources: such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. don't meet the criteria. Don't provide a link to a Google News list, provide an actual citation that meets the requirements. --Bejnar (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not to get into a major disagreement here but, where does it say "... sources: such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. don't meet the criteria."? Are these not all third party - creditable - verifiable - independent news sources? Don’t we depending on them to verify the legitimacy that the piece is factual and accurate? Second, regarding "..., provide an actual citation that meets the requirements" are not the sources I listed above fulfilling those requirements? Providing the List, as I did, is just for verification that those sources are there and I am not just making them up. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't help. I think that you are mixing the point about substantial and reliable. The reason that those sources are excluded for notability purposes is that they are not substantive, even though they may be reliable.--Bejnar (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not to get into a major disagreement here but, where does it say "... sources: such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. don't meet the criteria."? Are these not all third party - creditable - verifiable - independent news sources? Don’t we depending on them to verify the legitimacy that the piece is factual and accurate? Second, regarding "..., provide an actual citation that meets the requirements" are not the sources I listed above fulfilling those requirements? Providing the List, as I did, is just for verification that those sources are there and I am not just making them up. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, sources: such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. don't meet the criteria. Don't provide a link to a Google News list, provide an actual citation that meets the requirements. --Bejnar (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? Do those sources meet the requirements of the guidelines? --Bejnar (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty). At that AfD, I became aware of, and noted the following: "Seems like there is lots of past hoopla when it comes to articles on individual episodes of shows on Wikipedia. While I personally can't fathom why we have separate articles on every episode of this series, we do. Wikipedia:Television episodes appears to be a relevant policy (and seems to favor season by season summaries), but a 2008 arbitration ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Findings_of_fact ) states that "The body of precedent and convention regarding the matter under dispute (referencing: existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series) is unclear, with the major current guideline being applied inconsistently, and old historical precedent tending towards a contradictory viewpoint" -- apparently meaning that we have a slew of individual episode articles. As every episode has its own article right now, I can't see why we'd delete just this one." And ultimately, I see little harm in having them.--Milowent (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The plot summary is in need of major trimming, but that can be fixed through editing; deletion is unnecessary. In addition, I think a broader consensus on inclusion or exclusion of these articles would be needed to deal with articles like these; bringing them to AfD one by one is a bad idea. Per WP:TVEP, the relevant guideline, these are currently acceptable as parts of the encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:TVEP says that there should be a season article first. How would you improve this article? There doesn't appear to be any secondary sources beyond plot summaries, why would you ever read this article instead of IMDB or one of the several other episode summary websites? BCoates (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as improvable. Trim as needed... and then discuss on talk pages the virtues or lack of combining into a series article... which would seem to be the better community-involved soultion than outright deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes or delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR until someone actually adds (reliably sourced) production and reception info, if they even exist. Otherwise, an appropriate amount of plot description nicely fits in the LoE or a (new) season article. – sgeureka t•c 11:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to sustain an article filled with nothing but plot details. Powers T 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete. It's hard to believe people are still using the 'there are some google results, so it's notable' argument. Anyway, merge or delete per LtPowers - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Regarding Milowent's comments, I think it would be better to merge/delete all the individual episodes. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 15 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. I'm not sure why 211.10.15.57 says that JamesBWatson was biased in his treatment of the article: however, the fact remains that the three segments he quotes are directly copied from the source without attribution. Perhaps "you cannot copyright a job title", but you certainly can copyright a whole paragraph. The rest of the article is the same: I couldn't find any significant non-copyvio material. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maged N. Kamel Boulos (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)
It appears to be copied/pasted from the website linked in the article. It has been nominated before for deletion, and tagged with "copypaste", but those keep getting reverted, presumably by the page's author. Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd go as far as saying Speedy Delete per WP:COPYVIO.noisy jinx huh? 02:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree; the page has been fully re-written since then and is distinctly different from any sources it cites. --Yellowfinjp (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it different? The article has been divided into paragraphs, some links added, and a few minor things changed, but it still reads like the web page. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are simple bio-facts; you cannot copyright a job title, for example (you cannot rephrase a job title in different words) - besides the original university profile from which the linkedin one is copied is properly cited in this bio. --Yellowfinjp (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The article has been substantially rewritten in an attempt to remove the copyright violation. As is often the case with editors not well acquainted with copyright issues, this seems to have been done in the belief that it is sufficient to make slight rewording, without substantially changing the text.
For example, compare the following pairs of quotes, in each case firstly the source and then the Wikipedia copy:
- 1.Maged N. Kamel Boulos is Senior Lecturer in Health Informatics at the University of Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Maged N. Kamel Boulos is Senior (Principal) Lecturer in Health Informatics at the University of Plymouth, Devon, UK.
- 2.He previously worked as Lecturer in Health Informatics at the University of Bath, UK, where he was instrumental in developing the online MSc programme in Healthcare Informatics, and worked before that at City University, London, UK, on an EU-funded diabetes telematics project.
Before moving to Plymouth, he worked as Lecturer in Health Informatics at the University of Bath, UK, where he was instrumental in developing the online MSc programme in Healthcare Informatics, and worked before that at City University London, UK, on an EU-funded diabetes telematics project (M2DM FP5 project).
- 3.As well as his medical degree and Master in Dermatology, he holds a Master in Medical Informatics (2000) from King's College, University of London, and a PhD in Measurement and Information in Medicine (2002) from City University, London, both in UK.
As well as his medical degree (MBBCh) and Master in Dermatology, he holds a Master in Medical Informatics (2000) from King's College, University of London, and a PhD in Measurement and Information in Medicine (2002) from City University, London, both in UK.
- 4.Maged teaches and has over 80 publications on a specialist range of medical and public health informatics topics, including telehealthcare, health GIS, Semantic Web/knowledge management and Social Web applications.
Maged teaches and has over 90 publications on a specialist range of medical and public health informatics topics, including telehealthcare and technologies for independent living of older people, health GIS (Geographic Information Systems)/Internet GIS and virtual globes, Semantic Web/knowledge management and Social Web/3D virtual worlds applications. In addition to these copyright issues there is the question of notability. At present the only independent source is this news report, in which it is reported that Maged Boulos has looked at various websites and found that they are too difficult for most people to understand. This does not constitute substantial coverage, and supports nothing at all stated in the article except that he once worked at the University of Bath. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- James, you are definitely biased and lacking any objectivity in your "picks" above. I would suggest that you consult some good text on creative writing! If we apply your (flawed) "principles", then >75% of wikipidia's biography entries should also be deleted! ty, --211.10.15.57 (talk) 12:02, 8 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. I had relisted this as references had been added during the last day of the original 7 days. However, it is clear that the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatcom Volunteer Center (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)
While the article looks good, it doesn't seem to serve any more purpose than the organisation's own web site could. Where's the notability? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student at Western Washington University. I've been working all quarter to put together the Whatcom Volunteer Center page as part of a quarter-long project to introduce the program as a social media tool. I'll agree that the concept of notability has been difficult for me, but I had thought I offered enough external references and documentation to ensure the page's survival. If you can help me grasp the concept better, and maybe give me a tip or two on how I might make it more notable, I'd really appreciate it. We present it and everything else tomorrow, and it would be nice not to have a big deletion sticker on it. I'll be checking back frequently for a response. Thanks. Geode333 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. Having external links is not a measure of notability, unfortunately. If your organisation has not been discussed by third parties -- newspapers, published magazines, television, other independent sources -- then it may well be a good organisation, but not notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia. Please have a look at WP:Notability and WP:NOT for more examples of what I mean. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless we can get some better references. I'm going to assume good faith on Geode333's part for finding the references we need (versus just references). Do this and I'll change my mind. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, needs references. Even if all the external links were switched to refs, there still wouldn't be enough to work for the entire article. If the article was drastically pared down, to something like a stub, and only included the stuff for which there are external links/references or if references could be found for the rest, than I'd change my mind. I think the comment made by the person who removed the PROD tag earlier is pretty telling, though. "This page contains information that is not available elsewhere on the internet" sounds a lot like original research to me, and doesn't inspire confidence in the availability of potential refs. C628 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) See below for more thoughts.[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Geode333, could you please tell me if you are connected to the username Alinwa06? Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. C628 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kittensandrainbows/C628: If you have any evidence that these are the same user, then take this to SPI, otherwise please AGF - it perfectly possible for Alinwa06 and Geode333 to both be interested in this topic, and yet still be different people. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This looked to me like a worthy organization so I did some work on it. I added several references and converted some outside links to references. The sourcing which resulted may be a little weak but I think it's strong enough to establish notability. If you voted earlier, please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have relisted this as references were added within the last day, so this will give the original contributors to this discussion the opportunity to look at the article and decide whether to change their !vote or not. I will be contacting them all about the relisting. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've gone over this article and I only see one local news article (the New Tribune one) that actually contributes to establishing notability, which isn't enough. The other references include a reprinted press release (Bellingham Herald) and several that don't mention the subject, and thus do not attempt to establish notability. (The article also has some stylistic problems that could be fixed easily enough including inline external links and an unnecessary listing of the entire staff; I'll try to address some of them at the article in the meantime just in case the article is kept.)--~TPW 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merge into Whatcom County, Washington?--PinkBull 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that - I found another reference but I don't think it's quite enough for this to stand on its own, and news references seem anemic so I don't think it's reasonable to expect more to pop up over time. Clearly they do good work but I don't think it's notable work.--~TPW 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed article this AM in light of the changes made (thanks for the pointer!). I'm maintaining my !vote for the purpose - looking through the news bits, they don't really convey notability. There are more than one press release in there, and one is not so much a focus on the WVC, it's more a focus on homelessness and how WVC are helping. That last one is a maybe - I see blurry lines there. =) But frankly, I need something more substantial than press releases before I change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the discussion and assistance with this page. User Alinwa06 is a member of my group, and created an account to address the marked deletion when I notified her about it.
````
- I'm also going to retain my !vote, unless it was agreed to reduce this significantly in size, down to a stub. Although I can't claim to have helped in finding sources, I think that what's there is adequate for a stub-class article or a significant mention in Whatcom County, Washington, as suggested above, and I certainly wouldn't oppose that. Without such an agreement, I'd still advocate for deletion on the grounds of way too much not-notable, unsourced stuff, which far outweighs what is sourced and notable. Incidentally, I'm satisfied with the explanation of the two users here, Alinwa06 (talk · contribs) and Geode333 (talk · contribs); no concerns there. C628 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or perhaps merge a line of it into the article for the county. Excessively local, and nothing non-routine. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 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.