Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 15
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has been speedily deleted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beaver County Children's Home (edit | talk | 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 entire contents of the wiki page has been copied from the web page for Beaver County Children's Home (http://www.bcch15066.com/history.html) which has a 2008 copyright date. The article is also poorly referenced and fails general notability. Propose deletion. Froggerlaura (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as a copyvio. Funny, I went to college a couple of miles away and never heard of this place, even when I was studying local history. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clear consensus in favor of deletion. When the subject is tested against WP:WEB and WP:N, which require demonstration of significant reliable source coverage or some official award/honor, it fails. Many site hits, but no substantial recognition by reliable outside media, does not equate our critical definition of notability. JamieS93❤ 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hackforums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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}} . |
The speedy was declined. Despite attempts by two editors to make the article pass WP:WEB, they failed and I can't find significant coverage myself. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am collaborating with the owner of the website at the moment, as well as the other editior. More information will be provided. The article was just formed today there is now way it can be very detailed in such a short amount of time. It will pass WP:WEB just let me get the required info. Lunagron (Talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find anything reliable either: this is not a notable site, and this Wikipedia article is merely advertising. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator seems to think that Twitter feeds and contests are notable events, and that this pie chart is a reliable source. They reinstated that chit-chat again, and keeping that unverified and trivial stuff in the article will only convince more editors of the site's non-notability. Best go off and find some reliable sources that discuss your topic--good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is in no way advertising. Drmies seems to enjoy delting content without first explaing why on the talk page. We could always work together to create a more suitable article. Lunagron (Talk) 02:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is also under construction and should be given the chance to be completed within the guidelines of Wikipedia. --Lunagron (Talk) 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, don't get personal: you have no idea what I enjoy, and if you did, you wouldn't be talking like this. Also, please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines, one of which is WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is still under construction. We are receiving info from the administrator. This page hasn't even been here for a day yet.Lunagron (Talk) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it doesn't need to win an award (stated below by Joe Chill), then why is the page up for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — Titanofdark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Oh my gosh. Can you please read WP:WEB? Honestly. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and HackForums is very notable around the Web. As for the Wiki page only being for advertising, HackForums happens to be the largest site in its criteria on the Web. It is the 3rd largest MyBB Forum. Also read these: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/164 As I have said, there is reason for HackForums to have a Wiki page, what are you reasons against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter, Alexa, and forum posts do not show notability! Joe Chill (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Visit this link http://www.thebiggestboards.com/mybb-forums.php and view #3 on that list. As I have said, largest in its criteria, and 3rd largest MyBB Forum.Titanofdark (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck are you reading? Number 3 says that it has to be distributed through a notable medium. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are incapable of finding it, I will post it all here;
- What the heck are you reading? Number 3 says that it has to be distributed through a notable medium. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Visit this link http://www.thebiggestboards.com/mybb-forums.php and view #3 on that list. As I have said, largest in its criteria, and 3rd largest MyBB Forum.Titanofdark (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter, Alexa, and forum posts do not show notability! Joe Chill (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and HackForums is very notable around the Web. As for the Wiki page only being for advertising, HackForums happens to be the largest site in its criteria on the Web. It is the 3rd largest MyBB Forum. Also read these: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/164 As I have said, there is reason for HackForums to have a Wiki page, what are you reasons against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Site Members Posts
1 NCAAbbs 31,989 5,312,550
Thousands of fans, hundreds of teams--all one plac...
2 Yugioh Card Maker Forum 539,961 4,055,538
A forum complementing the popular Yugioh Card Make...
3 Hack Forums 188,424 3,825,339
A large hacker community with all types of securit...
Look at #3Titanofdark (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHere is another source of information that Malwarebytes has recognized HackForums. http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=36808 Titanofdark (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: this user has been canvassed or is a meat puppet, depending on how this edit by Lunagron came about. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your problem? Where the heck does it say that size and a forum post (unreliable source!) makes it notable in WP:WEB? Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, showing the size, it shows that many people have visited the site, and that it is no small forum run by some kid trying to have fun. Why would we need a Wiki page for advertising, it is merely to have a Wiki page, and to inform of the site, not to advertise. Give me a few GOOD reasons why it should not be made into a Wiki page.Titanofdark (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your problem? Where the heck does it say that size and a forum post (unreliable source!) makes it notable in WP:WEB? Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the fact that every notability guideline goes against it. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How so?Titanofdark (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my god. Read WP:WEB and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read both, now please get to the point.Titanofdark (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see: Twitter (not reliable), forum posts (not reliable), and Alexa (view counts do not show notability). Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read both, now please get to the point.Titanofdark (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my god. Read WP:WEB and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How so?Titanofdark (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see: I have used none of those sources. Please rephrase your fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why the is http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hackforums.net# listed in references? Why were forum posts used and then reverted? Why is hackforums used as a reference for itself? Why was Twitter added to the article and then reverted? Your fail. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the first link, it covers the pie chart, showing statistical data of which percentages of people from each respective country visit the site. HackForums is used as a reference because the header of the site is used in the article, and citing is important. Also, I did not write the article, I am merely writing why it should BE an article, there is much difference there. Now as I have said, please correct your fail.Titanofdark (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me why you think that site views and an active community show notability when WP:WEB doesn't say it. You're obviously ignoring it so I'm done discussing it with you because you're wasting my time. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Titanofdark: Please read WP:V. Jarkeld (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, your time would be saved by letting us make the article. Secondly, it shows that it is the largest site in its criteria, meaning hat it must be noticed, thus notability. It is recognized by most all AV corporations, many of which hold accounts on the site. The owner has supplied to help MyBB keep its domain (MyBB.com) http://mybb.com/donation-drive The site has done many things, and holds the interests of individuals and corporations. I myself, running and operating a business use information obtained from HackForums. Other businesses use the site too.Titanofdark (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the first link, it covers the pie chart, showing statistical data of which percentages of people from each respective country visit the site. HackForums is used as a reference because the header of the site is used in the article, and citing is important. Also, I did not write the article, I am merely writing why it should BE an article, there is much difference there. Now as I have said, please correct your fail.Titanofdark (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why the is http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hackforums.net# listed in references? Why were forum posts used and then reverted? Why is hackforums used as a reference for itself? Why was Twitter added to the article and then reverted? Your fail. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see: I have used none of those sources. Please rephrase your fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this page has just begun, and has has every Wiki page achieved an award? Notability is the basis of everything, and HackForums has achieved much in its life. Please tell me why we must have an official award when I am sure not every article here has an award. Also, the wiki page for HackForums wasn't finished yet, so you wouldn't know all of the information that would be posted, therefore not knowing every bit of information about the site, and not knowing any awards. Please continue with the HackForums article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanofdark (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said that the site had to win an award. Joe Chill (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Can't find anything reliable either: this is not a notable site, and this Wikipedia article is merely advertising. Drmies" <--- This guy said it needed an award. The entire argument is about notability, hence it's about an award or something "notable". The site is extremely notable, it's a huge site, one of the biggest of its kind. It's not merely for advertising, I think many people should know about this site simply because it's a huge resource for ANY security professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterZuFu (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — MasterZuFu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete No reliable sources found. No signs that it passes WP:WEB Jarkeld (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in Google News archives. A quick search found nothing elsewhere to meet our criteria, and its most vocal supporters here have found nothing that meets our notability criteria. Folks, you need to understand what we mean by notability and come up with something that meets our criteria, it's no good saying that it's notable for this or that reason, you need to show notability according to our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zarro things on Gnews. And
rewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete for now. All the claims of notability are sourced to itself. I don't want to promote other sites that abet copyright violations, but I've named one on the article's talk page, and (1) it has considerably higher Alexa ranking than this one, (2) it is mentioned in reliable sources unlike this one, (3) it has a very active forum,[original research?] and (4) it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Pcap ping 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: confuses "hack" with "crack". Oh, and of the four refs, two were for the site itself, another was Alexa, and the fourth one is - a cached copy of the site itself. Nothing reliable yet to establish notability. TFOWRpropaganda 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reconsidering !vote after reminder from SqueakBox about doing one's research properly. Back soon... TFOWRpropaganda 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. There's no universally agreed meaning of "hack"— it has different meaning in various subcultures. Pcap ping 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The actual title should be "Hack Forums", not "Hackforums", but I will not change the title name because of this AFD. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article gives no reliable independent sources, unless you count Alexa site information, which is not substantial coverage. The reasons given above for "keep" are: "I am collaborating with the owner of the website at the moment", "The article is still under construction. We are receiving info from the administrator", "If it doesn't need to win an award, then why is the page up for deletion?" and "I think many people should know about this site simply because it's a huge resource". None of these relates to Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Still under construction" has got a point to it, but if after a week no evidence of notability has been found then there probably isn't any. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple, hopefully notable, events that the website has been involved in. --Lunagron (Talk) 00:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. Still no indication of notability. Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be considered a notable event; a member getting arrested?--Lunagron (Talk) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately not. The problem lies more with your interpretation of notability:
- What would be considered a notable event; a member getting arrested?--Lunagron (Talk) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. Still no indication of notability. Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
- Delete – Fails WP:WEB, as no reliable third-party sources can be found to establish the notability of this article. Many of the references cited link directly back to the article itself. The Site achievements and notable events section, right now, does not establish notability of the entire article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No reliable third party sources exist that are talking about this subject. Torchiest talk/contribs 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources in the article or otherwise found in searches to support any legitimate claim to notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication in the article that it meets WP:WEB and a search does not provide significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately it is unlikely that any amount of editing of the article - paid or otherwise - will change that.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fail WP:WEB, WP:GNG, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS. — Jeff G. ツ 06:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable forum (195,000 individual pages) on notable subject but badly written in the beginning. People claim they cannot find refs but it took me 5 mins to find 1 decent ref and I bet I can find more by the end of the day. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that search returns all pages within hackforums.net. A better serach may be this one, which returns all references to hackforum.net excluding those within the hackforums.net domain (it returns "About 25,200 results", by the way, so SqueakBox's point still stands, IMHO). TFOWRpropaganda 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: most of those pages are download links on warez sites and other miscellaneous links that are not particularly useful to establish notability. Jarkeld (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of a large number still can leave the rest as a fair amount; our notability standards aren't that high on wikipedia and this article already establishes itself as far more notable than say SecurityFocus, another "victim" of the Antisec Movement. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that search returns all pages within hackforums.net. A better serach may be this one, which returns all references to hackforum.net excluding those within the hackforums.net domain (it returns "About 25,200 results", by the way, so SqueakBox's point still stands, IMHO). TFOWRpropaganda 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment SqueakBox says "notable forum", but does not give any justification for that claim, unless he/she thinks that getting a large number of Google hits is an indicator of satisfying the notability criteria, which it clearly isn't. TFOWR says "SqueakBox's point still stands", apparently on the grounds that a slightly more restricted Google search still gets a large number of hits. However, looking at the first couple of dozen hits of TFOWR's suggested search, I see mostly mostly Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, traffic listing site, forum posts, etc. Quite simply, a number of Google hits is not evidence of notability, no matter how large the number and what the exact search used was. A Google search can be a useful step in searching for evidence of notability, but when the search has been done it is not sufficient to simply quote the number of hits. It is necessary to look at the pages found in those hits, and see if any of them gives the sort of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In this case they don't. SqueakBox says "most of a large number still can leave the rest as a fair amount..." True, but it is necessary to show that among the remaining "fair amount" there are some useful sources: SqueakBox has not done so, and my checking of them has failed to do so too. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WWGB's sources meet MUSICBIO Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cody Simpson (edit | talk | 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 prod speedy was declined because he is signed to a major record label. He hasn't even released his first album! Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All that I could manage to find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A technical correction -- I declined a speedy, not a prod. To avoid speedy deletion, all the article needs is a good faith claim of importance, and being signed to a major label would satisfy that. However, just being signed would not be enough for me to contest a prod.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to type speedy. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not yet notable. The same single news story is all I could find. Maybe when he has a single out he'll receive more coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.On the contrary. He has been featured on a segment of the Australian Brodcasting Channel (a major national news network in AUS) as shown here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2s5Gh9lWXs --- and he has a single out FEATURING Flo Rida as seen here -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6joMH4x614 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmaxbir (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That certainly helps. Perhaps Incubation would be the best approach, until we have more coverage on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician [1] [2] [3] and thus satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forever Knight. If a relevant character list is ever built, it can be redirected there. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Janette DuCharme (Forever Knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable fictional character. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Nothing to merge to the main article as it already notes the character was in the series and who played, and has no sources. Not a good redirect as it has an unnecessary disambig. Even the main character of the series was found unnotable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Knight (Forever Knight), so less likely that Janette, who at most appeared for a few minutes in most episodes, is more notable. Went unnoticed so long purely because none of the series/film articles actually link to it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, the main character was found notable. The article was deleted on grounds of neutrality and style issues, not those of notability. Janette should be merged into an eventual list of characters, which I'll write in a few days from now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect redirect to the internal character list if not kept. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an appropraite character list. Edward321 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mexico-Halcomb Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any evidence that this TV channel exists. ... discospinster talk 22:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am also adding to this AfD MK Sports (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) which, according to the article, is run by the same people. ... discospinster talk 22:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as hoaxes. I suspect that these television networks exist only in the minds of two children. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable software, I can find no significant coverage via google and google news. Nuujinn (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources in multiple searches. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to show that the subject meets the inclusion criteria (WP:GNG). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an initial release with minimum coverage or notability at the moment Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Palestinian record producers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Better served using a category. Airplaneman ✈ 21:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a list of names with no additional information provided, and Category:Palestinian record producers already exists. I don't think we have or need comparable articles such as American record producers or British record producers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. These sorts of lists are almanactic at best. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's no real encyclopedic connection between these people. They are Palestinians and they are record producers: that's all they have in common. ThemFromSpace 19:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A shortage isn't really a single event, it is a series of events. The article now has multiple references from nationally distributed reliable sources such as Marketplace and the Wall Street Journal. There may be a case for merging or renaming this, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008 Passover margarine shortage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia Deletion Policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, like news reports. EDIT: Fails WP:EVENT, event has little to no significance or lasting effects after it occured or depth of coverage as it occured. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpop12 (talk • contribs) 8 May 2010 19:43 (UTC)
- Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: not routine news coverage, passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is not just routine coverage. Describes how unusual this case is, the reasons why it was an issue, and the impact it had on society, which all meet various guidelines under WP:EVENT. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Absolutely ironclad WP:NOTNEWS. Ignore the inane "keep, it's interesting!" dribble. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an extraordinary event -- and one of the biggest of 2008. The fact that this article has been around for over two years speaks tomes about its significance. Sapporod1965 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Such ridiculous hyperbole ("one of the biggest of 2008") is unlikely to convince anyone of the notability of this event. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed with Tarc, 'absolutely ironclad WP:NOTNEWS'. I fail to see how a margarine shortage, despite what the author's and Sapporod's keep vote above says, is a notable historical event, especially as the worst case outcome was bland food. Simpop12 (Simpop12) 06:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A perfect example of "one event" or "not news". There was a shortage, which received exactly ONE report in a major reliable source: the Wall Street Journal. (Another of the sources cited is actually a reprint of the WSJ article from another paper.) No indication that this shortage had any lasting significance - or even widespread significance at the time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, definitely not news. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NOTNEWS is the only argument given so far favoring deletion. NOTNEWS refer to routine coverage of news events, such as sporting event, a robbery at the local convenience store, or the mayor's appearance at the town square. This event was quite extraordinary. It was covered not only in the Wall Street Journal, but in the community papers of every city with a Jewish community. Yes, it affected only one ethnic group for the most part, but it was still widespread and reported throughout the country. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you may be misrepresenting WP:NOTNEWS slightly. A more complete quote is "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It appears to me that routine coverage is just one example. Also, NOTNEWS refers to Wikipedia:Notability_(events), which stresses lasting impacts, duration, diversity and depth of coverage in regard to events. As for the article itself, currently two of the references are dead links, and all but one of the others are the WSJ article reprinted or use WSJ as their source. So there's the Cleveland Jewish News article and the WSJ article as the article stands right now. There are some additional sources here, but the coverage is pretty limited. So, I would suggest that this event has no lasting impact, and duration, diversity and depth of coverage is very limited. I'd also suggest that the event is, in fact, routine, as food shortages of various types happen regularly, see, for example, [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere suggestion that something happens regularly doesn't make it less notable. Earthquakes happen regularly; yet we cover many of them, and rightly so. --Cyclopiatalk 09:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, of course, Other stuff exists. Xyz7890 was claiming that NOTNEWS only applies to routine events, and I was just pointing out that this event could be considered routine in the same way that a robbery or sporting event. Yes, we do cover many earthquakes, especially those that have significant coverage or have a lasting impact. If you are interested in an earthquake with similar coverage and similar impact to this event, I would suggest that this might suffice for a comparison. Coverage of this subject seems to have lasted for about one month, and the number of sources covering is quite limited, so I don't think it meets the bar for WP:Notability_(events). That being said, it might well be that having an article on shortages that have affected passover services world wide would work, I think there are sufficient sources in the list I presented above to make such an article feasible, and personally I think it would make a better article than one limited to a single shortage in the US in 2008. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that a general article would be a better idea. However this is no reason for deletion, since it can be solved with a bit of bold editing, see WP:ATD. --Cyclopiatalk 11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please, by all means, be bold! --Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that a general article would be a better idea. However this is no reason for deletion, since it can be solved with a bit of bold editing, see WP:ATD. --Cyclopiatalk 11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, of course, Other stuff exists. Xyz7890 was claiming that NOTNEWS only applies to routine events, and I was just pointing out that this event could be considered routine in the same way that a robbery or sporting event. Yes, we do cover many earthquakes, especially those that have significant coverage or have a lasting impact. If you are interested in an earthquake with similar coverage and similar impact to this event, I would suggest that this might suffice for a comparison. Coverage of this subject seems to have lasted for about one month, and the number of sources covering is quite limited, so I don't think it meets the bar for WP:Notability_(events). That being said, it might well be that having an article on shortages that have affected passover services world wide would work, I think there are sufficient sources in the list I presented above to make such an article feasible, and personally I think it would make a better article than one limited to a single shortage in the US in 2008. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is evidently notable. Consideration should be given to generalising the topic under a more general heading such as Kosher margarine using sources such as Is it kosher: encyclopedia of kosher foods. Such improvement is mandated by our editing policy while deletion is clearly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not much indication that this was an event of lasting significance taken on its own terms. But it is interesting, and I think there is considerable merit to the idea, raised in Nuujinn's and Colonel Warden's comments, of incorporating the material into a broader, more evidently notable topic. I note that this event is already mentioned at Margarine#Market acceptance and perhaps there is room for more of this content there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to qualify as notible and per arguments made by Colonel Warden. I don't see how this is "news", as it is more of a problem faced by Kosher foods and those who adhere to Kosher guidelines. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree that not all news maketh a wikipedia article, but this is a historic shortage that was well-reported on and is likely to be researched in the future by users of the encyclopedia, just like events such as the 1981 Ketchup as a vegetable brouhaha. I am not opposed to a merger elsewhere if there was a suitable place, such as Historic Margarine Shortages (a quick google news search suggests to me that there were other notable shortages in the 1940s and 1970s, though not kosher-only).--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails WP:EVENT. Notability has several characteristics, mainly depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and lasting effects. This article seems to be a good example of WP:NTEMP. I found a single article from the WSJ doing a google search for "2008 Margarine shortage," and a few sources that copied that source verbatim, along with a blogs on the topic from 2008. I don't think this is notable now, and it especially won't be in several years more. I think it might be a decent idea to merge this into another, more broad article, as Nuujinn suggested. If not, then I'd go for delete.20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.208.236 (talk)
- Strong Delete. As to policy I'd point to NOTNEWS and a fail of EVENT ("stories lacking lasting value"). As common sense I feel that there is no merit and nothing encyclopedic about this article. If this information needs to be kept in some form it should be a sub-section in the article about kosher margerine or an article about margerine. Joe407 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since there is still uncertainty about the fate of this article (I voted Delete above): if the article is kept, some thought should be given to the title. "2008 Passover margarine shortage" is a most unlikely search term, unlikely to be found even by someone (anyone? anyone?) who is searching for information about this pseudo-event or related issues. Their search string is unlikely to begin with "2008 Passover..." If the article is kept, I suggest that "Margarine shortage, Passover 2008" would be a better title - since it would pop up as a possibility if someone searches for "margarine shortage". Or "Passover margarine shortage, 2008" for the same reason. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per MelanieN. notnews, oneevent, non-lasting, nothing special. So what? let me add 'otherstuff' as well 2010 United States tomato shortage. --Shuki (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were joking. You weren't. Looks like that one ought to go as well. How many of these are there??? --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than you can imagine, probably. But I doubt they do any harm even if they should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No harm except maybe making Wikipedia look silly. I actually did search, just now, for "2010 shortage..." and "2009 shortage..." The only thing that turned up besides these two was a shortage of small-arms ammunition, which is not silly like these two. There are also references WITHIN THE MAIN ARTICLE to temporary shortages of things like Angostura bitters; that seems like the right place for such information. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "silly" for you is comprehensive for me. When will we stop to care about how we look and instead focus on what we are, a comprehensive resource of verifiable, sourced knowledge, no matter if obscure? --Cyclopiatalk 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I 100% agree with you Melanie, thanks. As the nominator, I accidentally came across this article initially when I was trying to search for the dates of the 2008 Pesach using Wiki instead of Yahoo. Of the thousands of articles I've read on Wiki, I was surprised how trivial the article came off as being, and I keep the passover. I looked through the AfD guidelines and thought this would be a slam-dunk, am quite surprised at the controversy this created. So anyway, I understand what you're saying Cyclopia, but what you seem to be moving for here is actually a policy change in Wikipedia. As this article stands now, I strongly, strongly believe there isn't a policy that justifies its maintence per current Wikipedia guidelines. I know you originally suggested this is notable per WP:GNG, but of the 5 criteria I'm not sure which, of any, this article qualifies for, and that's just the general guideline...that's not a guarantee of notability worthy of inclusion even if it had satisfied all 5 points. Also, I don't think anyone's attempted to explain how this is relevant per WP:EVENT, which in retrospect is a much better reason for deletetion than WP:NOTNEWS, though I stand by that one as well. Simpop12 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No harm except maybe making Wikipedia look silly. I actually did search, just now, for "2010 shortage..." and "2009 shortage..." The only thing that turned up besides these two was a shortage of small-arms ammunition, which is not silly like these two. There are also references WITHIN THE MAIN ARTICLE to temporary shortages of things like Angostura bitters; that seems like the right place for such information. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than you can imagine, probably. But I doubt they do any harm even if they should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were joking. You weren't. Looks like that one ought to go as well. How many of these are there??? --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not your run-of-the-mill news event. As events go, it is far from routine, and the article is not written in the style of a news report, but more like an encyclopedia article. Dew Kane (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Run of the mill is only one of many, many criteria. Someone mentioned, and I now agree, that as written above WP:EVENT requires notability, duration, and lasting effects. Even among the Jewish community what were the lasting effects? Did it have reprecussions past Passover? Did it change people's way of life? Even if it was notable as it was occuring, which I don't believe, is there anything to suggest it was anything more than temporary per WP:SBST? There's nothing to suggest it was even a huge deal AS it was occuring. I do apologize though for the original complaint as being only WP:NOTNEWS, I definitely could have done a better job since I believe this fails several criteria. One individual compared this to the ketchup as a vegetable issue during the Reagan administration, and thereby made this Notable, but the Ketchup as a Vegetable event made many of newspapers, led to public discussions from congressional democrats who were opposed and trying to score political points, was well was published in several sources including being the cover story of Newsweek, and served as a major embarrassment for Reagan. Even that said, I'm still not sure the ketchup thing would qualify. I checked the person's above claim that the WSJ article is the only article, and it appears to be true. It appeared just once as it was actually occuring. I'm not sure what lasting effects this has had. Duration of coverage even was 'once', once during the peak of the event itself. Simpop12 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. NOTNEWS is limited to typical daily events, which this isn't. --PinkBull 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I do not believe that is a correct reading of NOTNEWS, see my comments above. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Laws of Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, mostly first-party sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reliable sources available with a quick Google search, such as [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. Nymf hideliho! 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nothing has changed since the last AfD was closed as "Keep" - if anything the article has been improved. Nominator was also the nominator last time, with the exact same rationale, and on that occasion was the only argument for deletion. No argument has been made as to why the previous outcome should be overturned. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
bad faith nom.--Milowent (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC) - struck prior comment per DFW's comment below, I think notability is sufficient for a keep.--Milowent (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Koavf/Justin has left me a message on my talk page about this and I am prepared to assume the nomination was in good faith, and that the previous nomination (while the article was under a different name) had been forgotten or overlooked. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The album's due out in less than a month, and Billboard just recently posted an article with some info about the album here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In comparison to most Crystal-type unnamed albums, this would "pass" WP:HAMMER. There is a title, a firm release date, a single that has already been released, is being ordered online, and articles about it may be found in reliable sources. FWIW, the nomination appears to have been made in good faith. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to her official website, this album will be released on June 15, 2010. namja (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slovakization (edit | talk | 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 PRODded (and a hangon tag at the same time), and PROD has been contested. There's an edit war brewing as well I need to look at.
Original PROD was as follows: original research, synthesis, essay form, it is no book about slovakization in present day Slovakia
First AfD was no consensus in 2006. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way GedUK 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term certianly exsists, and is even contested as a theory [[12]] [[13]] now the only question is how notable is this as a concept?Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your book... First is about re-Slovakization - Hungarians could voluntary changed identity if they were (or their ancestors) Magyarized Slovaks (but only small part changed). It can be own article "re-Slovakization". Second is about creation of Slovak literary language, the first creation of Slovak language was based on Czech language and its Slovakized form. Its passage for ethnogenesis of literaly Slovak language. Slovakization in that article is about using Slovak language based on Czech language (used Slovak words instead of Czech words, useing of Czech grammar) as a Slovak literaly language. So i vote for delete this kind of article. Its synthesis. --Samofi (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ "Human Rights For Minorities In Central Europe: Ethnic Cleansing In Post World War II Czechoslovakia: The Presidential Decrees Of Edward Benes, 1945-1948"
- ^ Ther, Philipp; Siljak, Ana (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742510948, 9780742510944.
- And first book is from Hungarian author and written in 1949 so neutrality is disputed. --Samofi (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which book?--B@xter9 12:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Books of Slatersteven--Samofi (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then take it to the RSN board. Moreover one is not by Hungarians, its an American paper. I agree that they are not fantastic sources, its why I say that notability still needs to be establsihed. My point was to susgest that this AFD needs to be looked at with great care as the term certaionly exsist,, so a page on it might be notable. But that the actual materail on the page would need to e checked to insure that it is verfifiable in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Books of Slatersteven--Samofi (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which book?--B@xter9 12:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And first book is from Hungarian author and written in 1949 so neutrality is disputed. --Samofi (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep this is a speedy keep as the person who placed the prod is a disruptive user, also known to vandalise and make various kinds of trouble etc. It seems that this recent outburst is due to his personal essay was deleted after he tried to pass it off as a wikipedia article, see [14]. Hobartimus (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks like a legitimate article about the forced assimilation of various ethnic groups into Slovakian culture. We might have some difficulties amongst ourselves writing about this topic neutrally, but it's still a worthwhile topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed delete Who want keep thih article, put here 1 scholar book, about SLOVAKIZATION. Its here sources about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange - its own article. Its here about Slovak-Hungarian relations in own article. And something about Hungarians in Slovakia.It can be own article Re-Slovakization. It was not Slovakization, it was opportunity to change nationality to Slovak if they have Slovak ancestors (ethnic nationality). Only small part of Magyars changed, so it was voluntary. This article is POV and compilation of sources. Article created by Magyar anti-Slovak propaganda about Slovakization. After 1918 It was Czechoslovak political nation not Slovak. About Slovakian polity we can talk in 1939-1944 and from 1993 to present. Hungarian jingo Hobartimus makes problems here. Admins should check his asset for Wikipedia. I see no reason to keep this article except Re-slovakization. --Samofi (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The first Afd nomination was filled out by banned Slovak user. This article is part of cultural assimilation series and it's based on reliable third party English (and some Slovak) sources written by experts of the issue (J. Rieber, Alfred (2000). Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe, 1939-1950. Routledge. ISBN 9780714651323.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help), Mandelbaum, Michael (2000). The New European Diasporas: National Minorities and Conflict in Eastern Europe. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 9780876092576.{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help), Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. Basingstoke, UK (Foreword by Professor Peter Burke): Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230550704.{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help), Bernd, Rechel (2009). Minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780203883655.{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help), P. Ramet, Sabrina (1997). Whose democracy?: nationalism, religion, and the doctrine of collective rights in post-1989 Eastern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 131–134. ISBN 0847683249, 9780847683246, Ther, Philipp; Siljak, Ana (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742510948, 9780742510944, Šutaj, Štefan (2005) (in Slovak). Nútené presídlenie Maďarov zo Slovenska do Čiech [Deportation of population of Hungarian nationality out of Slovakia to the Czechland after the World War II]. Prešov: Universum. ISBN 80-89046-29-0.) User Samofi's comments and personal attacks show that he did not even read the "Re-Slovakization" section based on English sources, or he did not understand it.--B@xter9 12:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(double vote) Its Baxter´s manipulation. All his sources are about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Slovak/Magyar/German-izations are based on forced national or ethnical change of human beings. Baxter you have article about Slovak-Hungarian relations where is 90% of Hungarian or from prohungarian Slovak sources (SME). All these books you can use there or in Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Stop with antislovakian propaganda. Assimilation is not Slovakization. Look to minorities in Hungary what is ethnocide. Magyars dont make children, they are 30 years in minuse with population. 15% of Magyars in Slovakia are Roma people and 10 % of Magyars in Hungary are Roma people. Its natural assimilation --Samofi (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- "Its Baxter´s manipulation. All his sources are about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. where is 90% of Hungarian or from prohungarian Slovak sources" That is lie. You again see what you want, not the truth: 90% of them is Englis written by experts of the issue. All of my sources are about Slovak-Hungarian population exchanges because ethnic Slovaks (i.e. and not Czech, this is the used English form) were changed for ethnic Hungarians (of course the country was called Czechoslovakia).--B@xter9 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For antislovak Baxter. I have read english articles. This one is Hungarian in english: http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/jani/jani13.htm Here is only about re-Slovakization. Officialy it was voluntary, based on ethnic origin. Other thing it was that Magyars of ethnic Slovak origin had fear from lose of their civic securities so they re-Slovakized. This article will deleted and you can write it to re-Slovakization --Samofi (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop your personal attacks. Thank you. It was not me who was warned for pushing anti-Hungarian propaganda ("Please don't change articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view. Thankyou, HawkerTyphoon 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)"). The whole article is based on neutral third party English sources, and I added a few Slovak ones. If you read English sources than why aren't you adding them? Officialy it was not voluntary, as it is proved by the English sources.--B@xter9 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its old, I was young and after that almost dont use wikipedia about 4 years. --Samofi (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop your personal attacks. Thank you. It was not me who was warned for pushing anti-Hungarian propaganda ("Please don't change articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view. Thankyou, HawkerTyphoon 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)"). The whole article is based on neutral third party English sources, and I added a few Slovak ones. If you read English sources than why aren't you adding them? Officialy it was not voluntary, as it is proved by the English sources.--B@xter9 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is purely synthesis of indirectly related materials. There is no specialized publication in the references and quoting general works like the one by Hobsbawm on such a particular topic is disengenuous. Moreover, the sources do not use the term regularly, it is used almost exclusively in quotation marks to denote that it is not sufficiently established. It is also used in linguistic context, therefore google search count is insufficient to determine the real frequency of its use. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article is purely synthesis of indirectly related materials" This is a lie. Every sentence of this article is referenced by direct English sources. "It is also used in linguistic context, therefore google search count is insufficient to determine the real frequency of its use" Please tell me Wladthemlat, which books talks abot "Slovakization" as a Linguistic context/phenomena: J. Rieber, Alfred (2000). Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe, 1939-1950. Routledge. ISBN 9780714651323? or Mandelbaum, Michael (2000). The New European Diasporas: National Minorities and Conflict in Eastern Europe. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 9780876092576? Minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0203883659, 9780203883655? Šutaj, Štefan (2005) (in Slovak). Nútené presídlenie Maďarov zo Slovenska do Čiech [Deportation of population of Hungarian nationality out of Slovakia to the Czechland after the World War II]. Prešov: Universum. ISBN 80-89046-29-0? Ther, Philipp; Siljak, Ana (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742510948, 9780742510944? Yeshayahu A., Jelinek (1983). The Lust for Power: Nationalism, Slovakia, and the Communists, 1918-1948. East European Monographs. ISBN 0880330198, 9780880330190?
- Comment It's not a lie, that every single sentence is referenced does not contradict the synthesis claim. The article references sources to support factual claims, however the sources do not operate within the context of the article. In other words - the article is a re-intepretation of the sources, ergo WP:OR.
- I was just drawing attention to the fact, that slovakization is used also in linguistic context so to operate with simple source counts would be inaccurate.
- and to the books you listed
- Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe - the term is used only once and in the context of *voluntary* change of *citizenship*, not in the one of organized govermental policy of ethnic oppresion as the article claims in the lead.[15]
- The New European Diasporas - cultural slovakization in unspecified context, one sentence is too little for a whole article.[16]
- Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 - deals only with a limited time period, uses the term in quotation marks and it referes EXCLUSIVELY to the change of citizenship after WWII. So this is not too established (quotation marks) and the rest of the article is unsubstantiated. If you want to keep the article, rename it to Re-Slovakization and make it deal only with the post WWII period, otherwise you are introducing synthesisi and WP:OR, simple as that. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are a number of sources (I will find them again if you want) that discuse Slovkaisation in a linguistic context (such as the slovakisation of place names). This however does not alter the fact that it is also used in the context of (forced or volutary0 cultural assimilation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC),[reply]
- Delete Per above, there is no publication for the term slovakization, plus it seems that few editors are mistaking re-slovakization for some slovakization, ie some forced policy of assimilation of minorities in Czechoslovakia/Slovakia. --EllsworthSK (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The term Slovakization exists, check the sources. Tt seems that few editors don't know the truth abouth "re-slovakization": "In 1946, another method -the process of "Reslovakization", (or re-Slovakization) the forced acceptance of Slovak nationality[40][52]- was engaged by the Czechoslovak government with the objective of eliminating the Hungarian nationality.[40]" Or the historian authors of these books do not know the difference? LOL!
- Comment Forgive me but the page is about (I assume) the slovaisation of non-Slovaks. It does not matter if that is a re- or not. Its the pages content, not a bad choice of names that matters. However Sources for Slovakization
- http://nargeo.geo.uni.lodz.pl/~zgpol/sob/slovak_minority.pdf
- http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-zZ_NVM9mNEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Slovakization&ots=pdcwS-YO-y&sig=nF0DjMTXZ9z82Wsz1sw0g3g0XJM#v=onepage&q=Slovakization&f=false
- http://ehlee.humnet.unipi.it/books3/5/08_SZEGHYOVA.pdf
- Three should do for now. Again not that these merely establish that the term is used, not its context
- 1th and 3th source is about slovakization in historical therm - synonym for assimilation, or adaptation of slovak culture. 2nd source is about re-Slovakization. I dont understand why all people here connect re-Slovakization, Slovakization and Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Its 3 different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the term exsits, that it has historical usage not coverd in the article just means the articel needs work, not deletion (and I agree that that is the case). As to the second source. the term Slovakisation (not re-slokaisation) occurs of pages 49, 52, 54, 55, 61 (which talks about enforced Slovakisation before WW1), 62, 66 (which talks about detention campsand disapearances up to about 1950) so it does use the phrase, repeatedly, and about forced Slovkaisation before and after WW1 (and indead WW2). Anotehr source http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Term exist also existed problem of slovak nationality in hungarian kingdom if slovak from hungarian kingdom in 1915 called himself Slavic Hungarian: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE4DD153BE233A25752C1A9629C946496D6CF But look to article, what from this article should stay there? Look to article Czechoslovak-hungarian population exchange. the present time is same like slovak-hungarian relation (there is 90% of sources hungarian). I tried to rebuilt this article, but Hobartimus put it always back. He is retarted, its impossible to make compromisses with him. --Samofi (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Than let me quote from the book (number 2) advocated by Samofi:"With this population transfer ...Hungarian were forced to leave Slovakia for Hungary...."of their own will"....73,273 people from Hungary declairing themselves to be Slovak...although usually without any such identity and hardly speaking the language, but simmply eager to expropriate property that had fromerly belonged to Hungarians were resettled in South Slovakia...The ethnic composition and statics of the population of South Slovakia were heavily influenced not only by the migrations already mentioned, but by another form of ethnic expansion, so -called "re-Slovakization". More than half of the Hungarians frightened and deprived of their rights...applied to call themselves Slovaks. This meant being granted citizenship and staying in their homeland.... (p 68)As the shocking events of the 1940's faded, an increasing number of formerly scared and "re-Slovakized" Hungarian reassumed their Hungarian ethnicity in the census stativs. (Page 69)...the loss through re-Slovakization together with the Hungarians who suddenly "turned into Slovaks"....The organizers of ethnic cleansing managed to target towns located along the ethnic boundary with a Hungarian majority. If you read the article you will find out that the Slovak government's goal was to Slovakize Slovakia (especially after WWII). After the removal of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia to Hungary failed, they decided that they will Slovakize the country via deportation: (the Slovak government planned -and started- the relocation of the Hungarians to the Czech borderlands. After this attempt failed, they forced the Hungarians to declare themselves Slovaks (this was the "re-slovakization"), so they receieved Czechslovak citizenship. The Slovak government used the term re-slovakization/reslovakization, because they invented the idea that the Hungarians in Slovakia were originaly Slovaks, who assimilated into Hungarian culture centuries ago and -according to them- "they forgot their true Slovak heritage/culture" --B@xter9 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about the page you created that got deleted, but thank you for making it clear to me that this is what this is all about, I would ask that this is now closed as well as its just a tit for tat nom. Secondly the NYT source does not include the words problem, Slovak, nationality, hungarian or kingdom so does not support the existance of this phrase anyway. By the way have you seen Magyarization which discuses the opposite to this page?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the reason for this nomination, I think we should look at the facts. The term is not used, all the sources reference "re-slovakization", which is not just a cosmetic difference. Moreover, this term is used *exclusively* for the period immediately after WWII, it is not at all established for the historical scope the article deals with. Furthemore, the article describes slovakization as an official governmental policy, which none of the sources support. The whole article just interconnects otherwise disparate pieces of data, which is a blatant example of WP:OR. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it then you have not seen page 62 of 'Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin'?Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That deals with a process of natural assimilation (an official policy would be impossible in 18th century which it referes to), so it only reinforces my claims. The term is used sparsely and when it is, it is so in a context completely different from what the article tries to establish. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd the copy I am looking at is discusing the period between 1910 and 1930 [[17]]or try page 61Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have to admit that it references Slovakization in the early 20th century, on the same page however it uses the same term on natural assimilation ("[...] Slovakization which accelerated during the 18th and 19th centuries [...]"). Fine, so we have found one book that uses a controversial term in a questionable context. Does it merit keeping the article and if so, what is WP:FRINGE then? What i sm more, the only book we were able to find is by Hungarians, no neutral sources use it. Doesn't change much I say. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uses of the term Slovakisation in relation to ethnicity or education in the 20thC
- All different all equal By Council of Europe, page 147
- Eastern Europe in the twentieth century By R. J. Crampton, page 73 (referring only to Bratislava university though).
- Europe and ethnicity: the First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict By Seamus Dunn, T. G. Fraser, page 105
- And one covering the 1990's
- Pushing back the boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe By Mike Mannin, page 265
- Ok, I have to admit that it references Slovakization in the early 20th century, on the same page however it uses the same term on natural assimilation ("[...] Slovakization which accelerated during the 18th and 19th centuries [...]"). Fine, so we have found one book that uses a controversial term in a questionable context. Does it merit keeping the article and if so, what is WP:FRINGE then? What i sm more, the only book we were able to find is by Hungarians, no neutral sources use it. Doesn't change much I say. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd the copy I am looking at is discusing the period between 1910 and 1930 [[17]]or try page 61Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That deals with a process of natural assimilation (an official policy would be impossible in 18th century which it referes to), so it only reinforces my claims. The term is used sparsely and when it is, it is so in a context completely different from what the article tries to establish. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it then you have not seen page 62 of 'Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin'?Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the reason for this nomination, I think we should look at the facts. The term is not used, all the sources reference "re-slovakization", which is not just a cosmetic difference. Moreover, this term is used *exclusively* for the period immediately after WWII, it is not at all established for the historical scope the article deals with. Furthemore, the article describes slovakization as an official governmental policy, which none of the sources support. The whole article just interconnects otherwise disparate pieces of data, which is a blatant example of WP:OR. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Term exist also existed problem of slovak nationality in hungarian kingdom if slovak from hungarian kingdom in 1915 called himself Slavic Hungarian: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE4DD153BE233A25752C1A9629C946496D6CF But look to article, what from this article should stay there? Look to article Czechoslovak-hungarian population exchange. the present time is same like slovak-hungarian relation (there is 90% of sources hungarian). I tried to rebuilt this article, but Hobartimus put it always back. He is retarted, its impossible to make compromisses with him. --Samofi (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the term exsits, that it has historical usage not coverd in the article just means the articel needs work, not deletion (and I agree that that is the case). As to the second source. the term Slovakisation (not re-slokaisation) occurs of pages 49, 52, 54, 55, 61 (which talks about enforced Slovakisation before WW1), 62, 66 (which talks about detention campsand disapearances up to about 1950) so it does use the phrase, repeatedly, and about forced Slovkaisation before and after WW1 (and indead WW2). Anotehr source http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1th and 3th source is about slovakization in historical therm - synonym for assimilation, or adaptation of slovak culture. 2nd source is about re-Slovakization. I dont understand why all people here connect re-Slovakization, Slovakization and Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Its 3 different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will that do or do you want more?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One hypothetical reference, irrelevant.
- Again, hypothetical reference, it refers to demands by a group, partially irrelevant. Definitely a vastly different context.
- Another hypothetical (fears of a hypothetical programme).
- Finally, a first book that actually operates with the term as needed.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE Why do people keep voting on frivolous nominations like this one all the time? Reminds me of this other attempt. Squash Racket (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coz this kinds of articles (Slovakization and espetialy Slovak-Hungarian relations) are used for antislovakian propaganda. Look how many hungarian sources are there, are they neutral? Why can magyars use magyar sources and sovak sources are POV and not neutral and fascist in their opinion? See activities of Hobartimus, Baxter9. Hungarians try to make one big propaganda in wikipedia. Delete this compilation, and in Slovak-Hungarian relations hold only informations from english newspapers. --Samofi (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stopped counting English sources at 10... Isn't it strange that exclusively Slovak editors deny the existence of this topic?
- I repeat: could we close this caricature of a nomination? Squash Racket (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NO mostly hungarians want keep this topic and Iam sure that Slatersteven is not sure that conception of this article and its content coresponds with the name of article. I vote for: delete all about slovak-hungarian exchange its in own article (it was not directly from slovak elites and transfer of germans from czechia is not considered as czechization). delete about slovakia after 1993 it belongs to Slovak-Hungarian relations (lot of things same) - no book about slovakization of hungarians after 1993. In the article can be: 1. Slovakized Czech language - concept for literary slovak language , 2 Slovakization of names of towns in Slovakia 3 re-Slovakization of Hungarians. Who agree with me? --Samofi (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly do not make assumptions on my behalf, especialy when you seem to be implying i do not know what I am talkinig about. As I see it this artciel is about the slovakisation of non-ethnic slovaks living within the Czecoslovak state (and after in the Slovak state), as such the name is appropriate (and is used in this context by multiple sources). As to deleting portions of the articel, this is not the place for this discusion, take it to the articels talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Samofi:NO ONLY Slovaks voted for deletion and at least two non-Hungarians voted to keep it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly do not make assumptions on my behalf, especialy when you seem to be implying i do not know what I am talkinig about. As I see it this artciel is about the slovakisation of non-ethnic slovaks living within the Czecoslovak state (and after in the Slovak state), as such the name is appropriate (and is used in this context by multiple sources). As to deleting portions of the articel, this is not the place for this discusion, take it to the articels talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NO mostly hungarians want keep this topic and Iam sure that Slatersteven is not sure that conception of this article and its content coresponds with the name of article. I vote for: delete all about slovak-hungarian exchange its in own article (it was not directly from slovak elites and transfer of germans from czechia is not considered as czechization). delete about slovakia after 1993 it belongs to Slovak-Hungarian relations (lot of things same) - no book about slovakization of hungarians after 1993. In the article can be: 1. Slovakized Czech language - concept for literary slovak language , 2 Slovakization of names of towns in Slovakia 3 re-Slovakization of Hungarians. Who agree with me? --Samofi (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems that the dispute is not over the idea, but that name and some content. OK if there is a problom with the name we can change it (but sources do indicate that this term is used within the context of the article). As to content just becasue there is some content that may need deleting does not mean you delete the entire page. As such i cannot now vote for anything otehr then keep, but needing work.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why keep? find me definition of Slovakization, in 1 book. Clear definition of Slovakization. --Samofi (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article protected due to edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article contains very important information and there is no reason why we should deprieve our readers of it.--Nmate (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The article is about one of the fundamental concepts that cause the conflicts in Hungarian-Slovak relations. Many political decisions and their aftermath stem from this very single concept. Therefore it is crucial to keep this article in order for one to understand the root of the conflict. Sure, the article is far from completion and a lot of information is still missing from it. But that should never be the reason for deleting any article. What's the point in rewriting an article from scratch every time one deems it "inappropriate" (by his/her POV)? It's even more saddening to see the article fully protected due to edit warring, which prevents legitimate edits as well. CoolKoon (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maclean's magazine (Canada), November 2, 2009, pp.35-6 had an article on this, entitled "Second Rate Citizens". [18] David V Houston (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it´s just me but what´s your point? --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people were contesting notability. If it gets 2 pages in a news magazine on another continent, I'd say that's a really strong indication of notability. David V Houston (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal male consorts in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In a nutshell, the articles is useless.
Point 1: We already have a List of Portuguese consorts. The term "king consort" is utterly misleading, for it is supposed to be equivalent to queen consort and thus can't be used to refer to Ferdinand II of Portugal and Peter III of Portugal. A consort doesn't reign and doesn't have a monarchical ordinal. They did. Besides, the article is basically supposed to be a triple biography and we already have biographical articles about all men who can be considered consorts of Portuguese queens regnant. The article is a useless compliation of information already present in several other articles. We don't have articles specifically about husbands of queens regnant of other countries (because we don't need them).
Point 2: the grammar is so horrible that fixing it would be a lost cause. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The term King consort is not utterly misleading. As this article explains, it is the title used when the couple produce an heir. Per our editing policy, this article should not be deleted as AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a title used for a man who produced an heir. It was never used by those men. The title is used mainly by the 19th century books. Besides, that's not even the main point of this AfD request! The article can't be cleaned up because it is unneccessary. We don't need it. Do we need articles such as Royal female consorts in Portugal, Daughters-in-law of Portuguese monarchs, Aunts of the French queens, etc? Of course not! We already have biographies of all husbands of Portuguese queens regnant and List of Portuguese consorts, making this article entirely pointless. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Surtsicna. This page is effectively 'the Queens Regnant of Portugal and their men', but such a page gives undue weight to the fact that the rulers happened to be female, and as a collection, it is WP:SYNTH. Agricolae (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the information that appears in this article can appear more usefully elsewhere. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While these guys may have derived their right to rule from their wives, they received ordinals and were kings in their own right, not just consorts. David V Houston (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Algeria earthquake (edit | talk | 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 is not news and fails WP:EVENT. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless further sources crop up that actually establish its notability. —fetch·comms 00:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have found several sources in French (not a surprising development) from local sources: [19], [20], [21] (I am NOT surprised not to find many sources in English). Far as I can tell from a cursory look, although there was quite significant damage, the number of dead remained low because it hit a lesser populated region. Circéus (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That people died and were injured, there was damage, and more than one reliable source from another continent [22] [23] refer to this in the English language (plus the many in other languages) ought to be enough. --candle•wicke 03:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Earthquake with fatalies and many WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The template indicates that we do record notable earthquakes as a matter of course. There's probably some scope for consolidating this content but our editing policy is that we do not use deletion for such work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped a note on the Earthquake Project's talk page to try and get some policy, along the lines of WP:AIRCRASH, for earthquake notability. Lugnuts (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete all other non-fatal earthquakes of 2010--DAI (Δ) 12:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Satisfies notability req's.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although we have waaayyy too many earthquake articles, not all of these gift-wrapped infoboxes are deficient. Quakes that are strong enough to cause a fatality are, actually, relatively rare. Glad to see that Lugnuts is taking the lead in trying to help the Earthquake Project come up with some reasonable guidelines. WP:SNOW yet? Mandsford 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but only if the title is changed (sth like Bouira 05/14/2010 earthquake should be fine). There are, on average, 14 magnitude 5 or greater earthquakes per year in Algeria [24], thus the title is inappropriate. Otherwise (if the title isn't changed), the article should be Deleted. Omar-Toons (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am sure that in Algeria itself, people would immediately recognize Bouira, the rest of the world would not. Even al-Asnam, a large city and site of a massive earthquake (I believe in 1980), isn't well known in the rest of the world. The 1989 earthquake in San Francisco is, technically, the "1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", but most people wouldn't recognize "Loma Prieta" as a place they could find on a map. The primary purpose of any encyclopedia is as a ready reference for people to consult, and titles should be written to aid the readers, rather than to impress the experts. For someone who wishes to find out more about a deadly earthquake that they have heard about that happened in Algeria in 2010, they would, logically, look under "2010 Algeria Earthquake". Mandsford 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deserts and Mountains (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN fiction, semi-advertisement written by author of book Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The books sounds interesting. But it is self-published (by iUniverse [25]). Self-published books almost never qualify as notable, because they don't usually get reviewed or talked about by WP:reliable sources - as this one doesn't. Sorry, Mr. Alimoglu, I wish you luck with the book and maybe it will become more notable in the future. Could I suggest the article be userfied back to User:Yalimoglu for possible future reposting? --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dao (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to locate third-party coverage suggesting notability Cybercobra (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Same here. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Also unable to find sources, but note that it definitely does not help that the language shares its name with a common design pattern (i.e. Data access object, commonly abbreviated to DAO), resulting in a lot of irrelevant hits. JulesH (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 County Clare earthquake (edit | talk | 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 has no need for an article on each earthquake. It is not news and fails WP:EVENT. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I am Ryan Kirkpatrick i was the one how put 2010 County Clare earthquake on the website for this reason. Western Europe do have earthquakes but Ireland don't have that many. Yes ok the quake that struck County Clare is weak but the United Kingdom, France, Norway Denmark and Poland do have eathquakes big or small but this eathquake that hit Ireland is one of the biggest one that has hit Ireland. The was felt by many people. So i plaese ask can you not to delete it. To show that the world were ever you are in the world there can be an earthqauke can happen anywere in the world and you ever no that the quake that hit County Clare can maybe happane again but bigger in later years time and as well i like that thank all the people how would like to keep 2010 County Clare earthquake on if you can fined any more Referece's or taik about past earthquakes that his hit the Republic of Ireland it would be very helpful. 7 ::27pm, 16 May 2010.
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting significance, local only. C628 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It acually may not be notable, but it still is the biggest earthquake in Ireland which was recorded. Zbase4 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not notable, then surely it should be deleted per that policy, or at least merged? I quote the notability policy: "A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This topic would seem to fail the Google test in that regard. There are very few relevant results, even fewer are reliable sources. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use better keywords riffic (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That link would appear to have even fewer relevant results. I've only been able to find about ten-fifteen reliable-looking web pages (most of which were news services) that have any mention on the topic, which suggests it simply isn't noteworthy enough in the long run. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete perhaps the biggest to hit Ireland, but 2.7 is pretty small and I don't see much more than that in terms of notability. —fetch·comms 01:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; appears to fail notability guidelines. Quick Google search reveals few links to reliable sources and this doesn't seem to have had any lasting historical significance. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to rarity of earthquakes in this region, this may more notable than initially suspected. Sourcing can be improved, I'm adding a few to the article now to beef it up a bit. riffic (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established as strongest recorded in Republic of Ireland and the fact that it was actually felt. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The template indicates that we do record notable earthquakes as a matter of course. There's probably some scope for consolidating this content but our editing policy is that we do not use deletion for such work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's the strongest earthquake there in years, and although minor, this makes it somewhat notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StrongWeak keep Well-referenced, and of of clear encyclopedic value - if someone wants to know more about earthquakes in Ireland, and consults wikipedia, here's one of the articles that is relevant. Lova Falk talk 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- CommentHow is it encyclopedic? It lacks historical context, it is a news article at best, and the best source for geological occurrences is the USGS and other similar groups. Mikemoral♪♫ 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A merge to an article about earthquakes in Ireland would be appropriate if one is created, since the reason the infobox got filled out was that Ireland is geologically stable.
Merge to Great Glen Fault, since it's the strongest earthquake there in years (actually, the first source says "in recent months"). The magnitude of 2.7 on the moment magnitude scale will not be much different than the Richter scale. [26]. Per Richter magnitude scale#Richter magnitudes there are hundreds of quakes in the the 2.0 to 3.9 range-- not just per year put per day. There is plenty of support today for keeping the article about this recent event in the English-speaking world, but the true test of whether it fails WP:NOTNEWS will be in trying to find any mention of it in June. There is a place for this, but it's not in its own article. Mandsford 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see why anyone thinks a mere 2.7 'quake is considered notable. There are hundreds of these daily, so does Wikipedia really need an article for each? It is utterly pointless. If someone wanted a resource documenting the hundreds of earthquakes that occur each day, consult a geological service or institution. An encyclopedia is meant to document notable events. this event killed none was was likely not felt by a majority of the Irish in the area. Why should a 2.7 earthquake have its own article? It should not; there is not reason for it to have one. So before you !vote take my rambling comment in consideration. I've also noticed a tread of keeping articles when there are dead or injured people. I believe there were none, so doesn't this make the article simple a news article like one would find on Wikinews or CNN? I certainly believe that. Isn't Wikipedia not a news source? It does say in the policy WP:NOT. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Size isn't everything, and lack of deaths does not mean that an event is non-notable. Sure, a 2.7 quake in San Francisco wouldn't be notable. This is notable because of the location, being the largest recorded there. A clear case of not applying a blanket rule and taking each case on its own merits. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not merge to Ireland#Geology or the fault article (whatever the title is). Mikemoral♪♫ 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A minor earthquake, basically falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. If there is still coverage 8-10 months from now, an article might be warranted then. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NotNews and per not an earthquake, 2.7, 10 seconds and no one noticed. Snappy (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i'm going to jump right out and say this: the !votes for wp:notnews should be considered inapplicable, as this isn't a news report about a common event. This is a rare event in a region not known for earthquakes -- not your typical routine news event. riffic (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever reason, 2010 has seen a dramatic increase in the number of articles created as soon as a tremor is noticed. Category:21st-century earthquakes shows 49 so far for the first five months of 2010, compared to 32 for all of '09, 20+ in '07 and '08, 12 in '06. There were actually more than 49, since at least eight quake pages have been deleted when it turned out that they were not mentioned after the original news reports. The reasonable alternative, particularly in underscoring the point that Ireland is not known for earthquakes, would be to create an article called Earthquakes in Ireland. There's a Great Glen Fault page that might be the place this would be preserved. The earthquake project is working on alternatives (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#Earthquake_notability) to the current system, whereby one creates a page called "2010 ______ earthquake" and then hopes it won't be deleted. I hope that the 2010 event can be put on a page with other instances of quakes in Ireland. WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean that each event has to have its own unique page. Mandsford 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oh I totally agree, merging would be more preferable than outright deletion. riffic (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever reason, 2010 has seen a dramatic increase in the number of articles created as soon as a tremor is noticed. Category:21st-century earthquakes shows 49 so far for the first five months of 2010, compared to 32 for all of '09, 20+ in '07 and '08, 12 in '06. There were actually more than 49, since at least eight quake pages have been deleted when it turned out that they were not mentioned after the original news reports. The reasonable alternative, particularly in underscoring the point that Ireland is not known for earthquakes, would be to create an article called Earthquakes in Ireland. There's a Great Glen Fault page that might be the place this would be preserved. The earthquake project is working on alternatives (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#Earthquake_notability) to the current system, whereby one creates a page called "2010 ______ earthquake" and then hopes it won't be deleted. I hope that the 2010 event can be put on a page with other instances of quakes in Ireland. WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean that each event has to have its own unique page. Mandsford 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh, please. A 2.7 earthquake? Lasting 10 seconds? No damage or injuries? You can't even feel a 2.7 unless you are sitting on top of it. If we start creating articles about 2.7 earthquakes, we would be creating literally dozens of articles a day in the part of the world where I live - hundreds a day worldwide. This minor quake was unusual for that small area of Ireland, is the most that can be said about it. BTW Riffic, you argue that this is "not a news report" but rather a "rare event" - but news reports are almost by definition "rare events". It's what makes them news. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW if the article is deleted, as I think it should be, a paragraph about the earthquake could be added to the Geology section of Ireland. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 2.7? I've slept through 100 times worse, literally. WP:NOTNEWS, at most it deserves a small mention in the Geology of Ireland as stated above. Events that are rare only in particular location should only be included in the appropriate location article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Normally, earthquakes under a 6.0 are not kept after AfD. However, we should consider if "It is the first time we've had seismic activity in that part of the country..." matters. I do not know. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it was not necessarily the first seismic activity in that area; it was the first seismic activity recorded in that area since they began to keep records in 1978. 32 years is trivial in geologic time. And despite comments above to the effect that this was "the biggest recorded earthquake in Ireland", the article does not say that - it only says that it was the biggest recorded in WESTERN Ireland. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS No enduring notability. Consider WikiNews. Aditya Ex Machina 08:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Probably NOTNEWS when seen in a global context, but most likely quite notable in Ireland.--PinkBull 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Traq (edit | talk | 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 see no third party reliable sources documenting Notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nothing indicates notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ice (Durst book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence this book meets criteria of WP:NBOOK. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Review Ctrl-F -> Durst [27] finalist for Norton Award and the author is a well known children's sci fi author. The article is written very poorly but it meets WP:NBOOK.--Savonneux (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete the article. I am trying my best to make sure it is good enough to be kept here. StarLegacy (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Published by a major publisher, Simon & Schuster. Nominated for the Norton Award. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Book by very notable author. Would presume that the book itself is notable unless evidence otherwise is presented. JulesH (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author's contention that the band meets WP:BAND #7 and #9 is not borne out by the references. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Hero Falls (edit | talk | 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 contested by author who makes an assertion that the band meets WP:GNG. A search reveals little WP:RS coverage except in lists of performers decltype
(talk) 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets two requirements on the subject of deletion: 1.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. 2.Has won or placed in a major music competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanconcienne (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any sources for either of these claims? Is mid-michgigan battle of the bands a major award?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "20 bands. 1 winner. Value of prize package approx $1,000.00". (from site cited) 5 Ghits. I think not a major award. (In 1990, there were 48 bands...) Peridon (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And one of those hits is the page up for deletion. Does not seem to be anything more then a minor regional (not even statewide) music comp. But let the opposer find some sources to establish notabilty and support the claims he has made.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone any idea how many even possibly notable bands take part in BoB contests? I can't see many doing it. It's a way for local groups to get their name in the papers - locally. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like anyone does. I quote from Battle of bands: "Prizes usually include cash, free recording time in a local recording studio, support or main slot at a local or large gig, a piece of new equipment, or a gift certificate." That doesn't make me think anyone notable would be there. A step on the road to notability, maybe, but not there yet. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone any idea how many even possibly notable bands take part in BoB contests? I can't see many doing it. It's a way for local groups to get their name in the papers - locally. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And one of those hits is the page up for deletion. Does not seem to be anything more then a minor regional (not even statewide) music comp. But let the opposer find some sources to establish notabilty and support the claims he has made.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oldest military veterans (edit | talk | 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 thought about it for a while after this deletion discussion and finally decided to nominate this page and List of verified oldest military veterans, although I figured that they were different enough to warrant separate deletion debates. My reason for deletion is essentially the same as "List of oldest military veterans who died in XXXX": it's really just a collection of original research. There are three big problems as I see it.
- There's no definition of "oldest". This is the obvious problem because there's no set criteria for inclusion.
- The above problem could easily be rectified, say, by making the cutoff point 100 or 105 or whatever, but then the question remains, why is any one numerical definition of "oldest" any less arbitrary than another? What makes a veteran who died at the age of 100 any different than one who died at 99 or 95? It's a trivial intersection no matter what number you pick.
- Although it claims to list the "oldest military veterans", it really lists the "oldest military veterans that we could find". It cites no foundtation and is merely a collection of random news articles about old military people, most of whom are from World War I. Obviously Wikipedia is a work in progress and a complete list would be probably be impossible, but these selections have obviously been chosen from within a small frame of reference.
Furthermore, why is there an "unverified" section? What is "unverified" about them? Is it their age? No, because there's no body that validates people under the age of 110, so those other names wouldn't be on there. Is it their military service? Also no, because no one doubts (for example) that Douglas Terrey served in World War II. As for the "Ancient/Exaggerated veteran claims" who decided that? Where's the source that suggests that Mikhail Efimovich Krichevsky wasn't 111? That's not an unreasoanble claim. Just more original research. This also has the same "western" bias - one Arab who claims he's 134 reperesents all veterans who aren't American or European.
So to summarize: the list a) is original research b) has no defined set of inclusion criteria and c) any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary and/or trivial. Canadian Paul 02:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i can find no flaws in canadianpauls argument above. i voted delete on the related afd mentioned above. The most generous position i could take is to userfy and completely rewrite to define it as military veteran centenarians, living or deceased, verified only, limited to people with articles only. its really a trivial intersection, the only argument that it could be rescued would be that centenarians usually are notable for that fact alone, and will obviously have their military history mentioned in news articles about them, but the two are still not directly linked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Geez Louise, I can find all sorts of flaws in the deletion argument. It appears to me that sourcing was in progress when the article was nominated. The suggestion seems to be that the entire article should be removed because the nominator is concerned over the choice of words used within the article title and the titles of the article's sections and that all of this is beyond fixing, assuming it even needs to be fixed at all. I can forsee that some people might ask "What does 'oldest' mean? What does 'military' mean? How do you define 'veteran'?" but I would describe that as unreasonable. To me, it would be like going to the gas station and asking the cashier, "How can I be sure this gasoline is unleaded? How can I know that I really am getting ten gallons? How can I be certain that my payment and the change is legal tender?" It's a higher standard than we require here. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that you have misunderstood my argument. Let me know if you want clarification on my talk page. Canadian Paul 16:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your reasoning just fine. I just don't agree with it. I've read nearly every argument against lists that's ever been made on Wikipedia in the last three years, and this isn't new to me. Although the means sometimes differ, the end result -- that the page that is irreparably defective and "must be" deleted-- is usually the same. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Edison in the other related Afd discussion. Every so often, the newspapers report the death of one of these people, so obviously they have no trouble with the criteria.[28][29]. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. Is essentially trivia and OR. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. If the articles/entries had references, then the individuals would be notable - but there is very little verification of the information (either directly in this article, or in linked articles), and it appears to be OR. Half of the "verified" entries have neither references nor an article, as is the same for half of the "unverified" entries; only 1/3 of the "verified" entries have articles on Wikipedia, and the same fraction of the "unverified" entries have them; the "Oldest veteans ever" list has no references - I know that 80% of them have articles, but only about half of them have any references in those articles showing that they served; the "Ancient/Exaggerated veteran claims" has no references, and only about 1/3 of the entries have articles - and only one of those actually has a working citation which appears to verify the information. If the statistics were the other way round (2/3 have articles, all referenced) I'd be inclined to say keep, but as this looks like OR (in common with many of the creator's articles) then I've got to go with delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with nom and Phantomsteve. Newspapers reported Van Eijkeren, but none I read gave any references. Had not heard of him before this year and I try to follow anything WWII related mentioned in Dutch media. Jarkeld (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article can continue after the veterans from WW1 have all gone. The fight for/against all kind of wars of the era in the WW1 article is also solved in this article, veterans from all wars with a reference can be included. There's no organisation like GRG that keeps track of the rank number, so the ranking can be considered original research and may have to go. The list needs a cutoff age that limits the entrys to a manageable number, like age 101 or 102, since otherwise WW2 veterans will make the list huge in a few years. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I thought this was an obvious keep. But it just lists people who were old and fought in a war. That combination doesn't make someone notable, per se (there's nothing particularly notable about centenarian WW2 veterans right now, since there's an awful lot of younger veterans of that war who are still alive). Comparing all military veterans by age, regardless of what war they were in, also falls within the realm of trivia. What is a very notable topic, frequently covered in the media, are the last surviving veterans of wars. But Wikipedia already has an article List of last living war veterans, as well as dedicated articles for some specific wars and countries. 140.247.253.63 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly valid and useful list that meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists. Kugao (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm going to repeat my argument from List of verified oldest military veterans AfD: Logic behind the nomination is faulty. Cutoff point complaint is basically a variation of the paradox of the heap; were it valid, we would not have a single list of superlatives. Same with the complaint about incompleteness; were it valid, we would not have a single incomplete list. GregorB (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems no worse then many lists. Besides there is a criteria that could be used to determine who is on the list. Oldest by country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep being one of the oldest military veterans IS notable, these afds assume bad faith, im sorry but cp age IS notable and its in the Guinness world record book, and if the accomplishment is listed in Guinness, then that should show that age IS notable, just because your not interested doesnt mean no one has an interest, its notable whether you think so or not, because others think its notable, including news papers and Guinness records, and namely, the GRG, which are all notable. Remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are articles i dont think are notable, but i leave them alone and dont make bad faith afds, because i know they are important to others, why cant you do the same and be tolerant to other people's interests, im sorry if you dont like it, but the world doesnt center around you, and im sorry for that one edit i made on my talk page, but people can only take so much. Theres a saying called live and let live. Longevitydude (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that most of the time there is an assumption they are military veterans. A lot have no references on this page or on their own page that confirm that they were veterans. (See Phantomsteve's arguments above). Jarkeld (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then remove the names that dont have references and replace them with those that do with references, or better yet try and find references. Longevitydude (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I a page has probloms with some contnet then you fix it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None but nominator favor deletion, but article does need improvement. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Valerio (edit | talk | 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 references for this article are as follows:
- Subject's own website. Not independent.
- Directory listing for Carlo's Wake. Not significant coverage.
- Listing--no editorial content--as screenwriter of future film.
- IMDB directory listing.
- Hollywood reporter director listing.
- Passing reference in bio on wife of subject. Not RS, not independent. (Link now inactive)
- Passing reference in article on his wife. Not significant coverage.
- Brief mentions / quotes in relation to Carlo's Wake. Not significant coverage of either subject or film. Entire editorial coverage of Valerio is "It's a big step for Mr. Valerio, who at one time directed what he described as a porno puppet show for the Playboy channel before focusing on promotional spots for television shows."
- Listing as director of Carlo's Wake (no other text) on website of the film's promoter. Not independent, not significant coverage.
- Rhode Island Film Festival website showing this film as a winner. Not a "major award for excellence" per WP:NF.
- Listing for RIFF. See previous comment.
- Coverage of Carlo's Wake, with some details on the subject, in specialist industry publication.
- Passing mention in executive moves.
- Even more passing mention of post described in Variety.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-108883202.html
- Directory search results.
None of these sources gives rise to a conclusion of notability per guidelines. Neither does anything I was able to find with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Note that despite the film festival award, Carlo's Wake doesn't seem to have received any reviews in reliable sources. Bongomatic 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article needs a tidy up, coverage in independent media including NYT seems to indicate notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while appreciating the nominator's concerns over the condition of the current article, my own impression of the numerous reliable sources available indicate that they can be used in expanding and improving this article.[30][31] Though yes, it is a mess, I believe the article can be improved. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was unrelated to the state of the article. It was based on the cited and available references. If you have any specific references that you think demonstrate notability that would be preferable to GHITS. Bongomatic 08:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has enough notability, eg NYT. Just needs cleaning up. Kubek15 write/sign 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Daskool (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary Page. Has no value up here.
- Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination. "No value here" is not really a good rationale for deletion. On top of this User:Daskool has repeatedly vandalised or made bad faith edits to related pages - see Special:Contributions/Daskool and most obvious in this edit to the Channel Awesome article. I suspect, but cannot prove, based on the user's edits that he is or is connected to Dan Rizio (aka ThatAussieGuy), who was apparently fired by Channel Awesome (makers of The Nostalgia Critic) about a year ago. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Kubek15 write/sign
- Bspell: Absolutely Disagree with this Nomination. It´s a great List, really useful. 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as there is no valid argument for deletion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Nomination does appear to be in bad faith. No valid argument given by nominator as to why it should be deleted. Jarkeld (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Notable content, and no valid argument given by the nominator. Evilgidgit (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that the articles of the other TGWTG series episodes have been removed, but I think that this one has a fanbase large enough to stay as an article. TuneyLoon 23:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: And purely on the grounds that the nominator has no good argument for deletion. It's "unnecessary"? By whose standard? Post some sort of notability guideline or something more than two lines or else I'ma say screw that. Though I do have to say that the episode summaries are written badly; they give too much information in my opinion. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 01:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HRTL: Why does this need to be deleted? Why do you claim Wikipedia doesn't need this page? There is no clear ground on why this page needs to be deleted, and yet you think otherwise. ...or in shorter terms: You people are beliving a moron who doesn't like this page, who says this needs to be deleted, without any reason or logic; WTF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRTL (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: per AdamBMorgan and Jarkeld. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Nostalgia Critic is one of the most popular shows on TGWTG, so it's only customary to have an episode page for it due to its depth. superdude2(talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Keep: Obvious troll is obvious, that would try to get this page deleted despite being an episode list about a show that's only the most popular on TGWTG (aside from 5 Second Movies, but that series was put on hiatus a long time ago). --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the article's author requested deletion. — ξxplicit 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Methods of computing cubic roots (edit | talk | 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 no encyclopedic content here, just worked problems. No references are given. Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. RDBury (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a place for how-tos. Kubek15 write/sign 17:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually all those methods are already on their respective pages. *sigh* WP:NOTHOWTO WP:CFORK--Savonneux (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and simplify, as there is already a Methods of computing square roots page with a (short) example. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Methods of computing square roots has a bunch of algorithms that are historically significant without their own pages. This page is just Newton's method and Shifting nth root algorithm for finding both of which apply to nth roots not just cubics. [Ed. I was referring to 'digit by digit' section here, author later copy pasted it from the other article.] --Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point, Savonneux. If we keep the article, I'm planning to reduce it to a redirect -> Shifting_nth_root_algorithm#Paper-and-pencil_nth_roots, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah that makes sense.--Savonneux (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Methods of computing square roots has a bunch of algorithms that are historically significant without their own pages. This page is just Newton's method and Shifting nth root algorithm for finding both of which apply to nth roots not just cubics. [Ed. I was referring to 'digit by digit' section here, author later copy pasted it from the other article.] --Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No encyclopedic content; WP:NOTHOWTO; individual methods already have their own articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Perhaps topic should be covered in general on nth root algorithm.—RJH (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to cube root and add anything new there. The article is encyclopedic as hell, to be sure, and I'm root-root-rooting for it, but we do have a policy here against "how to" articles (Quick how to-- Google "cube root(x)" -- it works. You're welcome.) And don't worry, Wikipedians-- this is about cube roots, not about Q*bert, the lovable little guy who hopped up and down those block-thingies (technical term "cubes"). Mandsford 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny to see that so many people said that wiki has policy against HOWTOs. But how can I imagine a page whose name is method of something COULD NOT contain howtos? And I am curious to know the Newton method is a kind of HOWTO's or not. Probably the height and weight of the name of Isaac Newton makes wikians not to dare to think the Newton method is not a HOWTOs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Author has blanked page. ialsoagree (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of locations in films based on Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons outlines with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series.
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.
We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material. J Greb (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The information shouldn't be bunched together like this. Each film has its own article for a reason. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the above statements made by J Greb and FuriousFreddy. Spidey104contribs 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Lists, categories and navigation templates are synergistic—the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. This is a useful and informative list and meets the guidelines for inclusion per WP:LIST. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of storylines adapted in films based on Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons outlines with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series.
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.
We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material. J Greb (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As with the other nomination, the information shouldn't be bunched together like this. Each film has its own article for a reason. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is mostly original research as most of the storylines that the article claims have been adapted to film are more of inspiration than adapted works. Spidey104contribs 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Lists, categories and navigation templates are synergistic—the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. This is a useful and informative list and meets the guidelines for inclusion per WP:LIST. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above comments. This articles is really just original research. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of objects used in films based on Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons outlines with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series.
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.
We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material. J Greb (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For reasons given in above AfDs, and for violating WP:IN-U. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the above statements made by J Greb and FuriousFreddy. Spidey104contribs 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Lists, categories and navigation templates are synergistic—the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. This is a useful and informative list and meets the guidelines for inclusion per WP:LIST. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Consensus has been to delete these sorts of lists. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons out lined with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe). This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:
- The lead is from S.H.I.E.L.D.#Television, Bullets 2, 3, and 4.
- Sally Blevins is from Skids (comics)#Television, full section.
- Carol Danvers is from Ms. Marvel#Television, 1at bullet.
- James Howlett is from Wolverine in other media#Marvel Animated universe, full section.
- Gabe Jones is from Gabe Jones#Television, 1st bullet.
- Jamie Madrox is from Jamie Madrox#Television, 1st bullet.
- Richard and Mary Parker is from Richard and Mary Parker#Television, 1st paragraph.
- Jennifer Walters is from She-Hulk#Television, bullets 3 and 4.
- Sam Wilson is from Falcon (comics)#Television, 1st bullet.
- Sharon Carter is from Sharon Carter#Television, 1st bullet.
- Dum Dum Dugan is from Dum Dum Dugan#Television, 1st bullet.
- Nick Fury is from Nick Fury#Television, bullets 1 through 4.
- Norman Osborn is from Green Goblin in other media#Spider-Man: The Animated Series, full section.
- Tony Stark is from Iron Man in other media#Marvel animated universe, full section.
- Advanced Idea Mechanics is from Advanced Idea Mechanics#Television, 2nd bullet.
- HYDRA is from HYDRA#Television, 1st bullet.
- MODOK is from MODOK#Television, 1st bullet.
- Red Skull is from Red Skull#Animation, bullets 4 and 5.
- Silver Samuari is from Silver Samurai#Television, 1st bullet.
- Scorpio is from Scorpio (comics)#Television, 1st bullet.
- Zodiac is from Zodiac (comics)#In other media, full section.
It is worth noting that a number of the copied sections lack any indication that the character or characters appeared as a part of or in conection to SHIELD. Worse, a number of the "agents" weren't even agents in the comics until well after the last animated episode aired.
This, as as with the listed AfD examples and Superman (DC animated universe), is part of a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with J Greb delete as per nominator Dwanyewest (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as composite of information (rightfully) elsewhere. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Lists, categories and navigation templates are synergistic—the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. This is a useful and informative list and meets the guidelines for inclusion per WP:LIST. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Superman (DC animated universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons out lined with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe). This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:
- The lead is minimalist material from the lead of Superman: The Animated Series, the cast list there and for the cast for the later 3 shows.
- Basic overview is from Alternate versions of Superman#Film and television, 9th bullet split into 2 paragraphs.
- Clark Kent is from Clark Kent#Animated series, 2nd paragraph.
- Origin of Superman is from Origin of Superman#Superman: The Animated Series, both paragraphs.
- Powers and abilities of Superman is from Powers and abilities of Superman#DC Animated Universe, all 5 paragraphs.
- Kryptonite is from Kryptonite#DC Animated Universe, all 3 paragraphs.
This, as as with the listed AfD examples and S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe), is part of a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant regurgitation of elements from main Superman article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Give me a break. If Superman isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article then what fictional character is? There are differences between the animated universe and the comic book universe, enough so to support a separate article. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a content fork. Superman is notable, but Superman's notability has no bearing on why this article should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Women's Post (edit | talk | 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 nom: Page was restored as a contested speedy deletion, deleted because "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))". Nominator is neutral. –xenotalk 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at this point. The references in the article (especially this), have significant coverage of the publication, and a Google News search returns about 15 results that mention it. Probably enough to satisfy the general notability guideline -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Related to Sarah Thomson (politician) which is also up for Afd. RJ (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I like the references 1 and 4 which do not relate at all to the founder's political aspirations. Unless someone knows better of the circulation and readership, these numbers suggest notability. The article is clear, concise, well-cited and neutral. RJ (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RJ. There are articles which cover the magazine specifically.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam article created by the campaign team of the editor in order to boost her mayoral candidacy, article describes a generic magazine without any explanation of its significance. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, totally agree with Guy, magazine of minimal notability. Merge any content with the CEO. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of feel the opposite way. Merge the CEO content to this article and delete her. If she is notable as a publisher, then does not her publication have to be notable? And even if she is not notable as a publisher, is not it posible that the publication could be notable (i.e. you probably do not know the publisher of Sports Illustrated but know of the magazine). But if the publication is not notable, she definately is not as a publisher. RJ (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, regardless of who started the article there are sufficient independent, verifiable and notable sources to pass muster. Article has been rewritten since it was created so if Guy's concern is NPOV that has been addressed. Guy fails to point to any specific instances of bias in the article. Be in Nepean (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just not a notable publication, if it was not created by someone with a conflict of interest it would not have been created, minor publication on no note, delete or merge with the CEO. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're speculating on whether or not it would have been created independently. With a print run of about 60,000 and increased visibility in recent months I suspect it would have been created. Speculation either way is a mug's game - a decision should be based on the article's content and its sources, not on who created it. If one judges based on the latter there's nothing to stop deletions from being based on petty vindictiveness or a desire to punish people for being egotistical (and if that were the standard we'd have no articles on politicians, celebrities or media:) We have many articles on periodicals with a much lower circulation than Women's Post. Be in Nepean (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just not a notable publication, if it was not created by someone with a conflict of interest it would not have been created, minor publication on no note, delete or merge with the CEO. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mention by a few reliable sources shows notability. A lack of content means the article needs expansion, not deletion. Torchiest talk/contribs 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree the article should be deleted. Is a non-significant mag with a very small circulation (basically just a small percentage of the Toronto area only) and the article seems to only exist because of her campaign. Remember, "reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". - Josette (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't forget about this. The article clearly meets the notability guideline, considering that it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The comments made above about the article being a campaign promotion would only hold water if the sources were from information directly related to the campaign. Two of them are, yes, but the others and the one I just gave are not, so the promotion argument doesn't stand. Thus, the subject of the article is notable and should be kept. SilverserenC 03:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, you found a “source”. That doesn't mean it is significant or notable enough or that there is a good enough reason for an article here. Are you saying that everything (anything?) that is mentioned in a secondary source is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia? Please say it isn't so. - Josette (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple secondary sources, the ones in the article already and this one. Multiple secondary sources is what is necessary to show notability and the information has to be non-trivial. Three of the sources are dedicated almost entirely to discussion about the magazine, which shows its notability. SilverserenC 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point still stands. - Josette (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets the notability requirements. If you think those should be stricter than they currently are, then you should start a proposal over at the Village Pump to do so or on the Notability talk page. You have yet to say how the article fails the current notability guideline as it is. SilverserenC 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it clear enough in my 'deletion' summary. But I'll repeat it - straight from WP:GNG - "reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". (I'm sorry we don't agree.) - Josette (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets the notability requirements. If you think those should be stricter than they currently are, then you should start a proposal over at the Village Pump to do so or on the Notability talk page. You have yet to say how the article fails the current notability guideline as it is. SilverserenC 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point still stands. - Josette (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Houman Haghighi (edit | talk | 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 largely promotional article doesn't cite any independent sources to establish notability, and a search did not turn up anything besides passing mentions, and a business name registration. Fails to meet either WP:Notability or WP:Notability (people). --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Haghighi appears to have extensive coverage in non-reliable sources (blogs, social networking sites etc.), but the only thing I can find that might constitute coverage in a reliable source is this, which can only be viewed in full by subscription. The summary of that source does not suggest it would contain anything that might indicate notability, and I can't find any other sources that might. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 have decided against a redirect, following the precedent of the previous similar AfDs cited, and because in this particular case confusion with the aircraft would make a redirect less useful. Anyone interested is likely to be able to find the BUAFL article. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lancaster Bombers (edit | talk | 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 team taking part in what is essentially a niche sport in Britain. Previous AfDs (including all of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea Titans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Blades (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEA Pirates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NTU Renegades) have all resulted in delete, and I can't find any reliable sources to grant this notability (a Google search may bring up a large number of results, but a lot of those are for a WWII plane). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per all the others. Arguments there apply equally to this team, for which there do not appear to be reliable sources available. As elsewhere, even in major sports it is an unusual university team in the UK that meets our notability guidelines: this team is not an exception to the general rule that UK university sports teams are not notable. Pfainuk talk 13:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to BUAFL, and probably add a passing mention in Lancaster University#Sport. There does not appear to be any coverage that might satisfy the general notability guideline, but a redirect is preferable to deletion here since a reader will still find relevant information at the BUAFL page. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Not a professional team, and a long way from the highest level of amateur sport. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per arguments made in numerous other Afds. Sports teams at UK universities rarely have a following in their own institution never mind in the "real world". This team does not appear to be an exception. Completely unreferenced, no doubt because google turns up nothing other than sites directly linked to the team and its rivals. If you are unsure as to the notability go to the gallery on the team's own website, and count the number in the "crowd". Pit-yacker (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but how is it not preferable to redirect the article to BUAFL instead of deleting it? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone searching for Lancaster Bombers, I would suggest, is far more likely to be looking for the Avro Lancaster (commonly known as the Lancaster Bomber) than anything to do with American Football. So, BUAFL would not be the primary redirect target.
- I'd add that I rather feel that the BUAFL itself very probably fails our notability criteria. If it is deleted, obviously, the question of redirecting or deleting this page is moot. Pfainuk talk 17:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but how is it not preferable to redirect the article to BUAFL instead of deleting it? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite aside from whether BUAFL is itself notable, I have to confess to not personally being a fan of such redirects. I personally think it should be obvious why you have ended up at an article. If you know nothing about Lancaster Bombers (and lets face it, unless you are involved with BUAFL, you probably wont), there is a good chance that a user may be left wondering why they got to the page BUAFL (especially if they meant to search for Lancaster Bomber). If Lancaster Bombers is deleted, BUAFL should still be returned in a search result (as long as it isn't deleted). However, it will also leave room for other articles to be suggested by the search engine such as perhaps Lancaster University or Lancaster Bomber. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a good point about the Avro Lancaster, but (leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether the BUAFL is notable), I would still see it as beneficial for this to point an individual in the right direction. Ideally they wouldn't have to use an external search engine to find content regarding this team. How would you feel about a disambiguation page instead, is that a reasonable compromise? We could also place
{{about}}
somewhere appropriate. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a good point about the Avro Lancaster, but (leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether the BUAFL is notable), I would still see it as beneficial for this to point an individual in the right direction. Ideally they wouldn't have to use an external search engine to find content regarding this team. How would you feel about a disambiguation page instead, is that a reasonable compromise? We could also place
- Delete no sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 6: The 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)
PROD contesed by IP. While I am somewhat reluctant to nominate this for AfD since the reason for contesting was that it was participate in the NYTF (New York Theater Festival), this NYTF doesn't seem to be notable and I couldn't find any sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This show was a finalist in NYMF 2010. It is not speculation, nor original research. For the above reasons, I believe deletion wouldn't be the appropriate method of action to take. Thanks, TheUberCoolest (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC). — TheUberCoolest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I was puzzled because the article can't even seem to decide what festival it was a "finalist" for - the NYTF or the NYMF. I think they probably meant this, an organization which chooses 30 - THIRTY - new musicals to put on every year. I couldn't find any evidence that this one was a "finalist," but in any case it appears it didn't make the cut. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the references? I couldn't find anything reliable, mainly false positives. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simple matter is that there is almost no coverage (from what I could find), certainly nothing significant. Rehevkor ✉ 14:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Musical which "has yet to be performed" and will premiere at a high school. Sounds like a student production. Unlikely to ever become notable, even after it actually exists, which it does not at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Southampton Stags (edit | talk | 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. University sports teams in the UK are rarely notable even within their own institution. This is not an exception. American Football in the UK is of niche interest. Article is unreferenced. Probably, partly because a search for references returns nothing other than websites directly linked to the team or its rivals (oh and piles of sites advertising Stag nights in Southampton. Pit-yacker (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Southampton_Stags_staff and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Southampton_Stags_roster Pit-yacker (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom and as per other British university American football teams, this one does not appear to be an exception to the rule that British university sports teams are not generally notable. Pfainuk talk 10:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no reason to make an exception for this subject at this time. Perhaps in the future should more independent sources arise, this would be a better candidate. Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With a few exceptions, British uni sports teams are non-notable. This isn't one of those. (And as an aside, my friend Olivia has been going to Lancaster Uni since October and she didn't know until Thursday that they had an American football team.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pdfTeX. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hàn Thế Thành (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biographical article that lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. The only semi-independent source is tug.org. See also the AfDs for Taco Hoekwater and Hans Hagen, based on the same source. Pcap ping 08:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability because the unreliable sources are insufficient. The subject's thesis does not establish notability because it is not a third-party source. This interview is better; however, it is insufficient because the TeX Users Group has dubious reliability and because it consists largely of the subject talking about himself. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a question. Google books returns around 10 results (books about TeX written by independent authors, though it's still just books about TeX ...) mentioning his name, though admittedly none of them talks about his biography, they all just give him the credit for writing pdfTeX. Do any of those books make any difference or none at all? --Mojca Miklavec (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We also credit him in the article on pdfTeX, in line with those sources. Pcap ping 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK this makes sense; I have no trouble with the deletion. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to pdfTeX per WP:BIO1E. pdfTeX itself is notable, but if the only noteworthy thing we can say about him is that he wrote it, then we shouldn't have a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- USBCrypt (edit | talk | 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 software. No independent sources given. Web search produced only the publisher's own sites and download sites selling the software. (Note: The article was created by a user with a name matching that of the publisher of this software.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No reliable sources found to confirm notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not seeing how this is notable. Lacks coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Same here. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:N. There's nothing in the article that indicates notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Emily Taheny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. The only reference is to an IMDb page which gives a cast list which includes her name, and that is all. A Google search produces Facebook, taheny.com, Wikipedia, www.fanmail.biz, MySpace, a download site offerering an mp3, etc, but very little that can be considered significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well instead of deleting this article help me make it bigger instead of making me do it all. GuineaPigWarrior 17:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He stated that he was unable to find much significant coverage, which is required to support any article - why would he help an article that he feels should be deleted anyway? I was unable to find anything to support either, so delete. Rehevkor ✉ 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a question of making the article bigger, it is a question of showing that the subject of the article is notable. I suggest reading Wikipedia's general notability guideline and guideline on notability of people to see what is needed. 79.123.78.215 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actress & award-winning-comedian's carreer appears to meet WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," as she has indeed had significant roles in multiple notable television shows, and stage performances, even if notable "only" in Australia. Unknown in the United States is no cause for deletion, as she and her notable shows appear to be notable in Austrailia... and notable in Australia is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The most convincing reason to keep is the part of the filmography which says Comedy Inc. (95 episodes, 2003-2007) (TV) Dream Focus 09:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:ENT. -Reconsider! 12:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets notability requirements for entertainers. SnottyWong talk 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 05:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Acoupstix (edit | talk | 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 rapper lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Should have been speedy, but CSD was removed by SPA. ttonyb (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article shouldn't be deleted. Person exists, information needs citations but seems non-biased. Article is written in third person and complies with wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac1318 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- to add according to WP:Music artist is notable if they are the leader in a certain scene or city.... ive never heard of any other rappers out of the st. petersburg area.... has a small cult following as well on youtube with fellow "internet rappers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac1318 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have read WP:MUSIC and unfortunately I didn't see anything about a leader in a scene or city being notable. Besides that, I couldn't find any independent coverage. Just because someone exists doesn't mean it should have an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Narutolovehinata5. GregorB (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:MUSIC and i quote "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" he's prominent in his scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.46.194 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quite a claim there. Would be easy to back it up with reliable sources and significant coverage. No? Oh well. Rehevkor ✉ 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yeah well just because he isnt huge doesnt mean he isnt significant.... all im saying is i googled his name and he has followers.... i didnt write the article but i think its valid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.46.194 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hes significant enough to get 1,000 hits in one day..... i dont see the point in deleting a true article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.46.194 (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – #1 - 1,000 hits/day is minor. #2 - Web hits is not a criteria in WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Not really, all it means is that he has that many hits. It does not say why they went to the page or if it was a robot vs. a real person. Like I said, 1000 hits/days is not very much. No one is doubting that he is a real musician, only that he meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rodolfo B. Valentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet qualifications for notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He was the mayor for four years of Marinka City, which has about the same population of Las Vegas, Cleveland, or New Orleans. Nobody would suggest removing articles for the mayors of those cities; to delete this would just be American-centric. The article could use some more sources, but I think it's fair to say this meets criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN.—Chowbok ☠ 05:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. Former Mayor of a city of a half million people. Most sources would be in Tagalog, but there's no reason to believe there are not many out there. See the table of past mayors at Marikina City#Government; people seem to be working to create these bios in reverse chronological order. Jack Merridew 05:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 05:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 05:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Wasn't able to find much coverage on this gentleman, but I imagine the potential is there. Can anyone dig up some sources on this? Notability is claimed but there's no coverage to back it up sourced in the article. Rehevkor ✉ 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm presuming automatic notability as a politician. Sometimes I just don't understand our guidelines (including the ones that don't seem to exist, like the non-existent one that says a pissant low power radio station is automatically notable if it has an FCC licence). In this case, his role was clearly more 'notable' than that of a member of an American state legislature. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per snowball. Even I have heard of this guy and I live in the UK! Not presumed notability for politicians though as suggested above: that would make all our minor backbenchers notable as well as all the Lords. And all the MEPs. And MSPs. And... --Jubilee♫clipman 12:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Men in Black II. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Men in Black III-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. Explicitly fails WP:NFF ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles")-- principal photography hasn't commenced, and by the article author's admission, "there's no plot yet." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Men in Black II?. Seems to be partial a copy paste of what's already there. I imagine there's some coverage for this, but enough to support an article? I'd normally suggest a merge to the series article, which is.. in need of improvement, it's little more than a list which the navbox does a better job of. Rehevkor ✉ 14:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging any content not already present in MIB2's sequel section is of course fine with me. My only issue is with having a full article devoted to this, given its WP:NFF violation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Men in Black II. Fails WP:NFF. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 05:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Death Metal (Possessed demo) (edit | talk | 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 demo. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons listed at AfD #2, which ended in delete. For something as influential as this is supposed to be, it seems strange that it is apparently impossible to source anything about it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage, no go. I am believed to be the source of death metal too. Not a speedy? Rehevkor ✉ 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign of Terror (demo) for another demo by same band. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- about the above... The page linked by DMacks above is about an album by an entirely different band. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Information - I'm bored with the whole question of whether demos are notable. But for this particular debate, the article's claim of influence is legitimate, as Possessed is indeed widely acknowledged in the field as one of the founders of the notable genre of death metal. That is a matter of fairly well-supported discussion in the book Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, for example. Add to this the mistaken link by DMacks above, and it's evident that even though specialized knowledge is not always necessary for an AfD debate, you shouldn't declare something illegitimate just because you've never heard of it. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As noted in the other discussion, DMacks mistake with the link comes shortly after blocking a sock who was trying to "protect" the articles by repeatedly removing the AfD note and such. As also discussed, no specialized knowledge of anything is needed to note that the article did not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Where you came up with the idea that it was up for deletion because some have never heard of it is immaterial. "Widely aknowledge in the field" is meaningless unless and until we have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While claiming that I misread the comments of others, you misread mine too. DMacks said, "for another demo by same band" which is just plain incorrect and I pointed it out as such. Also I was not voting so you don't have to tell me what's immaterial. That book I linked is a possible reliable and verifiable source if I was voting. And it is relevant to bring up the "because you've never heard of it" critique, at least to Rehevkor in the second vote above, who passed off a flip comment that has nothing to do with sources. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DMacks was not taking part in the debate, he was only giving a courtesy notification, does that require him to be an expert? I did enough of a search (and found no significant coverage) to support my "flip" comment. What I have seen, via my own search and info brought up at the past AfDs is just passing trivial and references to the album; very few details on it's development. Even if it is the source of "death metal" (which is debatable), I don't see enough information to develop it beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉ 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I was only coming in via vandal-tracking, and mis-read some link-names. However, we as editors are essentially commandanded not to trust each others' word about notability. Verifibility means says that claims of notability must be supported by independent reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DMacks was not taking part in the debate, he was only giving a courtesy notification, does that require him to be an expert? I did enough of a search (and found no significant coverage) to support my "flip" comment. What I have seen, via my own search and info brought up at the past AfDs is just passing trivial and references to the album; very few details on it's development. Even if it is the source of "death metal" (which is debatable), I don't see enough information to develop it beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉ 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This should have been a speedy delete, no need for an AfD. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Having trudged through "Sound of the Beast..." (mentioned above), I cannot seem to find this album. I find a brief, passing mention that Possessed had a song called "Death Metal" (as an early use of the term), but nothing to provide any content for this article and its claims to significance. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeesh, move on. DMacks has been defended for a "courtesy notification" and good for him. I also gave a "courtesy notification" to note that his was incorrect. Do I get credit for courtesy? Oh who the hell cares. I have not voted in this debate, and I have not said that the demo in question is notable, so there is no need to (over-)react to my comments as if I did. I was simply offering more information that might be useful for anyone else who wants to participate in this debate, especially if someone comes along who happens to know a little more about the field. Those folks might not be so humorless and didactic. No further comment. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sunset Bike Jumps (Lakewood, Co.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally a prod, removed by article creator. Non-notable park. No indication this park meets the minimum requirements to have an article about it, as explained at Wikipedia:Notability. Jayron32 03:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly not notable, just like virtually all local parks. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anything verifiable to Oldest military veterans and List of last living war veterans. As pointed out repeatedly here, this is redundant when those two articles exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of verified oldest military veterans (edit | talk | 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 thought about it for a while after this deletion discussion and finally decided to nominate this page and Oldest military veterans, although I figured that they were different enough to warrant separate deletion debates. My reason for deletion is essentially the same as "List of oldest military veterans who died in XXXX": it's really just a collection of original research. There are three big problems as I see it.
- There's no definition of "oldest". This is the obvious problem because there's no set criteria for inclusion.
- The above problem could easily be rectified, say, by making the cutoff point 100 or 105 or whatever, but then the question remains, why is any one numerical definition of "oldest" any less arbitrary than another? What makes a veteran who died at the age of 100 any different than one who died at 99 or 95? It's a trivial intersection no matter what number you pick.
- Although it claims to list the "oldest military veterans", it really lists the "oldest military veterans that we could find". It cites no foundtation and is merely a collection of random news articles about old military people, most of whom are from World War I. Obviously Wikipedia is a work in progress and a complete list would be probably be impossible, but these selections have obviously been chosen from within a small frame of reference.
Furthermore, we're only talking about "verified" veterans here, but what about them is "verified"? Is it their age? No, because there's nobody that validates people under the age of 110. Is their military service? Well okay, maybe, but if that's the case, where are the people from the non-"Western" nations and born prior to the 1800s? Is one person from Turkey the entirey of non-American, non-European "oldest military veterans"? Again, I acknowledge that it will always be an incomplete list, but it simply shows that this list has no strong base.
So to summarize: the list a) is original research b) has no defined set of inclusion criteria and c) any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary and/or trivial. Canadian Paul 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i can find no flaws in canadianpauls argument above. i voted delete on the related afd mentioned above. The most generous position i could take is to userfy (along with the related article up for afd now) and completely rewrite them to define it as military veteran centenarians, living or deceased, verified only, limited to people with articles only. its really a trivial intersection, the only argument that it could be rescued would be that centenarians usually are notable for that fact alone, and will obviously have their military history mentioned in news articles about them, but the two are still not directly linked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Canadian Paul's argument above says it all really. To be "useful", there would need to be such a precise intersection (as Mercurywoodrose points out), and I can't see any way in which this would be found suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the topic is notable, it's totally unsourced. I don't subscribe to the "click on the blue link if you want to know the source" school of thought. I can find all sorts of flaws with parts (b) and (c) of the nominator's argument but part (a)-- that this is OR unless it's sourced-- is reasonable. My suggestion to User:Anthony Winward is to take this to his user page, since he has evidently put in a good deal of work on it, and then to add footnotes to the info about the person's military service. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree with the points Canadian Paul made and the subsequent points made by Mercurywoodrose & Phantomsteve: I doubt if it can be refashioned into an article suitable for inclusion. Jarkeld (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Newspapers (and nations, for that matter) have long given significant coverage to the oldest and last survivors of wars. This Associated Press article discusses the age at death of the last veteran of 6 American wars before World War 1, and gives the number of survivors of each subsequent war: [32]. If the topic is notable to newspapers, the military and congress, and the governments of other nations, the fact that some Wikipedia editor does not see it worthy of an article or does not like it is irrelevant. They get ostentatious honors on birthdays and anniversaries of significant battles or war ends. Their impending death receives significant coverage [33]. They get funeral honors more typical of noted generals. "Verified" is important because many people have falsely made claims to be such honored old veterans. The last survivors of the American Civil War died in the late 1950's and received widespread and extensive coverage, and were noted by the Army and by Congress, as well as newspapers.More recently, it is WW1 whose last survivors are noted. Reliable sources are clearly available, and no original research is needed. There are usually some disputes over who is truly the "last survivor" or what his actual age was, since modern birth certificates did not always exist in the 19th century and before. We do not delete articles because they are incomplete, so the absence of old Turkish soldiers from the article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Edison (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my first reaction, but List of last living war veterans already exists. What's the point of articles that organize them by age? They aren't primarily notable just for being old. As it stands this article basically duplicates the articles on World War I veterans, with the addition of a few World War II veterans who aren't that notable (since there's an awful lot of younger veterans who are still alive). 140.247.241.57 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Oldest military veterans, where it's already partially duplicated. I agree with Edison; they're clearly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Oldest military veterans. Age sets them apart as notable because many are last survivors of earlier conflicts. Canals86966 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Oldest military veterans has also been nominated for deletion, so there may be nothing to merge to. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indiscriminate, unsourced OR, and highly anachronistic besides (current German and Russian flags for men who served under the Nazis and Romanovs, respectively; claim that there was a Turkish, rather than Ottoman, army in WWI, etc.) Heather (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In line with other lists of "oldest" and "oldest living" this list can coexist with the "oldest living" list. The entrys has to have a reliable source, thus the lack of non western and pre 1800 entrys. As more non westeners get computers and learn to speak english, more non western entrys for inclusion (with references) will come, I'm sure Hepcat65 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly valid and useful list that meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists. Kugao (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to appropriate target. There are at least two listed above. This subject largely duplicates either of them --Jayron32 03:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep simply because the logic behind the nomination is faulty. Cutoff point complaint is basically a variation of the paradox of the heap; were it valid, we would not have a single list of superlatives. Same with the complaint about incompleteness; were it valid, we would not have a single incomplete list. GregorB (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep to Oldest military veterans, notice I said merge or keep instead of delete. Longevitydude (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. This article may require cleanup, but it would not be fair to delete it for that reason.76.17.118.157 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Edison. Clearly notable and sources clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Ma'am, That's Not History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject is not sufficiently notable for its own article and has been tagged since November 2009. The article concerns an obscure pamphlet rebutting a book, that is already discussed in the article about the book itself. COGDEN 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hugh Nibley, the author. As there are incoming links and it's discussed in a few articles it shouldn't be deleted outright.--Cúchullain t/c 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this attention also suggest that the article may even be expanded? __meco (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The very few incoming links to this article are pretty trivial. Though the pamphlet has been cited in passing in a few academic works focusing on the much more notable book by Fawn Brodie, in my view the pamphlet doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NBOOK. I'm not aware of any non-trivial discussion of this pamphlet that is directed to a general audience, or that contains "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The only thing ever really said about the pamphlet is that it is a 62-page acerbic criticism of Brodie's book by a prominent Mormon apologist, and I don't think that's enough information to really support a Wikipedia article. COGDEN 18:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this attention also suggest that the article may even be expanded? __meco (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be merged, and this article does not seem to meet notability requirements. – jaksmata 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But since there are incoming links, a redirect to the author is simpler.--Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see opinions to delete as consistent with changing to a redirect, unless somebody specifically says "delete with no redirect". There's a question of which article it would redirect to, though. I have no problem with changing it to a redirect, but would it be to Hugh Nibley or No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith? I would probably slightly favor the latter, but Cuchullain, if you have a definite opinion in favor of the Nibley article, I'll go along with that. COGDEN 18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either target would be fine in my opinion. It seems more natural to me to redirect to the author, but given that it was written in direct response to No Man Knows My History, that would be fine too.--Cúchullain t/c 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see opinions to delete as consistent with changing to a redirect, unless somebody specifically says "delete with no redirect". There's a question of which article it would redirect to, though. I have no problem with changing it to a redirect, but would it be to Hugh Nibley or No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith? I would probably slightly favor the latter, but Cuchullain, if you have a definite opinion in favor of the Nibley article, I'll go along with that. COGDEN 18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to make things "simple", nor am I voting consistent with changing to a redirect - my opinion is that this article should be deleted, and that incoming links should be changed to non-linked text. If I meant "redirect", I would have said so. If a link is needed to something, it should directly mention the author (of the book or the booklet). Besides, there aren't that many links - I'll volunteer to do the cleanup myself if the article gets deleted. BTW, I think the redirect No Ma'am, That's Not History should be deleted too. – jaksmata 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm down with either decision, personally. For the benefit of Cuchullain, let me just note that even if we delete the redirects as well, there will still be a link to Hugh Nibley near the vicinity of the original No Ma'am, That's Not History link, and Jaksmata is right, there really are not very many of these. I guess the question is, if we can't come to a consensus between these two options, what do we do? Nobody has yet expressed the view that the article should remain as-is. COGDEN 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete over-detailed--it gets at most a line or a footnote in the article on the work being criticized. There are probably a few dozen book reviews in all of literary history at most which are individually notable, and this is very far from being one of them. the article on Brodie, btw, needs some attention to NPOV--it is too judgmental--see in particular the lede's note on her bio of Nixon. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable pamphlet criticizing another book. Could be redirected to the author, Nibley - in whose article it currently has a sentence which seems like all it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Incubate. It (a) clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, but equally (b) will exist and be notable at some point. Article is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Teenage Dream. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:38, 23 May 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}} . |
Someone cut-and-pasted Katy Perry's 2010 album to Teenage Dream. I obeyed a history-merge request to repair this, and the page is now at Teenage Dream. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Katy Perry's 2010 album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Classic application of WP:HAMMER. No title, no confirmed release date, no tracklist: just a rumor-infested gabfest from unreliable sources. —Kww(talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting: It's got a title now (and the closing admin should note that it is now at Teenage Dream), but that still isn't enough to justify an article. There's no meat to this thing, and everything that really belongs in an article can still fit nicely at Katy Perry. Paragraphs like "On April 27, 2010 Perry posted a message on twitter stating that she was shooting the cover for the album's first single and stating that "There couldn't be more color". She subsequently posted a photo from the shoot that showed only her pink and black polka-inspired finger nails. On April 28, 2010 Perry stated that she filmed the music video for the first single. On April 30, 2010 Perry stated on twitter that it's the last day of recording the album and thanked Greg Wells, one of the producers. On May 5, 2010, Perry shot the album cover." are of no value in any article."—Kww(talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's a new project so we don't have too many information. But the album has even produced a single and we got the first properties, so we will get more information soon. I don't find a reason for this album-article should be deleted because in a couple weeks we will have to create it again.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the album almost certainly will be notable, it's not yet notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No tracklisting or release date means that this fails Wp:CRYSTAL. The lack of a name means it fails Wp:HAMMER as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Wikipedia has a longstanding rule that we don't write articles about forthcoming albums until, at the very least, their exact title, exact track listing and exact release date have all been announced by the artist and/or their record label in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources are reliable in every way, most of them speaks to the singer herself. How Twitter can not be a reliable source that sends messages to the singer herself in it, and talking about the new album? In that world the Wikipedia editors came to rely on themselves or cited in the pages of the same?!*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter is (a) not independent, (b) not easily consulted six months from now when somebody needs to double check what the reference actually said, (c) not particularly secure from being hacked by a troublemaker, (d) not a publication with a reliable long-term history of fact checking, error correcting and general accuracy. To name just the four reasons that are sitting right on the top of my head as to why Twitter doesn't count as a reliable source for the purposes of an encyclopedia. For a Katy Perry fan forum, sure, but not in an encyclopedia that's trying to be a serious and reliable publication of record. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not bad, it's not like it doesn't have several reliable sources. Candyo32 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, it most certainly is lacking reliable sources (Twitter? Seriously?) And secondly, it is lacking any of the three requirements for a Wikipedia article about an album: confirmed title, confirmed release date, confirmed track listing. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see that you know nothing of editing on Wikipedia. Okay that title, date and tracklisting are not confirmed yet, but neither the album's tracklisting Bionic of Christina Aguilera has been confirmed yet ... There's already fall the first three requisites that you said. Please fix arguments to support their theses, or else keep quiet not to mention stupid.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the track list for Bionic is yet to be known, there is a substantial amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about its background, recording, production, and style. It is an appropriate exception—this would not be, since what verifiable information is known about Perry's next album can be covered in her own article for now. Cliff smith talk 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003 and know far more about editing here than you do. And I'd suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, too. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see that you know nothing of editing on Wikipedia. Okay that title, date and tracklisting are not confirmed yet, but neither the album's tracklisting Bionic of Christina Aguilera has been confirmed yet ... There's already fall the first three requisites that you said. Please fix arguments to support their theses, or else keep quiet not to mention stupid.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - after looking at the cites (there's a lot of duplication), a clear case of WP:HAMMER.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate. Not enough verifiable information for an article yet. More details are likely to emerge as its release approaches, so put it somewhere out of article space where it can be worked on.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Redirect the album to the person who recorded the album which is Katy Perry. Please do it that will be great. Mr.Slinks (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is not yet enough verifiable information about this album for a separate article. It should be covered in the artist's article until more is known. Cliff smith talk 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect or Delete not enough information for stand alone article, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 04:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep as Title and release date have been reveled, seems to pass WP:HAMMER now. ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Incubate No title. As for the fact that it has produced a single, that's what the single article is for. As of now, the album just isn't set enough for an article. Perhaps the incubation is a good idea; there is a very high possiblity the album will be notable. But just in case...yeah. Adam 94 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Now has a confirmed title and the article is longer than those for a lot of released albums. IMO, passes WP:GNG. However, please incubate this detailed article instead of deleting if the result is not keep. Also WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a requirement. AnemoneProjectors 00:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its HAMMER TIME STAT- Verse 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoever submitted this to AFD is pretty nitpicky. This article will just need to be recreated in a month if it is deleted. I think everyone can admit to that. I know this is more out of the principle of the matter than anything else, but is this really a valuable use of everyone's time? -DMurphy (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't care if it'll be reliable next month, I don't care if it'll be reliable tomorrow. As of now, there are no reliable sources and there is no reason to keep this article. Kansan (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate/Delete/Merge. Right now it's WP:CRYSTAL, and future releases are rarely notable. I strongly suspect that once it's released it will become notable: if/when that happens it can be recreated (with decent references - Twitter? I mean, really! C'mon!)
TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep The album has a title and an official release date now and if it does get deleted it will be re-created some after. Why are we wasting our time with this. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:CRYSTAL. Kansan (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate Album is not notable right now. Article can be improved, but outside article name space. When album becomes notable, then can be restored.--SveroH (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:HAMMER is a useful guideline, but it's not policy, and I think it doesn't apply here. The album has a name and release date, and at least a limited amount of verifiable information, if not yet a tracklist. I think it's sufficiently notable for our purposes; if not, I'd suggest merging into Katy Perry rather than deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Katy Perry. A lot of this information will be trivial and outdated when concrete, reliable information comes in (I'm referring to the various songwriters and producers she's worked with, because if their songs don't make it on the album, then it becomes a sidenote at best); to be honest, some of this already seems trivial (she almost worked with some people?). Also, I know that Twitter can be used as a primary source if absolutely necessary, but I'm wary on including pages that use it as a main source for the article.... I did find the actual MTV News Canada report, though. SKS (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep we got the album's name and the release date now. It's a matter of time for the tracklist to come out.--HC 5555 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Duplicate[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - With about 20 contributors this shouldn't have been relisted. See WP:RELIST. In any case, merge as there isn't enough for a separate article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of relisting is that it's permissible if there are either too few contributors, or the discussion lacks arguments based on policy. No comment on whether the latter is the case here; merely that the number of contributors isn't the sole reason for relisting. TFOWRpropaganda 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true but whether the discussion lacks arguments based on policy should be decided by an admin in lieu of the admin being able to close the debate.--Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea why you are hiding your conversation with small text. I nominated this, so I can't close the debate, but a relist was reasonable because of the title being announced. Many of the early !votes were at least in part based on the absence of title, and it's reasonable for an admin to make sure that the consensus has not changed.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they were replying to me, and I was whispering... Oh, and I agree with you re: the relist: the !voters that invoked WP:HAMMER should have the opportunity to revise their !votes. TFOWRpropaganda 20:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea why you are hiding your conversation with small text. I nominated this, so I can't close the debate, but a relist was reasonable because of the title being announced. Many of the early !votes were at least in part based on the absence of title, and it's reasonable for an admin to make sure that the consensus has not changed.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. WP:HAMMER really applies here. Claritas (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add again when the tracklisting and the release date will be confirmed ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep release date and titled confirmed on her official website, so I will remove the tag, and if you would like to re-add it for anyreason feel free to do so. (Alexshunn (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- so I will remove the tag... Please don't. Don't remove the tag until this deletion discussion is closed. TFOWRpropaganda 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. Can be created once concrete information comes and not crystal like thing that "Perry is expected to do this and that" --Legolas (talk2me) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it obviously!!! Title and release are confirmed, it's a full fledged article!! 207.210.129.9 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is fairly well-sourced, release date and title are confirmed. I would like to see more track information listed, but I don't see any reason to kill this article at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.204.193 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Typical premature article. Yeah, there are resources but no tracks, no cover; redirect for the time being. Ga Be 19 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or redirect to California Gurls). Article will become more notable when more information is available. Article will require its own page soon if the result of this discussion is "Redirect/Merge". However, copying and pasting was wrong. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 17:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article does sport some reliable sources now, but as mentioned it does seem to effectively be the same as Centurion (game) and should probably be merged into some sort of article about endurance drinking games. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Power hour (edit | talk | 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 unsourced article on a drinking "game" which consists entirely of a how-to. If that can be fixed you then have to overcome the fact that at least one person asserts that they are the owner of the term Power Hour and that our description of it infringes his intellectual property rights. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete take your pick of the following: a)possible copyright infringementb) no references or indication of notability c) it's essentially your standard WP:MADEUP article, but with a pretty template and informative-sounding terms such as "or an equivalent of 90 fl. oz." This should have been deleted a long time ago. ALI nom nom 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, the copyright infringement thing is probably not an issue. They complain that our having a Wikipedia article of it is copyright infringement? There's not a good legal precedent for that. ALI nom nom 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) A description of something does not violate trademark rights. This article is older than that guy's company. Its notability is arguable, but the trademark infringement claim may make it more notable.mcornelius (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How the heck do you come to that conclusion? ALI nom nom 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To a conclusion on which point? That trademark protection doesn't entitle someone to exclusion from public comment or that controversy can make something more notable?
- Others have already commented on this point, too, and I think we generally concur.
- The article on controversy begins "Controversy is a state of prolonged dispute or debate…" I would think it obvious. Although, I'm not claiming that it would make it significantly more notable. Just subtly more so.
- I don't think most of the drinking games mentioned here are really notable, but if they're on here, and considered sufficiently notable, then this should be, too. mcornelius (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, allow me to make a link dump for references: Apparent official site, collegetips.org article, UrbanDictionary, a lot of download sites and apps. In fact, I can find very few sources that aren't music downloads. In my opinion, these sources put its notability on the fence. What do you all think? ALI nom nom 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the term is often used for things other than the drinking game but that's a case for disambiguation, not deletion.mcornelius (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's a 2005 NY Times article on a regional version of power hour which basically sounds like the tradition of doing 21 shots on one's 21st birthday but with a 60-minute time limit. This version and the 60-shots-of-beer-per-minute version are mentioned in this English slang dictionary. A Google Book search and a Google Scholar search for "power hour drinking" came back with a couple other possibly usable hits. Perhaps a rewrite is in order. Cliff smith talk 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep that isn't how trademark works. We don't delete articles on the request of the trademark holder under any circumstances other than an invokation of WP:OFFICE. Brandon (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The drinking game is notable. Power Hour LLC is not very notable, but it only takes a little section of the article anyway. Grue 06:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Grue. Oreo Priest talk 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article (minus the LLC bit) is substantially a recreation of a previous article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power hour (drinking game) for lack of sources. This version of the article still has no reliable sources about the drinking game. Shimeru (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No WP:Reliable sources cited and none found on a search. The trademark issue is irrelevant; this game simply doesn't pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Power Hour is at least as notable as all of the other drinking games listed on Wikipedia and has been written about in the NY Times. Bandergrove talk 7:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The topic is a drinking game. The game has at least one reliable source NY Times 2005, possibly others. There's a likely NN company that's made a trademark case on the name, not a substantive enough issue to change whatever happens at AFD. A previous AFD was pretty much the same, and was deleted for "describing the game not why it's significant" and for insufficient sourcing to show notability. I can see two options - redirect to List of drinking games (if it doesnt need or merit a stand-alone article), or if there are more sources and a clear case it's a well known game, then keep. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although happy to have it move to under another name, as the "Hundred Club" (as we more commonly know it as) is quite popular (with variants, such as doing two or three times as many in a row). Mathmo Talk 11:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per prod - original research for instructions on a game which fails basic notability inclusion guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Power Hour is notorious as a cause of alcohol poisoning deaths. See article refs. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article has been worked on since the nomination and now there are eight references: 1. An article in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which is obviously a WP:RS, but the article only mentions "Power hour" in passing. 2. An article in The Collegian, a college newspaper. Also mentions the term fairly briefly but does include a definition of it - I'm not sure it is a WP:RS, but probably. 3. A feature on Minnesota Public Radio's website; this qualifies both as coverage of the term and as a reliable source, in my opinion. 4. Article in New York Times which definitely qualifies as a reference for the term. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are about the trademark dispute, and 7 & 8 are extremely questionable as sources (and are unnecessarily repeated in the article itself). References 3 and 4 together are probably sufficient to keep the article, but at the moment there is too much emphasis on a couple of non-notable websites, refs 7 and 8 (but that's easy enough to fix.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changing my !vote to Redirect and merge to Centurion (game). These two games are essentially the same. The relevant and notable part of the Power Hour article is the health risks, which can easily be included in the Centurion article with its sources. The trademark dispute is not covered in any reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This drinking game is well known in a few countries in the world. --Zarutian (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Susan M. Gaines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BASIC that states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". See for example: San Francisco Chronicle[34], "Molecules, Mud, Moon Rocks, and Microbes" in BioScience, September 2009 / Vol. 59 No. 8., the ref sections in the two books she has published: Carbon_Dreams and Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. Nsaa (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of your links, the first is about the book, not the person. So is the second. There are no sources for the person William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the policy requires that the person be the subject of reliably sourced material. This does not seem to be the case for any of the sources you cite. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I see the sources used adheres to the policy I quoted above. Let's quote "Gaines, who has degrees in chemistry and oceanography,"[35], Talking about her first and second book (i.e. talk about her authorship, not the book(s)): "In her first book, Carbon Dreams (2001), Susan Gaines combined fact and fiction […] In her second book, Echoes of Life, with coauthors Geoffrey Eglinton and Jürgen Rullkötter"[36] Nsaa (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are passing mentions, not in-depth coverage of her. Pcap ping 08:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. She has no notability outside of the book, so there's no need for a stand alone article about her. Yilloslime TC 19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has been nominated twice for the Pushcart Prize this alone is notable. Her papers on the EU have been cited extensivly even by the German Law Journal, which i believe also prove notability mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really? The Pushcart Prize nomination page says: Little magazine and small book press editors (print or online) may make up to six nominations from their year’s publications.[37] Small literary magazines may only publish 2-4 times a year.[38] That means that an editor could nominate 2-3 entries per issue. Making it into their anthology might be evidence of notability (and note, it's an anthology, not a single award) but simply being nominated does not appear to be. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - some evidence of notability as a writer spanning the "two cultures" gap. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:AUTHOR, subject's work has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". ACS Astrobiology, Chemistry World Astrobiology Society Bioscience. Hopefully it is obvious that these are non-trivial, highly-reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AUTHOR says no such thing. Book reviews are insufficient for a biography. The work needs to be significant, according to reliable sources, of course. Pcap ping 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- * WP:AUTHOR says exactly this, as one of the indicators of notability: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I would ask you to strike your claim that it says "no such thing". Furthermore the significance of the work is attested to by it being reviewed in Bioscience, Chemistry World etc. Thparkth (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 03:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete failing all criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your above comments, wp:author says The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Her novel Carbon Dreams has been described as a new type of genre. it also says The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work which her novel Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History is. She defiantly passes wp:author mark nutley (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I had never heard of Susan Gaines prior to this AfD, I still don't know much about her, and I have never edited the article. I think that there is some misunderstanding on the delete "side" about WP:AUTHOR. As "additional criteria" under WP:BIO, a person is "generally notable" if they meet any of the specific criteria for persons of their type. Since Susan Gaines is an author, she is presumed to be notable if she meets any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. It is arguable that she meets several of the WP:AUTHOR criteria, but it is certain that she has "created... a significant or well-known work, or body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In a recent discussion on the WP:AUTHOR guideline, no one was able to provide an example of an article about the author of a notable book being deleted on notability grounds. It very clearly and explicitly is the intention of WP:AUTHOR to extend the notability of a notable book to its author. Anyone who believes that this article should be deleted on notability grounds has the responsibility to show why Susan Gaines is not notable despite being the author of a notable book, which otherwise would be presumed to make her notable per guidelines. Thparkth (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per past outcomes, and Thparkth's analysis of WP:AUTHOR criteria. Gaines is therefore, notable. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guenter Rieger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former mayor of a small township in British Columbia. Ironically, the only coverage I can find is of his failed mayoral bid. Notability (people) states that mayors "are likely" to have significant coverage, and meet the general notability guideline. I have not been able to find that coverage, though. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of sources = not notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Simmons (cocktail) (edit | talk | 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 such a drink exist? I can't find any confirmation via Google. The article has WP:RS problems. Joal Beal (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it dose exist Diet Cherry Coke, just as roy rogers is for regular cherry coke.(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmacumba (talk • contribs) — Drmacumba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Roy Rogers cocktail seems to have been made up just by some one. because under the Roy Rogers (cocktail) has no real origin at least no real good reason to be called Roy Rogers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmacumba (talk • contribs) 02:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Drmacumba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
just Google Roy Rogers cocktail and found Roy Rogers recipe A delicious recipe for Roy Rogers, with ginger ale, lemon-lime soda and grenadine syrup. Also lists similar drink recipes. www.drinksmixer.com/drink8476.html - Cached - Similar. so is the Roy Rogers on Wikipedia the real one or is the recipe i just put up right one. also i am not trying to sound so harsh. just want to make sure i get a fare case —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmacumba (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Drmacumba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete More commonly, a mix of "diet coke and grenadine syrup" is called a "Dolce & Gabbana", which is the name of a creator of luxury fashions. [39]. There are almost no hits for a "Richard Simmons cocktail". Mandsford 12:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with a diet cola being called "Richard Simmons" the man is a guru of dieting so why not give him a soda pop, its not like Roy rogers asked to have a soda named after him. one of the great things about something like this is this is how we make stories and tales, if we don't have that the delete johnny apple seed, Paul Bunyan, robin hood from our history. because all we are talking about is hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1johnD (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — 1johnD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
there also was a man who tried to delete history because he believed they had no purpose and tried to say they weren't human and should not be classified human. eh i might be a little over the top, but just dont understand people and what is the right way of saying it, maybe where the guy is from they call it richard simmons may be Mandsford should had made "Dolce & Gabbana", so what is needed then is a list of names for Diet Cherry Cokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1johnD (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — 1johnD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. No sources apart from Facebook; fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails love that, sorry that i am not 7337. Coke diet, coke, cherry coke, diet cheery coke too bad its not miss leading it says what it makes "A Richard Simmons is a non-alcoholic mixed drink made with diet cola and grenadine syrup, garnished with a maraschino cherry. It is similar to another non-alcoholic beverage, the Roy Rogers or Shirley Temple" and yes 1johnd here in santa ana , ca we call it a richard simmons. "some people called it a kisor blade I call it a sling blade" -Billy Bob Thornton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmacumba (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its Homophobic Bullying ... so what these people are saying, call it something other than some one who is gay. so i guess this is more about gay bashing can we say lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1johnD (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — 1johnD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Nah, Richard Simmons is a great guy and is beloved by gay and straight alike. He just isn't the name of a drink. As I understand it, the Dolce & Gabbana evolved from it being called a "D C and G". Mandsford 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unconfirmed that it even exists. Could not find any sources on Google except this article - plus mentions at two other Google articles which sound like they were written by the same user as this one. If anything, a "Richard Simmons" cocktail should involve cranberry juice since he is a public spokesperson for Ocean Spray. Plenty of Google hits about that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Brendan's Sixth Form College. While this AFD, per clear consensus, is closed as a merge, I have made the (completely reversible) editorial decision that the content already there is all that is needed, effectively making this a redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- St. Brendan's LGBT (edit | talk | 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 student group. The article makes claims that are not confirmed via Google searching, creating WP:RS problems. Joal Beal (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added references to article, it is a leading and ground breaking society in Further Education liberation, if that is 'Non-notable', delete half the wiki... - Abedecian ~ Talk to me and you get cake! 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a jargon term as used on Wikipedia, with a meaning not identical to the usual one. LadyofShalott 00:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main St Brendan's article. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As above. TbhotchTalk C. 03:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into school article, and remove claims of being the first LGBT group in a Roman Catholic school. ... discospinster talk 03:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete. Fails WP:CLUB. On a sidenote those unsourced assertions are huge, it's only a year old, GU has had one since 1988. --Savonneux (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators: I'd like to request that this article be given a few days grace while the creator works on finding sources from local media outlets to show notability. Just no snowing, please? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Even if sources are found, it belongs in the main school article as perhaps three sentences. tedder (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main school article, where most (all?) of it already is anyway. LadyofShalott 00:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not merge per WP:N and WP:RS concerns. There is already so much info on this group in the school's article that it creates significant undue weight problems there. No need to exacerbate those issues by inserting additional material in a merge. Heather (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - Abedecian ~ Talk to me and you get cake! 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rita Genet (edit | talk | 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 promotional biography of a non-notable artist--I think it's a recreation, but I can't see that with my limited powers. Only one newspaper article or other reliable source mentions here: this article from the Asheville newspaper. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about a very notable artist--Ms. Genet seems to be a person of interest wherever she goes. She has a notable enough reputation to have her name fall between Princess Margaret and Graham Davis, in a listing of regular patrons (a list that includes such notable persons as Meg Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Keith Richards and the Rolling Stones, Michael Bolton, Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, and Prime Ministers and Ambassadors), who frequent a famous little eatery, Evita's in Ocho Rios, Jamaica.
- This article about the American-born artist, Rita Genet IS a first-time presence on Wikipedia, and was created in response to requests by fans to learn more about this fine American-born artist who lived and painted for so many years in Jamaica. As described in the July 2009 issue of WNC Magazine, Rita Genet is a fascinating character, with fans all over the world. Wikipedia is a resource that everyone would think to use in finding information about an artist with the grand style of Rita Genet. So, in an effort to provide the many worldwide fans of Rita Genet a place to read about (find), and possibly add and/or contribute to her bio. This article serves as a most valuable resource. There have been numerous news articles written about the career of Rita Genet, however, because of the vast number of years spanning her career, many of these news articles pre-date the World Wide Web, and are not readily available to the average Internet user (a simple search won't produce them without having to pay for an archive service). I believe that this particular article is and will continue to be of service to the readers/users of Wikipedia! JV Sterling 08:15, 11 May 2010 — JV Sterling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - There's at least a listing for the UNICEF here. [40]. The article has at least a reference. There are many external links that don't provide any verification of anything so I am removing those. To JV Sterling: Being on a guest list is not a reliable source and not a sign of notability. Clubmarx (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Another potential source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank You Volunteers. I appreciate your input. This is my first article, and I do have a passion for getting it right! I welcome your assistance. I have found newspaper articles (thru NewspaperArchives.com) that support this biography, and I have saved them as .pdf's. Is there a way to link them to this article? Thank you again. JV Sterling —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
— JV Sterling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, I'm sure she is a fine artist, but she is not yet notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. The only source listed which qualifies as "reliable" is the Asheville Citizen-Times - and that is nothing substantive, just a one-paragraph calendar item about an exhibition. There appears to be no coverage of this artist in reliable sources, or significant reviews of her work, as required for WP:Artist. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You appear not to have addressed the source that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I saw it. I was unable to evaluate it since I am not familiar with Caribbean Today. I had hoped (since her work was mostly pre-internet) to find something about her under Google Books, if she was really notable, but I found nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Let's get some biographical detail into the biography though. This is the sort of article that should elicit a crinkling of the nose and a getting on with life. Will this article be helpful for future art historians? Maybe. Somebody put the work into it, it's more or less written to style, the subject is more or less "worthy" of inclusion, it's not an ad... Maybe it gets better over time... Carrite (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Coverage does not appear to be significant. --PinkBull 17:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baylor_Bears_baseball. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2005 Baylor Bears baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One season of a college baseball team (for which there are no other season articles). They didn't win a championship, and I see no reason this particular season is notable enough to merit a page, even if sources could be found (which surely in terms of box scores, inconsequential sourcing is possible). Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and possibly redirect Baylor Bears baseball to Baylor_University#Athletics). Making it to the CWS semi-finals is something to be proud of, but doesn't automatically give notability for a single season.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Merge relevant info to Baylor Bears baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - college sports seasons are widely covered in articles on wikipedia. There isn't a valid reason for deletion given other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And as mentioned by one of the delete votes, significant sourcing can be readily available. Even beyond the general notability of college athletics, the team, as someone else mentioned, made it into the top 4 places of the College World Series. Explain to me why this shouldn't be treated the same way as, say, Category:2009–10 NCAA Division I men's basketball season should be? matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Baylor Bears baseball article isn't too comprehensive itself. Either way, the article should be called 2005 Baylor Bears baseball season, rather than team surely. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 08:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all the information in this season article could easily be incorporated into the team article, which could be expanded. No reason to have separate season article. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, college sports articles are routinely given full season articles to allow for more expanded coverage on a topic that gets significant media attention. While certainly the parent article can and should be expanded, it would be absurd to have the parent article focus so strongly on the 2005 season, merely one it's entire history. matt91486 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't completely true, a number of sports projects actively delete college sports season article. Also this is a what about x argument. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. There's always a gray area between precedent and what about x. (Which is why AfDs usually get absurd, since all of the guidelines are contradictory anyway). But the bigger issue is that there was never a valid reason for deletion. People voting delete have admitted that there is sourcing. And the reason from the nominator was nothing more than personal preference. matt91486 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't completely true, a number of sports projects actively delete college sports season article. Also this is a what about x argument. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, college sports articles are routinely given full season articles to allow for more expanded coverage on a topic that gets significant media attention. While certainly the parent article can and should be expanded, it would be absurd to have the parent article focus so strongly on the 2005 season, merely one it's entire history. matt91486 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge. I agree that there's no valid reason for deletion here as there unquestionably is sourcing to verify information about the team, and the team itself is notable. Even if the (entirely reasonable) editorial decision were made to cover this at the team article 1. that wouldn't require deletion, and 2. could still leave a useful redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gentleman's Club Comedy Improv (edit | talk | 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 did a Google search of "Gentleman's Club Comedy"+Arizona and could not find more than trivial mention in any third party sources. The reviews on the subject's web site are from Yelp, so they are also difficult to verify. As such, the subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Jminthorne (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No outside coverage found at all - just myspace and facebook type stuff, plus bare listings of time-and-place in calendar-of-events listings. (Plus of course this Wikipedia page.) The troupe is only a year old, maybe it will become notable later, but for now it has not been recognized by reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this comedy show. Joe Chill (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus in this discussion is to keep, and the specific provisions of WP:WEB apply. It is fair to say that this article's only showing of notability for purposes of inclusion is the award, but that award has been affirmed as notable in an recent AFD discussion that addressed the derivative notability argument raised here. So, while editors are free to seek a changed consensus, the consensus to keep here is firmly within policy as in currently stands. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack (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)
All of the sources are either primary or unreliable. Among the few secondary sources are:
- An article on Comixtalk, which has been deemed not to be a RS in the past.
- A directory listing for a webcomic award of questionable notability.
- Someone else's webcomic.
- Someone else's webcomic.
- A listing of an RPG based on the webcomic.
- A "404 not found" from Crush Yiff Destroy, which is a niche anti-furry website and definitely not a RS.
- This review hosted on a personal website.
- Another directory listing from a non-notable awards website.
Furthermore, there is very little to save this one. Not one of the secondary sources meets the criterion of non-trivial, third-party coverage, and I was unable to find anything in a search. Simply being published in book form does not translate into notability for a webcomic, nor does winning a webcomic award of dubious notability itself. tl;dr: There is absolutely no way that this meets the general notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also listing the author's article:
- David Hopkins (comic artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. If any reliable sources can be found (I tried, but couldn't find any), then merge the two into a single article. If no reliable sources can be found, then delete both, until sources are written. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete both. No reliable sources, no major awards, nothing. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jack, merge David Hopkins. I think deleting this would be a mistake. If you read the article, it's a good summary of its topic - a comic which has been around for nine years, was nominated for awards ten times (once winning), and has continuing popularity. The primary sources are used to back up factual statements about the comic and its characters. I would love for there to be more and better secondary sources (I would cut down the quote from CYD - if nothing else, it's excessively long). Still, their use in the article is restricted to the "Reception" section, and they do not mislead the reader. GreenReaper (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me how it meets WP:N? Simply being around a long time ≠ notability. The alexa ratings mean nothing, neither does winning an award of tenuous notability itself. Primary sources are not enough to carry a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I believe the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards count. Not only has this comic won once (beating out Fans!, It's Walky! and Megatokyo), it was nominated for the award in several categories over a four-year period. Its author was the guest of honor for Conifur Northwest 2005 (one of the larger furry cons of its time) thanks to this work. It was recently nominated - again - for an Ursa Major Award. GreenReaper (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Greenreaper. Winning a WCCA satisfies criteria two of WP:WEB (this has been established previously), so the comic is notable. Dragoneer (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this is an award winning and controversal webcomic of some considerable note. ISD (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean to tell me that it wins just because it got some cheapo award that's apparently doled out like free samples at Costco; it otherwise fails WP:N but let's keep it JUST FOR THE AWARD?!?! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N (web) is specific: meeting only one criteria is necessary, and "[winning] a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization (or "being nominated for such an award in multiple years") is one of these. Jack has met this standard for both the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and the Ursa Major Awards. You are welcome to argue the well-knownness or independence of the awards concerned, but dismissing them with hyperbole is not a convincing argument. GreenReaper (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean to tell me that it wins just because it got some cheapo award that's apparently doled out like free samples at Costco; it otherwise fails WP:N but let's keep it JUST FOR THE AWARD?!?! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As a long-time webcomic and furry fan, I can say these awards are not even well known to the small subcultures of hardcore fandom who might potentially be interested in them. I never hear anyone talk about these supposedly "well known" awards, outside of a few people on Wikipedia talking about how we should keep some unreliably-sourced article based on how very important they imagine these awards are. If winning one of these were such a huge achievement, then we'd have some significant coverage in reliable sources. But we don't. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under another name, perhaps? You don't seem to have accounts at any of the popular furry sites . . . GreenReaper (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not exactly sure which way to go on this one. On the one hand it is pretty clear that the subject has not received significant coverage by reliable sources - the editors who believe the article should be kept do not even try to argue that such sources exist. Arguments based on popularity or page views are generally not highly valued and in any case articles on comics with traffic which is many times that of this comic have deleted or removed when no reliable sources exist (examples: 1, 2, 3). Several source which can not really be considered reliable are currently used in the article and information based on them should be removed, this would lead to most - if not all - of the reception section being excised. The discussion then essentially comes down to whether the award (and nominations) are enough to form the viable basis of an encyclopaedia article. It is clear that the award won is notable, after an initial deletion was overturned the article on them has been kept at three successive AfDs, one recent. As mentioned above WP:WEB states that notability is established if "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It used to be taken that this standard incorporated any notable awards. More recently this view seems to be changing, at this discussion a consensus was found to delete despite the award in question here being won - the debate included "delete" comments from at least one individual who thought the article on the awards should be kept at the recent Afd. Of course consensus can change and there are no binding precedents on Wikipedia so all this might be moot. I generally view comics which have received awards (or in this case nominations) over a period of years as more likely to be notable than those which have a one off - flash in the pan - good year. The lack of reliable sources though is a real issue, above someone describes the comic as controversial but none of that controversy should be discussed in the article without sources to back it up. On balance I think it is questionable whether there is enough verifiable information available to create something which is a true encyclopaedia article rather than a simple description of "the nature, appearance... [and] services a website offers". Guest9999 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- René Berthiaume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minimally sourced bio of a businessman and political figure of strictly local notability. This was originally prodded in February, but the creator came back after the original deletion to contest; article was restored and the creator was given guidance as to how to improve the article to make a better case for notability, but he hasn't really done so. The only non-trivial source here is a county history book which is being cited, WP:COATRACK style, for information about a family ancestor of Mr. Berthiaume's; the only sources that are actually specific to him are his company's own web page (failing independence) and a generic election results table (failing significance). No evidence that he meets WP:POLITICIAN or even WP:GNG, and the article hasn't been touched except by me and Cydebot since March. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable as a businessperson or as a politician. He has never held office. His business is strictly local. BTW a good example of Melanie's Law: "Articles which refer to the subject by first name instead of last name almost always turn out to be non-notable." --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately, I must agree that since very few, if any, articles link to this one, it is not notable. Sorry :(WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dimple Shah (edit | talk | 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 actress, no outstanding roles Falcon8765 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of the roles listed on IMDB even have names, so these must be small roles. No verifiable coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A news search on the name generates a fair number of hits - but I didn't see any on the first page that were this person. David V Houston (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources provided. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vibert F. Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Candidate lacking in notability. No claim of notability in article (simply being a candidate does not mean automatic notability -- all he needed to do was file a statement of intent, open a bank account for his campaign, and pay a filing fee). Gnews search turns up only a passing mention of a poor performance in a 2006 local election. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally fails notability. He is one of seven or eight candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor, but hasn't a snowball's chance of getting the nomination. His only previous "fame" seems to be that he ran for mayor of Newark, California, a town of about 40,000 - and lost, 80% to 20%. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but he fails WP:Politician. No need to merge to California gubernatorial election, 2010 because his name is already there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I hadn't even thought to look at California gubernatorial election, 2010. (#brainfail) A redirect there would make some sense, but I can't see expanding him beyond the list entry there, given the massive lack of coverage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David V Houston (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samet Karta (edit | talk | 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 a fan of ski jumping, so i'm sorry but this fails WP:N by far. Samet has never even competed in Continental Cup and barely have any FIS cup points. He is young, maybe in 3-4 years he will be notable but for now. No. KzKrann (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Faik Yüksel (edit | talk | 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 a fan of ski jumping, so i'm sorry but this fails WP:N by far. Faik has never even competed in Continental Cup and barely have any FIS cup points. He is young, maybe in 3-4 years he will be notable but for now. No. KzKrann (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ...Baby One More Time. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deep in My Heart (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)
The article has nothing. It is almost empty, it has like four irrelevant lines, and it doesn't have references. The article must be deleted beacause of its irrelevance and beacuase it is unnecessary Fortunato luigi (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I must point out that no valid reason for deletion has been presented by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ...Baby One More Time. While "irrelevant" sounds a bit like you don't like it and unreferenced/"almost empty" are content issues and not reasons to delete, I can't find evidence it charted or otherwise passes WP:NSONG. liquidluck✽talk 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ...Baby One More Time, the parent album. It appears to fail WP:NSONGS, as I'm not finding any "significant coverage" for this song in independent reliable sources. Gongshow Talk 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walters-Storyk Design 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)
Issues here are not clear cut, so I'm bringing this to the collective wisdom of AfD. I came across this while working at WP:DEP, and the version I saw[41] smelled of copyvio. Turned out to be from the company website, posted by a company employee. I reverted the addition, but previous versions aren't a whole lot better. In researching to see if I could get a non-spammy article out of it, I'm getting a lot of press releases, but little else except passing mentions. The one thing that gives me pause is this article. Is it enough for notability? I lean towards no, but I could be convinced otherwise. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to your article from Billboard magazine, I was able to confirm the winning of four TEC awards, which I gather is the top award in the sound engineering industry, and I added the references to the article. I also cleaned it up a little, made it more coherent and deleted some puffery. I think the company makes it as notable. They have offices in five countries, and the repeated industry awards are significant. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per MelanieN, but I think the "services offered" sections should go if there are no sources for it. I'll followup on MelanieN's efforts later. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Riga Salsa Festival (edit | talk | 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. Claims of notability are not backed up with 3rd party reliable sources. Google news brings up zero hits on the title and Google web searches bring up primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
news resources that I found: [russian] [latvian] [latvian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauferb (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Salsa in Riga? Latvians on Mars? In June?! This unorthodox (pun) combination is definitely worth exploring! Userify for now, I hope that one month from now there will be some press coverage. East of Borschov (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few refs. Article needs expanded but this is no reason to delete. Valenciano (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jamat Mujahedeen Maroc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no reason to have an article on an organization whose speculative existence is so thinly supported. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This could probably be merged into Yunis Abdurrahman Shokuri, if there's anything that's not already there. -- Ϫ 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:N in my opinion as there are hardly any sources that mention it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Brotherhood Letter (edit | talk | 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 IQinn (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost all hits for this are for the Order of the Arrow, and there aren't that many even of those. It's not clear that any of the other uses refer to the same thing. No hits in GNews at all. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amy Stebbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nom - no claim to notability made. No sources. Previously speedied. Rklawton (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see any reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm confused about whether she is the same person as Amy Stebbins, an opera singer, who has some reliable sourcing [42] [43]. The subject of this article is described as a theater director and critic, and is still a student. No sourcing turns up for that job description. But the theater-director-critic is said to have produced Duett, and the opera singer "concocted" Duett, which apparently means she wrote it. That suggests they are one and the same. If this is all one person there might be some claim of notability to be made, but the article as it stands does not justify that claim. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jane Ann Wynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced biography of artist and teacher who fails WP:ARTIST and WP:PROF. Purpose likely promotional: appears to have been created by an associate (see friends list at [44]) and edited from IPs in the 128.231.88.xxx range by a person with a close connection, as well as by the subject herself from two different accounts, Idolatrieartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Janewynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Google hits, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, so fails WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of the motives of the creators, the artist appears notable. The article is not unreferenced, it's just referenced via external links instead of proper Wikipedia references; for example, she appeared on an episode of HGTV which certainly contributes to her notability. She is mentioned in a few books at Google Book search, and a GNews search turns up various references to her art and recommendations of her books, for example Seattle Times, San Diego Union Tribune. I'll see if I can do something about referencing the article properly. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I appreciate your rescue efforts, but a single appearance on a cable specialty channel and a couple of ephemeral mentions in the paper don't, in my opinion, add up to "significant coverage". As well, the external links you refer to aren't independent references. Prior to the article links you added, the only independent reference in the article was to a Baltimore Sun (in which the subject is briefly profiled as a scooter enthusiast, not an artist) and a link to heartsart.com which doesn't meet WP:RS. I had seen the articles you added prior to nominating the article for deletion, but to my mind they fall far short of satisfying the General notability guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Brief book listings in newspapers don't qualify per the guidelines. Pcap ping 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There isn't much evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG — I don't think the brief listings of her books in "gift suggestion" columns counts as the sort of nontrivial review of her work that would make them notable, and the listing of her exhibits seems to be mainly or entirely minor local galleries. There's even less evidence for WP:PROF. And the length of the article is far beyond what its meager sources can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on past AfD discussions, local artists don't hack it. To be notable, an artist must first pass WP:GNG and then WP:ARTIST. If there is any confusion, we generally keep artists who have exhibited in major art centers, such as Taos and Santa Fe, New Mexico, San Francisco, California, Nantucket, Massachusetts, Manhattan, or Florence, Italy. I see no such indication here. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage. The sources provide little or no information regarding her except for proving her existance. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herb Ruby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Played minor league baseball for one season, following a mediocre college baseball career. He enlisted in the military, and it is sourced, but that doesn't make him notable. The only things that might make him notable is coaching a high school basketball team to a state title and a local paper giving an award in his name, but I'd still vote delete. What do you vote? Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are minor league players not notable? Brian Knight Bishop (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They have to prove notability under the regular system of extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Major League Baseball players are inherently notable under WP:ATHLETE. "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." (quoting from WP:NSPORT#Baseball which sums up the general interpretation by Wikipedia's baseball fans on how to apply inherent notability). Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question he's not notable for minor leage baseball for sure... but he did complete 50 successful bombing missions over Europe in World War II. He may be notable for that... I don't know much about that, but 50 sounds like a lot from what little I do know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IIRC, 50 bombing runs was the 'standard', so if you were on a bomber crew bombing Europe you either did the number of runs or got killed/invalided out. David V Houston (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The American Pageant (edit | talk | 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:NBOOK. It's definitely used as a textbook (I used a version of this book in 1998), but the book itself is not widely used as the subject of teaching, nor does it seem to pass the other notability criteria for books. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Houghton Mifflin's (and before that Little Brown & Co.'s) American history textbook, editions of this have been used by generations of students, starting in 1956, and it passes WP:GNG. How children are indoctrinated about their nation's history is, needless to say, something that gets praised and criticized by educators [45]. It's not an exaggeration to say that millions of Americans have been instructed from The American Pageant. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- kEEP Agreed it does seem to be a widely used (if second rate) text book.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- a book (even if poor) that reaches a 12th edition has surely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I studied from this book 14 years ago (not sure which edition, but before the third author came onboard). It's the only textbook I ever truly enjoyed reading. The authors wrote beautiful prose with a sharp sense of humor (why oh why don't more text authors do this??), and it made the story come alive. If the current edition still does this, it would be nice to see it on the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acfmajor (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I was about to punch "keep" on this but I couldn't help but notice that the nominator's concerns were not really addressed. Does it or does it not meet WP:NBOOKS? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even under the book-hating standards of the silly WP:NBOOKS guideline, this passes, having been the subject of another book The American Pageant Revisited. Too bad it wasn't a TV show.... Mandsford 12:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it still rank as notably as you intend when we consider that this was not a third party writing the book, but rather the original book's author? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:NBOOKS is silly. The lack of guidelines pertaining to such things as how long a book has been in print, how many editions it has been through, how many copies have been sold, etc. is dimwitted. However, within the section for academic books, there is the caveat that "the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick", and one of the factors looked at as an alternative is "whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions". More importantly is the admonition that "Again, common sense should prevail." Ultimately, the reason we have lots of articles about sports and athletes, and few articles about books and professors, is because of the attitude of their fans. Sports fans are assertive. Book fans are wimps. Sports fans take action and talk their way into forgiveness if they get caught. Book fans meekly ask for permission. Sports fans say things like "I'm gonna write about the 2010 Mud Cats baseball season, whaddaya gonna do about it?". Book fans ask things like, "This book has been published regularly since 1956 and it's in its 12th edition... uh, would it be okay if I wrote an article about it? Please?" It easily meets general notability guidelines. I'm glad that the article's author went ahead and wrote the article without worrying about what his or her peers might think. Mandsford 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other reason we have more articles about sports than about books is our need for WP:reliable sources. Sports gets huge coverage every day in newspapers, television, and other easy-to-find-on-the-internet sources, so there are a ton of sources for even the most minor sports figure. But books? If your local paper ran an entire separate book section every night, and your local TV station aired a regular nightly report from its Books Reporter, then we could hold books to the same criteria we use for sports. I agree with you - expecting to find heavy sourcing for any book is just silly. Any hope of modifying this standard to reflect reality a little better? --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:NBOOKS is silly. The lack of guidelines pertaining to such things as how long a book has been in print, how many editions it has been through, how many copies have been sold, etc. is dimwitted. However, within the section for academic books, there is the caveat that "the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick", and one of the factors looked at as an alternative is "whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions". More importantly is the admonition that "Again, common sense should prevail." Ultimately, the reason we have lots of articles about sports and athletes, and few articles about books and professors, is because of the attitude of their fans. Sports fans are assertive. Book fans are wimps. Sports fans take action and talk their way into forgiveness if they get caught. Book fans meekly ask for permission. Sports fans say things like "I'm gonna write about the 2010 Mud Cats baseball season, whaddaya gonna do about it?". Book fans ask things like, "This book has been published regularly since 1956 and it's in its 12th edition... uh, would it be okay if I wrote an article about it? Please?" It easily meets general notability guidelines. I'm glad that the article's author went ahead and wrote the article without worrying about what his or her peers might think. Mandsford 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it still rank as notably as you intend when we consider that this was not a third party writing the book, but rather the original book's author? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even under the book-hating standards of the silly WP:NBOOKS guideline, this passes, having been the subject of another book The American Pageant Revisited. Too bad it wasn't a TV show.... Mandsford 12:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mandsford has made a good find. LadyofShalott 15:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep What Mandsford said. Plus, how many MILLIONS of schoolchildren have read this book? Far more than ever read most "New York Times bestsellsers". Plus, an example of the sincerest form of flattery: AP notes for this book. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The great entertainment (edit | talk | 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 presentation of movies on a local TV station in Boston. Google research does not confirm any notability. Joal Beal (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The show ran for 18 years and was presented by a local celebrity, Frank Avruch, who was entered into the Massachusetts Broadcasters hall of fame, based in part for this show and his performance of Bozo the Clown from 1959-1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batlash2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Move The show "The Great Entertainment" does not appear to be notable and in fact rates only a bare mention in Frank Avruch's listing in the Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame. However, the host Frank Avruch appears to be notable and does not have a Wikipedia article. I would suggest moving this article to Frank Avruch (leaving a redirect) and rewriting it to focus on the host, not the show. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable local television show. Fails WP:N in that it has no significant coverage in any reliable sources. Local love of the actor and his series does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Silverberg (edit | talk | 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 2007. No significant coverage of him as an individual found (mentions of him being the editor are available, and statements he's made in that capacity - but nothing about him. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely unreferenced, and seems unlikely the article will improve anytime soon. Violates WP:BLP. Pcap ping 08:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- George South (edit | talk | 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 2007. No reliable/significant coverage found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – A very well written article. It's not worth it deleting an already developed and very well written article. It just wastes the authors time put on the content. /Heymid (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue isn't whether it is wll written or not - the issue is whether reliable and independent sources can be found to verify the information in the article - and when I looked for some, I couldn't find any. Articles require references - and those that are biographies of living persons need so even more. Although I appreciate the work put into the article by the 29 editors (excluding bots) who have contributed to it, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is not whether an article is well written or whether authors have put time into it - but whether it can be shown that the subject meets the notability guidelines and that the facts in the article can be verified. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've found a few sources: chapter about him, newspaper article, some more articles behind a pay wall. Probably could work those into a small article, but I don't have any intention of re-writing it. Professional wrestling is not my cup o' tea. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE, as he competed regularly at the top level of his sport. Please note that I am familiar with Wikipedia policies and do not need the constant badgering that has been going on lately in wrestling biography deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GFC.--Curtis23's Usalions 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Titor. No showing of notability for the film, but the term exists in the Titor article, and is a plausible search term. I'm leaving the history intact. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timetravel 0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Movie without independent sources. All sources are either Twitter, IMDB, or an affiliated site. No evidence of notability of the film. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Am on it. Will see about sourcing and style and report back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and perhaps redirect to the article on John Titor... the purported subject of this docudrama, and where the film might merit a mention. Oh, I cleaned it up a bunch... and made it look pretty... but reliable sources toward notability are not available. If someone comes up with what I could not, I'll glady reconsider. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources identified show notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Ullrich (edit | talk | 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:MUSIC. His notability is entirely derived from the bands he is in. Claritas (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The Canadian music group has not really had a chance to establish his notability. The template {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} is missing from his discussion page. Argolin (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not debating the notability of his group, but of himself. He doesn't seem to be notable enough outside the bands he's in to warrant an independent article. Claritas (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said nothing of his group. The group I mention is the Canadian music group. In fact, if you go to this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Unreferenced BLPs Dave Ullrich is missing. He is missing from this unreferenced BLP page because the template {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} is missing from his discussion page. Argolin (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I misunderstood. I realise now that you mean WikiProject Canada. Claritas (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the confusion rests with me. Bantering about terms like the Canadian music group is too close to the Category:Canadian musical groups (and is what the Canadian banner template previously named us). I should have linked the Unreferenced BLPs to my first post in opposition to this deletion.
- With all that said:
Oppose.WikiProject Canadian music has signed up for the User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. The bot has only started reporting to the Canadian music project very recently (within weeks). The article is absent from Unreferenced BLPs.Oppose.Without the banner template {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} placed properly on the discussion/talk page, it dosen't exist as an article for the Canadian music project. See our page: stats. Argolin (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking second and third !votes by a single user to avoid confusion Heather (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Inbreds, everything worth keeping is already there (no sign of individual notability for Egger. duffbeerforme (talk)
- Keep – I've added multiple sources just now. Ullrich is a founding member of "one of the foremost bands emerging from the Canadian indie scene of the '90s" (says Allmusic), but in the 2000s has become more known as the founder of Zunior, to the point that articles such as this don't even mention his connection to the Inbreds when they interview him. He's been interviewed on national radio for his Zunior work. Articles such as the ones I added from Exclaim! and from the National Post are about him, not about the Inbreds. He's notable enough for a separate article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion was inadequate to judge a consensus; the article may be renominated when desired. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Team OneBeep (edit | talk | 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 guidance of ONEVENT. Any sourced information could be merged into Imagine Cup. Fæ (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page should stay as it is more about the IDEA of what these guys are doing then the competition.. Imagine cup aside the idea is SIMPLY - So simple but with immense POWER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.26.214 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2010
- Comment. Found this and this. Both independent and significant. However, I'm not sure if the article should stay or if the information should be merged into Imagine Cup. If kept the article should be trimmed down. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They were just finalists and the final competition hasn't happened yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paighan Digest Lahore (edit | talk | 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 the notability guidance. A search on Google News shows no matches for Paighan Digest (or Paigham Digest) and the article has no sources to substantiate the claim that this is a "famous" publication. The article has been marked for improvement for over 2 years so there is little reason to expect this to change in the near future. Fæ (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: lack of hits, lack of references. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V--Sodabottle (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DL.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Defunct podcast that lacks significant independent coverage. It's unlikely more will surface at this point. Pcap ping 00:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Joal Beal (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.