Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 26
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. Merge seems acceptable, and this probably rates a mention at the BOINC article. Shimeru (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoyo@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)
Completely unsourced, notability questionable. Immunize (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, look at other articles here in wikipedia Nano-Hive@Home. You'd have to delete most of those too. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge to Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. Nothing to indicate the software is independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Redirect or Merge sourced information to BOINC. Suggest that others like it be redirect/merged without bothering with an AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloshball (edit | talk | 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 drinking game. No reliable sources cited; everything is from a blog, from someone promoting the "sport" for business purposes, or another wiki. Nothing else from reliable sources indicates any sort of widespread recognition, as opposed to beer pong or cornhole. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unless reliable sources can be found. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep. Google gives a respectable number of hits. Yes, most of these hits are on blogs but the point is that they are lots of different blogs and they all use the term as though it was well-established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lots of different blogs" just means "lots of different unreliable sources." There's not a critical mass of blogs, wikis and such that suddenly renders them reliable. There has to be some truly reliable sources, and I couldn't find anything that qualifies in a Google search. BTW, an article on this subject was already deleted by AfD once; I have no way of looking at the old version, since I am not an admin, so I don't know if this is a re-creation of that or not. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google search confirms what Realkyhick is saying: no reliable sources with significant coverage. First Light (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game does have widespread play, you can google image search it or even youtube it. Furthermore, the images and videos can be found from across the country, more notably on the coasts. In reference to reliable sources, what exactly do you expect for a drinking game? a published manual? Its very clear that this game exists and is a cultural phenomenon, despite not being as popular as beer pong or cornhole. And don't primary sources, such as video and images count as reliable? These videos weren't faked.. also, I find validity in the fact that across websites the rules of the game are nearly identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.157.189 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You really need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your post could be used as a textbook example showing numerous arguments that really don't fly around here. Most importantly, no one is disputing that the game exists; what is under dispute is whether it is notable. We measure notability by third-party sources. "Number of YouTube videos" just doesn't cut it. Powers T 00:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Had been previously nominated with a result of "delete".RussianReversal (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still nothing that adds up to reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 21:10, 30 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 LaGrange, Georgia. Casting aside some WP:ILIKEIT, we have a single local source, which does not meet WP:N. But sure, mention it in the locality article, and if more sources turn up that actually talk about the place in any depth, we'll have the history and such. Shimeru (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LaGrange Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Absolutely fails WP:N. No secondary sources found that say anything more than "KB Toys closed here" or "The manager of the Chick Fil A here" -- nothing substantial AT ALL. Searches for both LaGrange Mall and West Georgia Commons turned up nothing. The singular secondary source is the only significant coverage I found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article has everything that it needs. It SHOULD NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenfan13 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: nom has gone to some trouble to check out the sources. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
This may possibly be nontrivial coverage in a reliable source.Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, it was for a different mall in Illinois. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "it is the only mall in its immediate region, which has a population of just over 250,000" thus I think it is notable, because it is a significant feature of the region. I will admit that on the hierachy of malls, it doesn't rank high. It appears to be located in an area where google news coverage isn't that great, so I suspect there are more sources which could be located to show notability that we just don't have easy access to. Plus, deletion would hurt the feelings of the Chick Fil A manager mentioned by the nominator.--Milowent (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden of proof's on you, chummer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I emailed the LaGrange Memorial Library and the LaGrange Daily News in the hopes of finding someone to help with sources. We'll see.--Milowent (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey this is a 2nd Afd! - I just noticed it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrange Mall, it was kept just in January 2010!. Apparently it was moved from Lagrange to LaGrange.--Milowent (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Minimal, purely local sourcing (one article in the LaGrange news). Otherwise all I can find is directories etc. BTW the previous AfD was a non-admin closure and was more of a "no consensus" rather than a consensus to delete. The closing non-administrator then went on to cite WP:Other stuff exists as a rationale to keep the page! --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - larger malls (this is over 200,000 square feet) with three major anchors - are usually kept. I also do not like so many second nominations, so soon. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Borderline case in my opinion but I think it should be kept if only because it passed the AFD a short time ago. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Existent sourcing is light but certainly there (local newspaper) There is no way that this didn't receive coverage when built in the local media. That we can't easily get to such coverage shouldn't prevent an article when primary sources exist. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into LaGrange, Georgia. Coverage may not be significant enough for a stand alone article.--PinkBull 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Love Addicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A PROD tag was removed without addressing the lack of reliable sources and, apparently, notability. From the similarity in names it is likely that the author and publisher are one, and thus self-publishing which attracts no notability. No evidence that anyone thinks this book is notable and I could find none. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has been earmarked by Wikipedia for deletion on the basis of notability. However, this writer would implore the editors of the proposed deletion to take into account the ethics of an online encyclopedia's responsibility to its users to gather and record as much valid information about the world at large as is humanly practical, and to thoroughly explore the potential for recording the achievements of small press and independent media that has elected not to be distributed through mainstream channels.
Certainly, we all enjoy using Wikipedia as a portal to a more thorough understanding of the world around us, but the tradeoff is if we conform to the patterns of censorship, we only succeed in propagating the status quo, by effectively leveraging out the softer voices of our digital society. As our digital universe continues its pattern of expansive growth, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to allow open accessibility to new ideas and information, particularly as a matter of record. Just because an idea, book, band, scientific hypothesis, or technology, has not yet gained significant notoriety or is branded as unpopular, it is the argument of this writer that this does not preclude a significant enough reason to censor the recording of its existence.
I believe it is also worth pointing out, that during its inception, the reputation of Wikipedia itself was laid suspect by harsh critics who pointed out flaws in its design and attempted to label it as untrustworthy. I would argue that at least what some of these critics ultimately wanted to accomplish was censor the sweeping changes of how people come to process information, and abolish the threats Wikipedia presented to the conglomerates and so-called established recorders of reference, which at the time possessed firm stranglehold monopolies on information gathering. It took years before college professors came to accept Wikipedia as a credible reference. Today, through its community of devoted users as well as public trust, Wikipedia has established itself not only as a viable source of reference, but also as an authority in research and academia.
At the very least, I please ask, with the most humblest of intentions, that a very similar opportunity be given to this article, this record, and this book, the chance to prove itself worthy of recognition, and the opportunity to attain the standard of notability over time. If you find the points of my argument to be invalid, or choose to go through with the article's deletion process, I please ask, with great humility, the administrators to consider this article for 'incubation', or to be entered into record as a 'sandbox' page.--Bernardrco (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other voices that have also weighed in on what constitutes 'notability': —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."[8]
Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."[9] David Segal commented in the Washington Post that "Wiki-worthiness has quietly become a new digital divide, separating those who think they are notable from those granted the imprimatur of notability by a horde of anonymous geeks."[11]
Another criticism is that "Wikipedia sees itself as a publication that relies on reputation that has already been produced ex ante: especially when it is based on consensual mass media judgment or—in the case of lesser known individuals—on different smaller, but mutually independent sources. Of course, this policy does not acknowledge that a Wikipedia entry may itself become a factor in reputation building: especially when the information that this entry exists is propagated by journalists and other potent 'multiplicators'".[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, all I hear is "blah blah blah tl;dr blah blah blah tl;dr." You wanna rephrase this more succinctly? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i checked google, and google books: no sources beyond us, facebook, myspace, and author/publisher website. one search turned up, unsurprisingly, another author credit for the book: bernard co. pure self promotion, any repeat of this behavior and above editor needs to be warned about their behavior. This is absolutely, positively, not notable at this time, and a waste of time to discuss beyond getting enough editors to review it impartially and state their views.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find reliable sources establishing notability. Also appears to be a conflict of interest. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWith much respect to the previous editors' dedication to the strict letter of the law with regards to the standards of quality and excellence Wikipedia is reputed for, I must respectfully and vehemently disagree. As Mercurywoodrose has, by her own admonition, already pointed out, The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage is easily found through the Google Search Engine, and already possesses a substantial following on Myspace and Facebook, ergo disproving Ms. Mercurywoodrose's proposed falling short of and meeting the notability requirement! Obliviously!
In response to Mr. Narthring's unfounded criticisms regarding a conflict of interest between myself and this article, I would like to offer the editors of Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales, and the Wikipedia community at large a FREE PROMOTIONAL copy of The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage, if nothing else, for the simple sake of putting to rest these unsubstantiated rumors of bias hurled against yours truly. If you are interested in said FREE copy, please respond to [email protected]. Then, for all our sakes, we can finally put to rest said criticisms, and come to a firm consensus on the veracity and validity of said article.
Look forward to hearing from you!--Bernardrco (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The aim of the Wikipedia is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. An editor trying to promote his or her product through an article is the very definition of conflict of interest and violates an article's neutral point of view. No hard feelings, but this isn't the place for advertising. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the notability requirement is not satisfied by MySpace and Facebook pages - they are not reliable sources. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very obvious COI, spam, not notable per WP:N. Why is this not a G11? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per 10lb's latest !vote.RussianReversal (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -The Bard
First of all, I'd like to thank all the editors who contributed to this discussion. Although I believe some contributed more valid criticism than others, certainly all are welcome to share their thoughts, a founding principle of the Wikipedia tradition and culture.
In response, and to protect the freedoms of all future article writers and their creations, I believe there is an inherent danger when the validity and legitimacy of Independent media is measured using mainstream applications, such as Amazon.com and GoogleBooks. I would liken using these as reliable gauges for notability to using a pair of binoculars to map out all known star systems in the Universe. To put it mildly, these websites as outlets for literature are extremely limited in scope, and I would also point out, have their own agendas 'to sell', which also presents a Conflict of Interest in regards to the actual validity of examined literature.
In regards to the issue of Conflict of Interest, I plead 'Nolo Contendere', or 'No Contest'. Yes, I Bernard R. Co did knowingly write said article although I am also the President of Savage Innovation Publishing, the Independent media outlet the author elected to publish his novel through. However, I did attempt to write this article with as objective a perspective as I was capable, not solely to promote the book, but primarily because I believe it IS worthy of being recorded for future reference, and for the reference of its readers. I do not believe any of the language I used was offensive or demeaning, or followed any established advertising model. The article as it stands now is completely composed of factual information, not narrated by opinionated statements. I understand one of the purposes of the standard of notability is to keep out rampant advertising, but I don't believe the language of this article falls into the category of commercialism.
I believe it also worth pointing out that there exists a very real-world bias and stigma against Independent Media, which mainstream culture continually propagates by making it difficult for IM to find affordable exposure and coverage. At one point, being a 'runaway slave' in the Southern American colonies during the first half of the 19th century was considered a mental illness(Drapetomania) by the mainstream culture of that society. But what wasn't recorded at that time were the opinions and thoughts of the slaves themselves, or their world view. The point being, their voices were also censored and considered unworthy of note, due to a stigmatized system of values most today would deem as barbaric, immoral, and savage. Please do not allow contemporary voices to be censored in similar ways, solely because they are unpopular or unpublished by the mainstream. The lessons of History should have taught us better.
Once again, thank you all for your time and contributions. I would like to very politely ask that if you do decide to delete this article, please consider it for incubation or to be transferred into a Sandbox article until such a time it is deemed fit to meet the standards you do not believe it to currently. I hope I didn't offend anyone, as I try my best to explore and navigate my way through the Wikipedia Universe. Thanks again.Bernardrco (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent coverage. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rip a stitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:MADEUP. Not a WP:CSD, prod contested by author. Snowball? Amalthea 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Found some information for Hank Cheyne Garcia (who supposedly coined the phrase) but not on the article's subject. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally there appears to be a conflict of interest. The editor that created the article is HankGarcia and the actor that supposedly used the term is also Hank Garcia. Narthring (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hangon' this term has been used in local theater productions in los angeles as a 'good luck' before actors are taking the stage this can be verified with the paricular productions actors and it has caught on as a stage idiom similar to 'break a leg' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.168.209 (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — 76.91.168.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In my opinion that information would be appropriate in the break a leg article and not in this separate article. This is assuming reliable sources can be found. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until reliable sources start covering this, it should be deleted. It can always be recreated if the term starts getting wide coverage. First Light (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The phrase is not quite non-existent; it occurs a few times in social sites [1]; but no reliable source cites it so it is nowhere near notable enough for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alaska Visitors Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third party reliable sources found, fails WP:CORP. Possibly an ad. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:02, 26 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) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- George Dragon (edit | talk | 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 the notability requirements for a writer or musician. Being nominated in 2006 for a short novel prize is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. Raising for AFD as the stub was created 4 years ago so I may be missing something. Fæ (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even without doing an extensive search (and recognizing language limitations in doing so), the accomplishments claimed in the article are not enough for notability even if they are all true. "First novel still under development?" --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moon Secure AV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an open source antivirus program currently using the Clam AntiVirus engine. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with Ihcoyc - building on ClamAV it needs more than is there now for notability. Shadowjams (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Save - by same logic Apple OS-X builds on BSD Unix should be deleted. A User interface is not a negligible contribution. Killing the human spirit, indeed, you claim evil, you act maliciously (for an argument so obviously specious is evidence of malice) and should be banned from WP. Just using such a flamebait moniker as "killing the human spirit since 2003!" should be sufficient for banning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.32.115 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) — 69.134.32.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Calm down, 69.134.32.115. You are not doing your cause any favors by attacking another editor, and in fact you are violating WP policy by doing so. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Terry, Lockridge & Dunn (edit | talk | 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 speedy. Non-notable accounting firm in Iowa. GregJackP (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally non-notable company. Speedy was removed twice by user whose only edits are this page. No references given.--Dmol (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 21:04, 30 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 close as premature. Reverted to redirect (no administrator tools needed to do that...). Bring it back to AfD if the redirect is reverted to a similar uncited article, but I expect that it may merit its own article once coverage in the second film picks up a bit. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aldous Snow (edit | talk | 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 nn. A character repeated in a second film, yes, but belongs at a character page until (if) further external sourcing arises. Currently 2/3 cites are to Wikipedia itself. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find reliable sources. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 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 closed as moot, article has been redirected (not me) but it looks like it was an obvious right outcome anyway, and I see no compelling reason to erase the history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the William Wilberforce Day page on Wikipedia should be saved.
- The William Wilberforce Day holiday has been acknowledged by several credible sources, including Wilberforce University in Ohio. Some events sites included last year's holiday:
- https://www.checkiday.com/b720bd9bf36b2cdc8338a4b6b9c0626f/william-wilberforce-day
- http://www.holidays-and-observances.com/august-24.html
- https://www.joniandfriends.org/celebrating-william-wilberforce/
- https://llgtogether.com/wwday RickGeneric (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- William Wilberforce Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Holiday instituted to commemorate a very notable person, however the holiday itself is nowhere close to meeting our notability guidelines. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems a bit silly to delete it, as it can properly and usefully be redirected to William Wilberforce, which I have boldly done.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have? Sure about that? -- Ϫ 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ..ahem - which I [had boldly intended to do but got called away from the computer and then went to bed but now] have done. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:46, 27 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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AOS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no sources; fails WP:BAND, no apparent assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- not wikipedia notable my space band. Off2riorob (talk) 02:48, 29 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 Gaston County Schools. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New Hope Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Past AFDs have replaced articles about random elementary schools with redirects to the article about the school district, demonstrating the consensus of the community that they do not generally satisfy WP:ORG. This article was recently redirected to the article about the school district, but the redirect was reverted, hence the need for the AFD. Edison (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a third-party source can be provided for the claim that New Hope is recognized as a North Carolina School of Distinction, then I would be willing to !vote Keep. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - I don't see much here. The only conceivable claim of notability is the "North Carolina School of Distinction" which seems to apply to a number of schools. If that is enough for notability, we're going to end up with a lot of articles that are, essentially, permenant stubs. Perhaps an article about the award would be a worthwhile creation, but I don't see the school making the grade.(boo!) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, just go ahead and be bold and re-instate the re-direct. There's no need to bring it to AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Gaston County Schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge as above. Being a "school of distinction" means nothing, that title is granted to hundreds of schools every year.[2] --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Toppsy Curvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject passes GNG or any other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions Why were the 16 Google news hits not mentioned in the AfD nomination or the Prod? Why was the performer's real name removed when it is easily sourceable? And why is not the removal of such easily sourceable information, and the ignoring-- or, possibly, not even looking for-- mainstream news sourcing when prodding or nominating for deletion not a blockable offense? Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and mentions in three Google Books (at least two of which print her name). I'm not interested in the article, but it's pretty obvious nobody even looked around here. It's truly sickening that this is standard procedure here. Dekkappai (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a bit about her two notable appearances at major league baseball games, which got coverage in the news and in books. She has appeared on notable televisions shows as well. So clearly notable. Dream Focus 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:PORNBIO, fails the GNG. Only claim to notability is for running onto field at baseball games and trying to kiss the pitcher, a copycat publicity stunt that falls under BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is so trivial that reports don't even agree on what her "real" name is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her real name is Catherine Stathopoulos. Catherine is sometimes abbreviated as Kathy. Those are the only two variations in her name that I see. And she was covered in many places, and did the cover of magazines, BEFORE the two baseball events. Do you think all those television shows listed in the article interviewed her just for that one event? Dream Focus 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you haven't encountered Hullaballoo before, Dream Focus. His M.O. is to claim something like the L.A. Times is an unreliable source-- sometimes claiming it is a mirror of Wikipedia. "No lie is too extravagant in the service of censorship" is his motto... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, he appears to be right; one of the sources in the article (You be the Umpire) appears to refer to her as "Laurie Stathopoulos." At least, as far as I can tell from the Google snippet. Another (Sports and Courts) definitely does. Shimeru (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you haven't encountered Hullaballoo before, Dream Focus. His M.O. is to claim something like the L.A. Times is an unreliable source-- sometimes claiming it is a mirror of Wikipedia. "No lie is too extravagant in the service of censorship" is his motto... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with multiple mainstream appearances. Also, THIS shows she is mentioned in multiple reliable sourcing-- newspapers spanning a decade-- including Miami Herald, LA Times, etc.-- and book publications. Claims (now) of BLP1E are disingenuous as best, and more likely-- considering the ignoring of easy sourcing, or total lack of attempt to even look for it-- flat-out dishonest. But what else is new? Dekkappai (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dekkappai. Tabercil (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting requirements of WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO as shown by User:Dekkappai's excellent google-foo and WP:AFTER. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter rubbish. There is no sourcing for the "multiple mainstream appearances" claim, and no more than one of those appearances can be documented at all -- not that tabloid TV appearances amount to featured appearances in notable mainstream media, the requirement of WP:PORNBIO. There's also no substantiation for the claim that the GNG is satisfied -- there's no "'Significant coverage', ... sources address[ing] the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In those supposed sources, there's little more about the subject than her stage name, occupation, and various inconsistent reports of her "real" name. Several of those googled sources simply include "Toppsy Curvey" on lists of implausible stage names. There are only two reasons behind the insistence on keeping this article, and neither the right nor the left one has any grounding in Wikipedia policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Dekkappai. I remember those kissing events being in the news in 1991 actually, they received wide coverage. Wikipedia's depth is one of its greatest strengths.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the coverage in multiple sources, but really--this is not the end of the world, gentlemen. Please extend courtesy to each other even when you disagree. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Northern Virginia (edit | talk | 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-accredited, for-profit institution, zero sources that actually reference the school itself. 2 says you, says two 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article says UNV is accredited by the "American University Accreditation Council." This organization is not listed in List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning, but neither is it listed in List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. On its web page, the AUAC lists as accredited UNV and 6 other schools in the US, along with numerous schools worldwide. Of the US schools accredited by AUAC, Aakers Business College has nothing in its article claiming it is "unaccredited." The other 5 have no articles. The issue of supposed accreditation by AUAC needs to be clarified. References are needed clarifying whether credits earned at UNV are transferrable to other US colleges accredited by the standard accrediting associations, and whether degrees granted by UNV are recognized by businesses, licensing organizations, and accredited graduate schools. Edison (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, they are not currently accredited by any recognized accreditation organization. They had been accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, until it was pulled in 2008. 2 says you, says two 22:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If they were accredited, they were prima facie notable, and notability is not temporary. Also note that the school's website currently asserts: "The University of Northern Virginia is certified to operate by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV). UNVA is accredited by the American University Accreditation Council (AUAC). UNVA is authorized by the United States Government to enroll non-immigrant alien students."[3] If there is contradictory information, that can and should be mentioned in the article, and the school's accreditation difficulties (discussed in this Inside Higher Ed article, for example) should certainly be discussed. But notability seems established.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up on the foregoing comment, I went through the recent history of this article and found that a detailed, sourced discussion of the school's accreditation issues (which I believe was originally added by Orlady on 29 August 2009) was deleted yesterday, without an edit summary, by an IP editor. I've restored this and added another third party source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being certified to offer degrees by a state licensing agency is not the same thing as accreditation. Their asserted AUAC accreditation is not recognized by the Department of Education.2 says you, says two 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I seriously doubt that this article would have been nominated for deletion if the nominator had looked at this version that I edited on May 24, before a series of anon IPs (probably affiliated with UVA) deleted most (or all) of the third-party sourced content and added a bunch of UVA promotional material (these edits were already discussed by Arxiloxos). I agree that the version that was nominated for deletion was garbage, but that could have been cured by reverting the recent vandalism that had created that garbage; articles don't need to be brought to AfD in order to cure vandalism. As for the theory that only accredited educational institutions should be documented by Wikipedia articles, I might support that theory if Wikipedia were a directory of educational institutions, but it's not. --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - People need to know what a lousy school this is. Btw, this is now the top third-party source of this school: Former Accountant for University of Northern Virginia Pleads Guilty 128.231.77.192 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as a degree awarding body. Sources available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is not our function to use our discretion to determine which accrediation bureaus are valid and which are not... we are not the gatekeepers of institutional validity. The question here is: 'is this subject notable or not'? This institution apparently operates as a degree-conferring body, and as such receives similar treatment in local and specialized media outlets. The fact that there has been controversy surrounding its accreditation and accounting practices only lends more toward the assumption that it is of sufficient interest to the typical reader who lands on its page. The version of the article from Orlady's mentioned edit would never have been nominated for deletion... always check the article history. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fitness Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to violate WP:NEO (and possibly WP:NOTHOWTO), as I cannot find any reliable Ghits about the term. And the trend was started by Ryan and Joanne? Ryan and Joanne who? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possibly WP:HOAX, definitely not as notable as other fridays like Casual Friday or Black Friday. No coverage, etc.--Savonneux (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -Reconsider! 05:02, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noddy housing (edit | talk | 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 neologism. Google turns up only trivial mentions of the term. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange. When I googled it, I found plenty of distinctly non-trivial mentions of the term, such as here in The Guardian or here in the Oxford Mail. Transwiki to wiktionary. The wikipedia page should be replaced with a soft redirect.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary, neologism that may be a bit notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article was created less then a week ago. Internet searches indicate a potential to demonstrate notability. The article is now cleaned up and includes three properly formatted sources that discuss the term. --PinkBull 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More Googlehits are demonstrated using alternative names given in the article, like "Noddy Box Housing" and "Shoddy Noddy Boxes"--PinkBull 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sourcing aplenty if one searches by slightly different versions of the name. Abductive (reasoning) 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Portsmouth Destroyers (edit | talk | 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. Google only appears to turn up sites related to the teams and its rivals. British university sports teams are rarely notable even in their own institution for mainstream British sports and American Football is itself of niche interest in the UK. Article is unreferenced, given the lack of independent sources there is little scope for it to be referenced Pit-yacker (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is a very rare UK university sports team that meets our notability criteria. This one does not appear to be one of those exceptions. Pfainuk talk 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Beyond the boat race, university sport in the UK gets no coverage and has no chance of meeting WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 20:48, 30 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. Tone 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TuTuMUCH (edit | talk | 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: May not fulfill notability standards.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I would like to discuss the proposed deletion of the TuTuMUCH page. I believe that it does contain notable material, but if additional sources, such as national newspaper reviews, are needed, please let me know how to insert those properly in the text. I don't want to be accused of advertising later
- Thanks!
- HNich86 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G.&diff=prev&oldid=364348968 — Jeff G. ツ 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: HNich86, if you have reviews, news articles, or other materials made by third parties with no prompting/incentive from the movie producers or distributors, then it would be a good idea to use those materials as references in the article and you should add them right away. They would not be considered advertising provided you follow WP:NPOV. If you have a conflict of interest you may wish to post the articles on the talk page for the article and see if anyone else will add and discuss them in the article. ialsoagree (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two reviews, if someone would like to add them:
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/750852--tutumuch-summer-school-for-aspiring-swans
Winnipeg Sun: http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/2010/01/13/12451861.html
Thanks
24.77.51.193 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Reviews in two respectable Canadian newspapers would seem to establish the notability of this film. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Per the comment above, notability seems to be met. ialsoagree (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable per WP:GNG by having received significant coverage in two reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montgomery County Public Schools. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- William H. Farquhar Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable school with no claims of notability. My attempt at redirecting to the school district article, which is the standard practice for non-notable schools, was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken, who seems to do that on a regular basis. My feeling is that this should be a redirect, not a deletion, but since I can't do the redirect again because of Beyond My Ken's insistance, we have to go through the deletion process. I know the article won't be deleted, because that's not the appropriate practice, but what else can we do? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Who seems to do that on a regular basis." Actually, I believe I've done it twice, both times to redirects that you recently inserted. I have no opinion about the notability of the school, but circumventing AfD with a redirect doesn't seem like the best way to go about things, if the article is not objectionable in itself, which it isn't. In the future, please be careful not to substitute your own opinion for the consensus of the community in cases where the article in question isn't a blatant problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the majority of your nominating statement is not relevant -- everything after the first sentence -- and should be struck. This is not the place for airing your grievance with another editor, that's what we have talk pages for. This is the appropriate place to delete an article which it is suggested is non-notable, so I fail to see what your complaint it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools. Non-notable middle school fails WP:ORG. Replacing the article with a redirect is the typical result for elementary school and middle school articles. It should not be necessary to go through AFD for every single exemplar of a class of organizations which have repeatedly been found not to be notable in AFD, so it seems prefectly reasonable for Proudfoot to replace the article with a redirect rather than cluttering AFD. The "consensus of the community" has been that elementary and middle schools are not notable, shown in countless past AFDs. Edison (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me to a consensus discussion (not individual AfD's, please) where it was decided that elementary and middle schools are automatically not notable? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He can probably dig some up, but that result occurs over and over in AfDs. See [4]. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability."--Milowent (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, per your second link: "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD..." (emphasis added). Clearly, there is no blanket rule, middle and elementary school articles must show notability, and that's what AfD is for. Bringing an article to AfD to test notability is not "clogging up the system", it's using it for the purpose it was conceived, yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say its clogging the system. Nor is making it redirect a misuse of making a redirect. Undoing the redirect said "this needs to go to AfD." Now, going to the merits, what's the case for notability? It seems, at present, that the argument would be: first middle school in the largest district in the state (and one of the largest school districts in the United States.) Seems slightly flimsy at present.--Milowent (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it "needs to go to AfD" so that notability, or lack of it, is determined by some cross-section of the community, and not by one editor with relatively little experience on Wikipedia. It's here, and it's happening, and all is as it should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the argument for notability? The redirect was a proper bold edit even if it was the editor's first edit.--Milowent (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, I have no comment on the notability of the school - that's why it's here, to determine that - but the article was not so egregiously bad, or malformed, or a hoax, or in any other way detrimental to Wikipedia, that short-circuiting the normal deletion process was called for. Nor is there a flat-out policy of reverting middle-school articles, they need to be tested against our standards. If it was an egregiously poor article, I wouldn't have reverted, as it could be assumed that consensus would be in accord with the move. That's not the case here, such an assumption is unwarranted, so... here it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - No evidence of notability. Redirect is not at all controversial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to the school district. Shadowjams (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Middle schools are rarely notable, unless they can show significant outside coverage, and this article doesn't even try to do that. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. The ultimate title of the article can be discussed at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Privilege of the predecessors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Absolutely zero sources can be found for a concept which goes by this name. The reason for this might be that the translation of the article title is not correct. SnottyWong talk 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author's explanation It is too natural that you suspect the trueness of the contents of this article. What on earth, in this world, a judge could make a decision of a trial on a basis that the laywer is a former judge or a prosecutor of his? Who can believe this? However it is true. You can find a related article by typing '前官禮遇' in www.google.com. You can learn a few Chinese characters in www.google.com, by typing '前', '官', '禮', '遇'. '前' means former, before, front, precedent like http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%89%8D; '官' means officer, staff as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%AE%98 ; '禮' means respect, manner, courteous, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%A6%AE ; 遇 means 'treatment, encounter', as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%81%87 ; These four characters altogether means transliterally 'treatment former officers as if they still are at their officiers.' A blog said '판사나 검사로 재직했던 사람이 변호사로 개업하면서 맡은 사건에 대해서 법원과 검찰에서 유리하게 판결하는 법조계의 관행적 특혜.' I tranlate; 'If a judge or a prosecuter opens a lawywer's service, it is customary that judges of the court and prosecutors would give more more favor on him.; Traditional practices' All of you can get this explanation by typing 전관예우 at www.naver.com, www.daum.net, www.nate.com, the three most distinguished internet total sites in South Korea. These three internet sites have their article daum, naver, nate in wikipedia. (Gauge00 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- That's great, but where are the sources? Delete. Four Google hits: two Wikipedia, one mirror, and one at Answers.com. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to a more appropriate title, one that is already in use by reliable sources in English. It looks like, if this is covered by English sources, it would be under a different term, because the title here conveys an idea that's completely different that the concept exposed. Alternatively, if no reliably used English term can be found, then delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. WP:TITLE says: "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." This isn't a suitable translation, so unless a better one can be found, the title should be transliterated instead of translated. Polarpanda (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you if you could (1) prove that the concept actually exists, and (2) prove that it is notable and passes WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Gauge00 has already done that. Polarpanda (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. SnottyWong talk 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Surely there is some documentation in English of the South Korean legal system? The concept explained in this article is too remote from the WP:Reliable sources that most of us can read. In his explanation above, Gauge00 sounds like he is citing a blog written in the Korean language. Blogs are usually not considered to be reliable sources even when they are written in English. If there were a well-referenced article about this topic on the Korean Wikipedia, that could make a difference. The web sites Daum, Naver and Nate do not sound like what we consider to be reliable sources. A legal handbook published in South Korea could be a better source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move or Userfy. There seems to be some sourcing by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but I am unsure of the applicability of these to the definition given in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finley's Temple - Ogden, UT (edit | talk | 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 Mormon temple, Google returns very few items. The article, in its current state, is nothing but a photo gallery. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It appears that this is not a Mormon temple (the LDS Church has an Ogden Utah Temple, but this isn't it). Rather, as one of the photos indicates, it's a church of the Church of God in Christ. However, I can't find any reason to believe this church is notable per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. Could probably have been prodded. --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional competition, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. BigDom 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – No indication of notability, either through his level of play or sources on him. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I did some Googling and came across this, this, this, this, this, this and best of all this. For me that's significant coverage in reliable sources, which means he meets WP:GNG. It's unusual for a non-professional player to meet notability guidelines, but this one seems to. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of non-league footballers get coverage in minor local newspapers. I'm not really seeing your point here. BigDom 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true. But in very few cases does it come from four different newspaperrs, span five years and include a fairly strong mention in a BBC article. It's also worth noting that McNulty was named Blue Square North Player of the Year in 2008 (see this article) - a fairly significant achievement. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of non-league footballers get coverage in minor local newspapers. I'm not really seeing your point here. BigDom 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please elaborate on how he fails WP:GNG when seven reliable sources talk about him in detail? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG as noted above. As such whether he passes WP:ATHLETE or not is not relevant. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - being Conference North player of the year does not confer notability, which seems to be the only significant claim beyond WP:ATHLETE, which he fails. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about significant coverage in seven reliable sources? Doesn't that confer notability per WP:GNG? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. "Routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article." From WP:SBST, part of the notability page. All of these sources are sports coverage and as such are not sufficient basis for this topic to have a stand-alone article. This would seem clear enough to me. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the same page: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." The phrase single event or topic is significant: as I read it, the line you quoted is only relevant if all the sources refer to the same event. These don't: they cover six different events and span five years. Then there's the interviews, which don't refer to any specific event at all! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the section you quote from states 'particularly' for individuals associated with one event; ie, this also applies in other cases. For me, this section precludes people who are notable on the basis of one event, and also as indivudals who happen to fill roles which generate lots of reporting but which are not inherently notable (a local councillor might be a very similar person who generates news coverage, but is not inherently notable). The word 'routine' (as in 'routine news coverage') suggests that coverage could be fairly common over a period of time. The interviews are local newspaper interviews with a player from the local team: a very routine occurrence. I could go through the Evening Mail website and find interviews with every player who has spent more than a couple of months with Barrow AFC over the last five years; this coverage is routine sports reporting and as such does not confer notability. The only exception to this is the Conference North player of the year award; but that in itself is not at a high enough level to confer notability--Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the section you quote from states 'particularly' for individuals associated with one event; ie, this also applies in other cases. For me, this section precludes people who are notable on the basis of one event, and also as indivudals who happen to fill roles which generate lots of reporting but which are not inherently notable (a local councillor might be a very similar person who generates news coverage, but is not inherently notable). The word 'routine' (as in 'routine news coverage') suggests that coverage could be fairly common over a period of time. The interviews are local newspaper interviews with a player from the local team: a very routine occurrence. I could go through the Evening Mail website and find interviews with every player who has spent more than a couple of months with Barrow AFC over the last five years; this coverage is routine sports reporting and as such does not confer notability. The only exception to this is the Conference North player of the year award; but that in itself is not at a high enough level to confer notability--Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the same page: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." The phrase single event or topic is significant: as I read it, the line you quoted is only relevant if all the sources refer to the same event. These don't: they cover six different events and span five years. Then there's the interviews, which don't refer to any specific event at all! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. "Routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article." From WP:SBST, part of the notability page. All of these sources are sports coverage and as such are not sufficient basis for this topic to have a stand-alone article. This would seem clear enough to me. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Would seem to pass WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple reliable sources even if he does not meet the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Routine sports tabloid journalism only. Nothing truly notable, fails ATHLETE. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Billions of low level footballers get similar coverage in local rags, but they are not part of the enduring annals of history. --ClubOranjeT 01:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Little London (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy (although I didn't nominate it) about an unsigned band. The only real Ghits I can find are to their MySpace profile and to their official website, which is down. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also mention that the article was created by User:Littlelondon, thus proving a serious WP:AUTO issue. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although WP:AUTO is not by itself grounds for deletion, this band does not meet our notability guidelines. The band's presence at the Sonisphere Festival can only be referenced through blogs, and this page (unless its listeners figures are inaccurate) pretty much nails the coffin on this article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 20:04, 30 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) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Halstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer who has not played at a fully-professional level (only senior appearances are with Hyde United in the sixth tier of English football). Would have no qualms about re-creation should Halstead become notable in the future. BigDom 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N Mandsford 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable footballer. --Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too early, not yet played for 1st team and fails ATHLETE, coverage is only general sports journalism of routine nature. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranjeT 09:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It looks like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Divine countenance (edit | talk | 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 duplicates the already-deleted Countenance divine (see WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine for that discussion) in my opinion, though the admin reviewing a SD request disagreed [5] and [6]. The article was created by an editor whose main editing interest seems to be video games, and whose purpose seemed to be to hold a "use in popular culture" section holding a single entry referring to a video game. We have a link only to one old theological dictionary, which treats the Hebrew word for "face", explaining that the "face of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible in particular interesting ways, but which does not mark it as a "theological concept". (In fact, given that "to the face of X" is the usual Hebrew way of saying "before X", it turns out that nearly all uses of "face of God" in the Hebrew Bible just mean [metaphorically] "before God".) There is just no independent concept here, and aside from word studies such as the one linked to, there are no sources to talk about this as a distinct topic. At most, we just have people saying "'face of God' means xxx". Tb (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: If the result of this discussion is "delete", presumably the just-recreated redirect at Countenance divine should be re-deleted as well. Tb (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I can't see the previous article, but in the deletion discussion it was described as being an OR-rich essay about the phrase "countenance divine" in the Blake poem, and how "countenance" might be being used as a verb. The present article is clearly not that - it is a simple description of an important concept in Judeo-Christian theology. The previous deletion of "countenance divine" is not a factor in this discussion, because this article has entirely different content. A quick visit to Google Books or Scholar will reveal how widely-discussed this concept is. It is certainly notable and appropriate for inclusion. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Comment - I am the "admin" mentioned above, but I am not an admin. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was
inappropriateincorrect of you to remove the CSD without being able to evaluate the original article directly and as a non-admin, but in that case, but now that we're here, we'll let more light shine. :) - The Bible uses the phrase "hand of God" as well, and people explain what it means. Does that mean that we need a page in which it is a "theological concept"? Can you show us books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase? Tb (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think it was inappropriate for me to remove it? The template you placed on the article says "f this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Please note also that the speedy deletion criteria G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I'm genuinely interested in why you think I shouldn't have removed it, as I often remove possibly wrongly-placed speedy deletion tags. Thparkth (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- replied on personal talk page Tb (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was
- In terms of "books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase", I can't offer with convenient names like "The Divine Countenance for Dummies" but a cursory check on Google Books reveals this book with a chapter devoted to the concept, and many other uses which certainly discuss it as an "independent concept". Thparkth (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a word study, and not a chapter, but a short section of a page and a half. Tb (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say that I think you are imposing requirements far beyond WP:GNG and leave it at that. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think not. All we have is that the phrase has been used, and the word "face" has been explained in a particular context in the Bible. Nobody--not even that dictionary you cite--identifies it as a distinctive concept, but simply as a phrase that is interesting to explore. Since you removed the SD note, I assume you'll be fixing the article into a real article and not just a sentence? Tb (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say that I think you are imposing requirements far beyond WP:GNG and leave it at that. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a word study, and not a chapter, but a short section of a page and a half. Tb (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The previous article was unsourced; this article is sourced. It's still a stub so give it time to acquire more sources. According to this source the Bible uses the term in Numbers 6:23-27 (albeit without "divine" before "countenance", but "His countenance" is used which can also be taken as "divine countenance" or "Divine countenance"). The term also comes up in 7 publications on Wikisource which is enough notability outside of a biblical context to include on Wikipedia. —Eekerz (t) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The idea of the face of God, and the long tradition that the direct sight of His face is unendurable by humans, is highly notable, the subject of extensive commentary, and could easily support an article. Note also that face of God currently redirects to a Billy Ray Cyrus album; that might need to change. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume when you say "the subject of extensive commentary", you can provide a reference to some extensive commentaries? Tb (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a citation which makes the notability of the concept clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether it is notable, but whether it is a thing it its own right, rather than just a phrase. (Lots of people use the word "tabletop" but that doesn't mean we need an article Tabletop to talk about them separately from Table.) Tb (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tabletop is a blue link and so it seems we do need an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that you didn't bother looking at it. Tb (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the face of God. I looked at it and saw that it was good. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have at least one reliable source talking about the "ontological significance of the face of God" [7], which would appear to directly answer your question. Thparkth (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing the point. If someone says that Barack Obama's ideas on the Korean crisis are very important, that doesn't mean that a separate page Barack Obama's ideas on the Korean crisis is appropriate. Tb (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If those ideas had "ontological significance" then it probably would be appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are so many articles about Barack Obama that we have an article just to keep track of them all — List of topics related to Barack Obama. These include multiple articles about his foreign policy and other good stuff like a lichen and numerous comic books. I've not found one about his views on Korea or his divine countenance but give it time .... Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously a significant metaphor and phrase. Xanthoxyl < 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is now a substantive article with adequate references. I am not sure that it now deserves the tag of stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Suitable subject, with plenty more to add. I have added some now, including the crucial Exodus quote. Should be renamed to plain Face of God. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides have presented arguments but it is hard to determine which side prevails. Tone 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Floruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Word is a verb, that means 'flourished'.
- WP:TITLE says article titles are supposed to be nouns, not verbs.
- There's a perfectly good wiktionary article (Wiktionary:floruit) that covers the same ground
- We don't really do latin here; the wikipedia isn't a latin-english dictionary (although you're allowed glossaries of legal terms, but this isn't a glossary.)
- Article is about the word, and is a simple usage guide of the word, this violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
The wikipedia doesn't really do verbs at all, so please vote delete. - Wolfkeeper 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 02:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible keep. Wikipedia policies do not preclude articles on words. From WP:NOT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness". This is one of those cases. Since 2006
WP:DOBMOS:DOB has indicated that "When the individual is known to have been alive (flourishing) at certain dates,[[floruit|fl.]]
is used in articles to link to floruit, in case the meaning is not familiar..." As such there are literally thousands of incoming links. Additionally there is the precedent of the hundreds of other Latin words, and English words of Latin origin, in Category:Latin words and phrases. Deleting this would be extraordinarily unproductive.--Cúchullain t/c 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- First of all, the instruction you quote is at MOS:DOB not WP:DOB. Second, it is absurd to use such a request to justify keeping an inappropriate article. There are several alternatives, including most obviously a link to wikt:floruit instead, that would work just as well if not better. Powers T 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the link, thanks. I disagree that this is an "inappropriate" article, and the fact that the article has thousands of incoming links and is mentioned in the guidelines suggests that other editors agree. I also disagree that a crosslink to Wiktionary would serve our readers well. Wikitionary doesn't (and shouldn't) indicate that the word refers to "the period of time during which a person, school, movement or even species was active," that it is used when "the birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when a person was alive," or that in art history it "specifically denotes artistic activity, not just the existence of the artist." On the other hand, it does get into information not relevant to our discussion: namely that in Latin it is the third-person singular perfect active indicative of flōreō. That's because Wiktionary is a dictionary and has a goal of including all definitions of a word, but not a depth of coverage. On the other hand, we're only interested in the one use of this term (the historical use indicating when a person, etc. was known to be alive) and to give in-depth coverage of it (limited as it may be at this point).--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the instruction you quote is at MOS:DOB not WP:DOB. Second, it is absurd to use such a request to justify keeping an inappropriate article. There are several alternatives, including most obviously a link to wikt:floruit instead, that would work just as well if not better. Powers T 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only discussions I've seen where this came up, it was generally agreed that articles on individual latin phrases (generally legal terms) weren't very productive. They tend to consist of two paragraphs, and that's it- classic dicdefs like this one. The fact that there's lots of links to an article isn't a problem either, we have bots and soft redirects to wiktionary sort out that kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Also, WP:VERB isn't being contradicted here: the article isn't on the topic of flourishing, it's on the word "floruit". By the use-mention distinction, the word "floruit" is a noun, as it's the subject here. As in the statement, "'Cats' is a noun", where the word "cats", not cats, is the subject.[8]--Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes no sense at all. If you accepted your 'magic' claim (and I completely don't buy it, the use-mention distinction says no such claim at all, it doesn't turn verbs into nouns), but if you did buy it then any and all verbs would be allowed to have individual articles in the wikipedia. I can't think of any articles except this one that is on a verb.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put it this way: in the sentence "'Floruit' is a Latin verb," the word "Floruit" is the subject. The subject is a noun. The article isn't about the act of flourishing, it's about the word floruit. And no, keeping this article doesn't mean we would have to "allow" any and all articles on verbs.--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's bollocks, for the reasons I already gave.- Wolfkeeper 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not, actually. There is a clear difference between using a word and mentioning it. But more to the point, an article's title is not a reason for deletion. It's a matter of cleanup that should be hammered out on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 05:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's bollocks, for the reasons I already gave.- Wolfkeeper 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put it this way: in the sentence "'Floruit' is a Latin verb," the word "Floruit" is the subject. The subject is a noun. The article isn't about the act of flourishing, it's about the word floruit. And no, keeping this article doesn't mean we would have to "allow" any and all articles on verbs.--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The way in which this term is used is notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable term. And it is used in English speaking countries, so you can't just say we're the English Wikipedia and it only belongs in the nonexistent Latin Wikipedia. Dream Focus 09:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The usage of the word appears to be encyclopedic, supported by the source Colonel Warden found, and not duplicated (nor should it be duplicated) at wikt:floruit. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems obviously notable. —innotata 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. We encourage the use of
[[floruit|fl.]]
in WP:DOB, so it is part of the infrastructure iof Wikipedia. This means that we need the page to exist even if is was not otherwise justified, because it is part of the mechanics of Wikipedia now. We have incorporated the (somewhat musty and quaint) use of "fl." from older reference works, and it is quite useful, but many of our readers will encounter it here first and will not know what it means so the link is highly useful. -Arch dude (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep It's a useful article, even if a brief one, and includes more information than would normally be found in a dictionary. Discussion of its usage in various fields is appropriate for an encyclopedia, since it might be used variously in different circumstances, preferred in some, and avoided in others. Deleting it because it's a word is just pedantic. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite Keep. Firstly, you're misusing the policy page, as that pertains specifically to how to title an article, not to the subject matter of the article. Verbs do exist in titles, where necessary, but in any case, that argument is being misapplied. As for Wikipedia not being a dictionary, that policy reflects the idea merely that not every single word in any given language is given an encyclopedia entry, but some words do deserve one, if they are notable enough. If swear words can have entries, I think that renders that argument invalid. Furthermore, if you saw the {{Chronology}} Navbox on the article's page, you'd see A. There are other words which merit their own articles, and B. There are Latin words on there, such as Circa.
Aside from repudiating your arguments, this is indeed a very helpful and important article, largely due to its being a very notable topic, and as a Wikipedia entry, it has much more potential for expansion and being far more informative than a terse definition at Wiktionary. KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further note, Dream Focus was raising a valid point, in that if an article's title is ultimately in another language, that doesn't mean the only entry should be in its native language's Wikipedia. Should Résumé only be written about in the French Wikipedia, despite it being a word used around the world, every day? KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Résumé has been adopted into English, but the difference is that if you read the article it's not about the word Résumé, it's about Résumés, written lists of work you've done. The floruit article we're discussing is simply about the word itself and its usage. We don't need it, the wiktionary version is fine, and this article violates our policies.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further note, Dream Focus was raising a valid point, in that if an article's title is ultimately in another language, that doesn't mean the only entry should be in its native language's Wikipedia. Should Résumé only be written about in the French Wikipedia, despite it being a word used around the world, every day? KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - extremely widely used - similar to et cetera, which is a more substantial encyclopaedic article. Claritas (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability doesn't count if it violates an ISNOT. The notability policy says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." [emphasis mine] This topic violates an ISNOT, because it's simply about a word. We have a perfectly acceptable dictionary, and it covers this word perfectly well. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, that if this was in WP:NOT it shouldn't be here, but looking at WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, I see that articles "should provide other types of information about that topic as well" as a definition, which this one does. It is not simply a dictionary definition. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is however, made clear in the actual policy (rather than the quick summary in WP:NOT) at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that verbs aren't allowed, the article titles have to be a noun. So it violates that, and Not a Dictionary is specifically listed as a deletion criteria according in the AFD policy.- Wolfkeeper 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the "quick summary" in WP:NOT is still policy. Second, WP:DICTIONARY doesn't make it clear that verbs aren't allowed, it says "Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), single-word article titles are usually nouns or verbal nouns (i.e. participles or gerunds)", so now we're really talking about the WP:TITLE policy, which can be fixed by changing Floruit to a gerund, (Floruiti? I don't know, my Latin's terrible, but I'm sure someone around here can figure it out). Third, I assume you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy, since AfD's not a policy, and it says that "[a]rticles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia) in an adjective→noun or a verb→gerund manner", which still leaves the door open for making it a gerund if it's just been misnamed. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out above, I don't think WP:TITLE is being contradicted here anyway, but as Verno says, even if it were, having a wrong title is no reason for deletion. And of course WP:NOT is policy, it even says it right at the top of the page ;)--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't actually read your earlier post, but he may actually have a point there, since we have an article on Voting and not Vote, even though you could say "Vote is a word in the English language". Of course, for all I know there are already other Latin verbs out there taunting WP:TITLE. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that voting is on the topic of voting, not the word. The topic can be discussed under the noun title "voting" rather than the verb title "vote". Floruit is about the word "floruit", so obviously it can only have that title. But this is really a discussion for the article talk page; WP:TITLE does not imply that articles that don't have the right title should be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 12:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote is a noun, and based on your standards, entirely notable. We don't have an article on that either. That's because articles aren't on words, they're on things; like voting systems, and a vote is always part of a voting system. According to you there should a two paragraph dicdef article explaining what the word vote means. Nahhhh. That's what dictionaries are for; that's exactly what they're for. This article we're discussing violates an ISNOT; even if you take on board the entirely dubious idea expressed in WP:NOT that some words deserve an encyclopedia article; this one doesn't, there's no gain at all over the wiktionary article. It's being fort for here out of shear bloody-mindedness.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one, least of all me, ever suggested the word "vote" ought to have an article, you're pulling that out of thin air. Once again, keeping this article does not mean that all other articles on words are appropriate. To my mind this is an obvious example of a "word or phrase [that] may be an encyclopedic subject" as noted in WP:NOT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, none, not a single word of this article is encyclopedic. it's just a stupid dicdef that's been linked from a bunch of places. Big fucking deal. There is not a single redeeming feature here; Encyclopedias are intended to give extended treatment. I say what extended treatment? There is none, and I see no evidence at all there will ever be so. - Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one, least of all me, ever suggested the word "vote" ought to have an article, you're pulling that out of thin air. Once again, keeping this article does not mean that all other articles on words are appropriate. To my mind this is an obvious example of a "word or phrase [that] may be an encyclopedic subject" as noted in WP:NOT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote is a noun, and based on your standards, entirely notable. We don't have an article on that either. That's because articles aren't on words, they're on things; like voting systems, and a vote is always part of a voting system. According to you there should a two paragraph dicdef article explaining what the word vote means. Nahhhh. That's what dictionaries are for; that's exactly what they're for. This article we're discussing violates an ISNOT; even if you take on board the entirely dubious idea expressed in WP:NOT that some words deserve an encyclopedia article; this one doesn't, there's no gain at all over the wiktionary article. It's being fort for here out of shear bloody-mindedness.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that voting is on the topic of voting, not the word. The topic can be discussed under the noun title "voting" rather than the verb title "vote". Floruit is about the word "floruit", so obviously it can only have that title. But this is really a discussion for the article talk page; WP:TITLE does not imply that articles that don't have the right title should be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 12:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't actually read your earlier post, but he may actually have a point there, since we have an article on Voting and not Vote, even though you could say "Vote is a word in the English language". Of course, for all I know there are already other Latin verbs out there taunting WP:TITLE. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a textbook case of a dictionary entry. It looks like a dictionary entry, walks like a dictionary entry, and talks like a dictionary entry. The concept of "the word floruit" is simply not a notable, encyclopedic topic. It's just a word. Powers T 13:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Widely used scholarly term. Article is insufficient in its current form, so might be marked as a stub. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest we have an article on all widely used scholarly terms? 'Cause there sure are a lot of 'em. Powers T 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but per Art history: its use and abuse (cited in the article), I wouldn't mind seeing some of our articles on the various possibilities of dating things, persons, events, careers, etc. - e.g. terminus ante quem and post quem - merged together somehow. How about a section in chronology (cf. relative and absolute dating)? Cavila (talk)
- That's a merge not a keep.- Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a keep or merge, implicitly with some advice to make the relation between various terms/methods a little clearer. Cavila (talk) 08:56, 31 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) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicky Clee (edit | talk | 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. Article is about a non-notable footballer who has played his entire career in non-league football and hence fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played at a fully-professional level of the sport. BigDom 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N Mandsford 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOM Fails ATHLETE, Conference is not high enough level. Fails GNG as coverage is only routine sports journalism. --ClubOranjeT 09:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 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) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Lynch (Footballer) (edit | talk | 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. Article is about a non-notable footballer who, despite being a youth player at Wigan Athletic, has played his entire career with Hyde United and hence fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played at a fully-professional level of the sport. BigDom 16:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N Mandsford 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having never played professionally he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE], and since all coverage I can find is about the Chris Lynch who currently plays for Burnley F.C., he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the 3 comments above. --Stormbay (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 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 keepno consensus. Many editors commented on the weakness of sources, lack of sources and lack of depth of coverage. However, the efforts to find more and better sources appear to have paid off and it's my opinion that at least 2 of the provided sources constitute significant coverage and therefore are enough to make the company notable, though only just. A no consensus close may have been justified here, but I'm going with keep on the grounds that at least on delete !vote was explicitly weak and several more were not revisited during the course of the debate as more sources were added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stoneriver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User has removed speedy tag several times. Going with AFD. The speedy tag was placed for blatant copyvio problems, however I don't see how this article meets general notability guidelines. The text itself is not overly promotional (but reads like a website or brochure description of a company), but there are no quality third-party links. The links include lists of companies, not articles/reviews on this company. Also, the "see also" section is highly promotional: links to blogs, facebook, twitter, and linked in. — Timneu22 · talk 16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject in question appears to hold a large part of the market in their respective category - and number competitors of lesser size are represented. The Also See section should be edited to remove promotional links. The analyst organizations sited represent valid third-party accreditation. — Mkboy1313 17:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as irredeemable spam requiring a full rewrite to be usable as an article in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With the changes, it's no longer irredeemable spam. However, I see nothing but press releases, so I do not see how this company meets ntoability. As such, I still maintain a stance of delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article has sufficient information regarding how the company was formed, acquisitions, and just a general overview of their structure, not to mention plenty of external sources that notes them to be a creditable company. Also, if you not familiar with insurance technology, there are internal links, as well as external links, to understand the basic terminology. Herosrus (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that the article has been amended, in that highly promotional material was removed from "see also", specific product names were removed from the "Corporate Structure" section, and wiki links have been added for general insurance terms, one of StoneRiver's parent companies, and governmental agency NFIP. It seems that the issues leading to the speedy tag have been addressed. It also meets general notability guidelines, in that the company employees 2,500 people and the article now links out ot many other informative articles. This article could be moved from an AFD to an article for cleanup. NorthOfCola (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe the article needs to be written to comply with NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete. Lets rewrite the article --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No reliable sources with significant coverage found. Regular and news searches only turn up press releases and routine business news coverage beyond the one award already sourced in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are "Independent of the subject" - other companies that have written about StoneRiver. There are "Sources" - secondary notes of definitions. Press releases are noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosrus (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Herosrus has edited only StoneRiver only. No other contributions. — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitions usually don't need to be supported by references, and yes, other companies have written about StoneRiver. The question is does it amount to "significant coverage". Press releases are not an indication of notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I have posted to another site Herosrus (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (see this discussion's talk page)--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. The only reference cited that looks like a news article, from "Insurance and Technology", turns out to be a press release. The only possibly reliable outside item I found at Google News was this, and I can't tell if Insurance Networking News is a real publication or not - looks more like a website. Overall, fails notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, I can see why one would think it is just a website, however, Insurance and Technology is a publication. Please see the following link [9] Here you will see White Paper, Distribution of Magazines, Podcasts and more. It is an insurance publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosrus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's a full publication or just a website, the cited page clearly displays "Insurance & Technology Online Buyers' Guide > Press Release" (emphasis added), and press releases don't establish notability no matter where they are published. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which page are you looking at? The page I looked at is this one which is an interview. That's not enough for me to change my stance, but this one wasn't a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one used as a reference in the article is here. I don't remember seeing the interview before, but that makes one likely reliable source, which isn't enough for me either. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interview is from a trade magazine/website that is part of United Business Media. I'm inclined to accept that as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, although I could be convinced to change if someone can find another source. At present there's only one that's both independent and significant so the article fails WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Help Me
I have added some more articles. Please see if they are notable Herosrus (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that this is just my reading and other opinions may vary. References 1 and 5 are trivial mentions, 2 is a press release, 3 appears to be routine news coverage about a buyout although some could call it significant coverage, 4 and 7 appear to be routine coverage of industries in the business - 6 appears to be both significant and reliable, 8 is behind a paywall so I can't tell one way or another, and 9 doesn't even mention StoneRiver. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage (per VernoWhitney's analysis) and fails WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel obliged to point out that there's at least one source with significant coverage, possibly two depending on your interpretation of significant, and the paywalled source. Although not enough significant coverage is of course an option, which is where I stand now that the interview has been found. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DiscoStudio.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No evidence of notability. Of the references cited, two are links to pages which do not mention DiscoStudio, one is a forum post, and the other makes one very brief mention of DiscoStudio. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being advertisement without notable encyclopedic content, appears to be WP:ARTSPAM. Zhernovoi (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This page has been written as a factual representation of a british company who has shaped helped to shape the business world in their small (niche) industry. I have defended the above points as follows:
- (No evidence of notability): User JamesBWatson has claimed that there is (No evidence of notability). I have provided two relevant sources of reference. However, I am struggling to find others and this is because: Being a small and niche industry there is very little press coverage on the internet as most industry news and magazine sources are in printed format. All magazines relared to the DJ industry do not publish their articles (or awards etc.) online and this means there are little sources for reference available. Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ARTSPAM: User Zhernovoi has claimed that the article appears to be WP:ARTSPAM (Advertising Spam). Wikipedia expalins advertising spam as follows: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." Reply: This article is written as a factual article and is not written with sales-oriented language whatsoever. In addition, it has one external link to a commercial website which is incidently the official website of the subject in question. If the user Zhernovoi believes that this is written as an advertisement, maybe Zhernovoi would be so kind as to help re-write the part that he believes is of an advertisement nature? Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus suggests that the article looks like an advertisement. However the point above covers this and again, I would like to invite Dream Focus to help imporve the article article and re-write the part that they believe it of an advertisement nature. In addition, they suggest that the references are questionable. I have also explained reasons for the lack of citation references in point 1 above.
Delete It looks like an advertisement to me. No news hits anywhere. The references are somewhere confirming that half of the houses in UK had internet access, a magazine created by this company to promote itself apparently, a post someone made on a forum, and a personal webpage where someone mentions that you can get that item at DiscoStudio.com. And you said "keep" twice, which isn't allowed. You don't state that every time you respond to something. Dream Focus 09:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dream Focus's Delete should be disregarded as it is simply an agreement 'with the consensus that has already been formed' as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD guidelines. Technicalspartacus (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD does not suggest that an argument should be disregarded if it agrees with a consensus already formed. It merely says that if a consensus has already been formed then one may possibly choose not to bother adding another comment agreeing with it. Also, I wonder whether Technicalspartacus understands what a consensus to delete means. He/she is arguing for a keep, which indicates that he/she does not accept such a consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No I do not believe a consensus to delete has been formed. My point was that Dream Focus is itterating a point already made and to this avail should be discounted. My apologies, I correct myself, I used the wrong word. Where I used the word disregarded above should have been discounted. Technicalspartacus (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD is being misused as well, as WP:CONS in case of AfD has to be seen as a delete or keep agreement between the editors participating in the AfD discussion and not as a no-go for representing a similar opinion. User:Dream Focus added value to the previous statements by questioning the reliability of provided references so there is absolutely no reason to discount the point he made. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technicalspartacus, you can agree with someone else's deletion rationale without having your !vote discounted. It's actually quite common. Just because someone has a valid rationale for keeping/deleting an article doesn't mean that I have to try to come up with a different rationale in order to submit my opinion. If someone has a valid rationale, and many people agree with it, then that is what we like to call consensus. SnottyWong talk 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD is being misused as well, as WP:CONS in case of AfD has to be seen as a delete or keep agreement between the editors participating in the AfD discussion and not as a no-go for representing a similar opinion. User:Dream Focus added value to the previous statements by questioning the reliability of provided references so there is absolutely no reason to discount the point he made. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No I do not believe a consensus to delete has been formed. My point was that Dream Focus is itterating a point already made and to this avail should be discounted. My apologies, I correct myself, I used the wrong word. Where I used the word disregarded above should have been discounted. Technicalspartacus (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD does not suggest that an argument should be disregarded if it agrees with a consensus already formed. It merely says that if a consensus has already been formed then one may possibly choose not to bother adding another comment agreeing with it. Also, I wonder whether Technicalspartacus understands what a consensus to delete means. He/she is arguing for a keep, which indicates that he/she does not accept such a consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources provided or found with significant coverage of the subject. If, as you asserted above, "most industry news and magazine sources are in printed format" then provide them. References don't have to be online to be valid, so long as they are reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable run-of-the-mill internet shopping website. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for advertising your website. SnottyWong talk 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that this article is written as an advertisement. It looks pretty Wikipedia friendly to me. It might not cite many references (due to the lack of such references according to the user above) but it is written as a pretty factual article like any other Wikipedia article. Also it clearly represents a company of significant interest, particularly in their specific niche. Iceomnia (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that WP:GNG are met. Nuttah (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Strong keep because this company is the pinacle of the DJ industry and is highly notable! - If DiscoStudio.com isn't notable I don't know what is!
- WP:ARTSPAM - (Advertising) Two users above have said that they believe the article is written like an advertisement and have given this as their reason for their vote to Delete the article. Technicalspartacus has openly invited both users to update the article and re-write the part that they feel is of an advertising nature. Since no-one seems to have taken Technicalspartacus up on this invitation, I therefore presume that such users are withdrawing their nomination to Delete.
- Fails WP:GNG - Non-notable This point has been iterated above by a couple of users. Technicalspartacus has said that most of the sources are not available online. I agree; as this is an industry I know well as a musician. In-turn, another user has said that offline sources can also be provided; I agree and on this point and the author has quite openly said on the article's Talk page that they will continue to look for references and update the article appropriately. This shows the author's commitment to the article.
- Finally I do not presume to suggest that the above users know nothing about the subject. However, users of Wikipedia are encouraged to participate in subjects of which they have an active interest or some kind of knowledge and/or expertise. DiscoStudio.com is the most well known website in the DJ industry by far! I understand that the DJ equipment industry is a small industry (and to some an insignificant), however DiscoStudio.com is without a doubt the most notable website in the DJ equipment industry. HenryHayes (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel LaHue (edit | talk | 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 simply a false bio page created by the user about himself. Falsely stating he is a writer and producer for the television series' 24 and Prison Break. I am a watcher of both shows and know this is false. The link to IMDb links to Evan Katz, an actual writer/producer for 24. The name "Daniel LaHue" does not exist on IMDb. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G3. As Droveth notes, this is simply a copy of the Evan Katz page with Mr. LaHue's name plugged in (I'm gathering that there's no Mrs. LaHue on Raymond either). Mostly lame. Mandsford 17:38, 26 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 G11 Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summer Beach Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this article contains referneces and quite allot of content, I'm not convinced this is notable enough. Would usually tag for speedy but I'm not quite sure. Acather96 (talk) 15:59, 26 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Bywater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Master plumber and lecturer who doesn't obviously meet WP:NOTABILITY - per WP:NOTNEWS - he's only received two mentions in local newspapers, and the link to the BBC website doesn't work. The creator has argued that Bywater meets WP:ACADEMIC and presumably also WP:ANYBIO, because he has "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I'm not sure whether becoming a "Master Plumber" qualifies as an academic award or honour, because plumbing is a skilled trade, not an academic discipline. Claritas (talk) 15:37, 26 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}} . |
- DELETE - not notable by any Wikipedia standard. I don't see any evidence of a highly prestigious award, nor of national or international recognition. This is a plumber who has taught at a small non-notable FE college for the past seven years. Every FE college in the country has a plumbing teacher. Master plumber is a trade qualification with criteria that any competent tradesperson should be able to achieve after 10 years in the business - there are already more than 150 other master plumbers in the UK. While this number may seem small, the awarding body CIPHE has only had its charter for a short time and more masters are being given this trade qualification as they submit their paperwork. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The person meets the basic criteria:
- WP:NOTABILITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfTheLynn (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC – A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
- He is also notable by at least one of the following additional criteria:
- WP:ANYBIO – The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- WP:TEACH – The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- And may meet criteria for:
- WP:TEACH – The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
- WP:CREATIVE – The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- WP:DIPLOMAT – Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.
- WP:DIPLOMAT – Although diplomats often participate in issues of significant diplomatic importance without receiving specific individual coverage, sufficient reliable documentation of their role is required.
- The article meets all three cardinal content policies states on WP:Guide to deletion:
- WP:Neutral point of view
- WP:Verifiability
- WP:No original research
- – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I actually give some stock to the credential that there are only 160 or so "Master Plumbers" in the entire United Kingdom, and that he has received coverage in a variety of sources. I see no reason why a plumber could not have an article on Wikipedia for being a plumber, particularly if that person has achieved notability among plumbers. Mandsford 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I really want to say keep, but the notability of the reward (even though it is from a association recognized in law) is iffy, if it was rewarded for excellence instead of for time practicing it would be more convincing. If he had worked on some sort of restoration that was covered in the news or something like that I would say yes (there is a Mark Bywater covered on BBC but it's a different guy). Columnists for Fine Homebuilding have more notability than this guy currently.--Savonneux (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I think this article should be kept. I'm uncertain if he meets WP:ACADEMIC. But there is no question that he obviously meets the requirements to have an article as per:
- WP:ANYBIO – The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- I work in the Plumbing profession and believe that the title of Master Plumber is awarded to people who have met certain criteria's and are members of certain organisations, such as the The Guild of Master Plumbers, and how long they are in the plumbing industry is just one of the many criteria needed to become awarded. There are many others. This award is almost the equivalent to a knighthood for a plumber and is highly prestigious.
- The award is national as it is only available within the UK and is highly noted within both the plumbing and education professions.
- After reviewing the article. I feel that as this person has traveled to Germany to negotiate about an international partnership, and negotiated with other representatives from a French school. I feel that he may also meet the criteria for:
- WP:DIPLOMAT – Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.
– DevDevDevon (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— DevDevDevon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment He's not a diplomat or any sort of diplomatic representative. Claritas (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – He has been appointed by the College of West Anglia, one of the largest colleges in East Anlgia, to represent it and establish an international academic link with colleges in difference countries as part of the Comenius project, an international programme established by the European Union.
In conclusion, he is representing an establishment as part of an international program, a type of diplomacy.
- Comment – He has been appointed by the College of West Anglia, one of the largest colleges in East Anlgia, to represent it and establish an international academic link with colleges in difference countries as part of the Comenius project, an international programme established by the European Union.
- – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to this web page on the CIPHE site, and discounting general academic criteria (none of which requires being published), it would appear that the only significant criteria required are:
- that the applicant has been engaged in the industry for at least 10 years
- that there are no significant complaints on the applicant's Institute record
- that two nominated referees sign the application
- I might add that knighthoods below a certain rank are generally non notable ISMs, MBEs and OBEs for example, simply because they are rewarded for terms of service rather than notable accomplishments, that and there are well over 12,000 living recipients (there is no guideline on this since it's usually brought up on per afd basis, I'm pretty horrible at searching archives but here is an example [10].--Savonneux (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You also forgot to mention the following minimum criteria:
- that they are a Member (MCIPHE) or Fellow (FCIPHE) of the CIPHE and also hold the description of 'Registered Plumber';
- To become a member of CIPHE, they must meet the following minimum criteria:
- at college as a student or lecturer
- a plumbing designer, consultant or engineer for a manufacturer or merchant
- that they are qualified to City & Guilds Advanced Craft Level or S/NVQ Level 3 or equivalent and be accepted for City & Guilds Licentiateship;
- To become accepted for City & Guilds Licentiateship, they must meet the following minimum criteria:
- a level 3 pass
- a further career qualification
- five years experience at supervisory or first line management level subsequent to your level 3 pass.
- that they are registered with ECuk at either Engineering Technician/ Incoporated Engineer or Chartered Engineer level;
- that they conform to the CIPHE's Code of Professional Standards while in membership of the Institute;
- 1. Perform professionally, competently and responsibly
- Carry out their own work or supervise the work of others with due regard to technical quality, appropriate insurance cover and the interests of employers, employees and clients; communicating and performing to an acceptable standard; and with a duty of care to employers, employees and clients.
- 2. Safeguard the environment and public health and safety
- Take all reasonable care to avoid damaging the environment or creating any danger of death, injury or ill-health to any person or damage to property.
- 3. Comply with all relevant laws, regulations, standards and codes
- Work in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and conform to the appropriate European and British Standards Codes of Practice. In the case of Fellows and Members, registered with the ECUK, also conforming to that Council’s Codes of Professional Practice.
- 4. Broaden, improve and maintain their skills, knowledge and personal qualities
- Keep up-to-date with developments in the plumbing mechanical engineering services industry by attending and participating in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and other relevant training activities.
- 5. Uphold the dignity, standing and reputation of the Institute and the plumbing mechanical engineering services industry
- Act professionally and adopt a form of behaviour and appearance that will not cause offence or embarrassment to others. To maintain the Institute’s good name and that of the industry generally, members in the course of their work are expected to act professionally and adopt a form of behaviour and appearance that will not cause offence or embarrassment to others.
- 6. Abide by the Code of Professional Standards
- Accept responsibilities as a member to comply and co-operate with the Institute in the operation of its disciplinary procedures and any investigation that may occur as a result.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only minor local coverage, no significant honors and awards. Does not pass WP:BIO and no evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, despite strenuous efforts to spin. (The attempt to class him as a diplomat is beyond bizarre). HeartofaDog (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Why is it bizarre? As I mentioned previously.
- He has been appointed by the College of West Anglia, one of the largest colleges in East Anlgia, to represent it and establish an international academic link with colleges in difference countries as part of the Comenius project, an international programme established by the European Union.
In conclusion, he is representing an establishment as part of an international program, a type of diplomacy. - – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hard to see how he would qualify as notable. He has not had significant news coverage except very local; apparently his overseas trips did not generate any press. As an "academic" he gets zero hits at Google Scholar; merely teaching classes does not qualify one as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The references are regional, not local. Wikipedia requires that for an article about a person to be credible, the person must be the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
The Heinrich-Hertz-Berufskolleg did cover the event, but I do not have a direct link to the article as it is part of a feed that only shows the most recent events. I have contacted the college asking if they could provide me with their press release.
- Comment – The references are regional, not local. Wikipedia requires that for an article about a person to be credible, the person must be the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
- – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's clear that he doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the only thing we can find sufficient reliable sources about is the single fact that Mark Bywater was awarded the title of master plumber, as spammed across half a dozen or so local newspapers. The title itself doesn't seem particularly impressive, and per WP:LOCAL: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." WP:LOCAL is more about places than people but I think the same principle applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not pass WP:PROF. Please also note that KingOfTheLynn (talk · contribs) is highly likely to be a sock of Old Shadow (talk · contribs). Their editing patterns are nearly identical and Old Shadow even took credit for adding an image to an article that KingOfTheLynn uploaded (which I'll now be deleting as a copyvio). This sock may have been created to evade the obvious scrutiny that comes with creating an article about your father/relative/etc. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Hanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent sources provided or found. Supposedly has a lead role in a non-notable production with "a cult following of sorts". Supposedly sometimes subs for his brother in videogames of Toy Story and such. Without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, he is not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE Nominator has modified his opinion and offered a "speedy keep" down below. Seems to be a very courteous withdrawal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Absolutely. While I understand we generally like to let at least 7 days go by before a non-admin closure, I feel this one is clear enough to consider closed, unless there is some remarkable reason for deletion hiding out there that I simply cannot imagine. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's no reason to doubt the claims that Jim Hanks has substituted for Tom Hanks in certain voiceover roles. See Entertainment Weekly and Seattle Times. And here's a People magazine article focusing on Jim and and a syndicated article about him and one from the Boca Raton News (the latter looks like a syndicated article, but I didn't see a syndicate mentioned). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Metropolitan90. Significant coverage exists. Claritas (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One need not even dismiss his family ties to see that this individual passes WP:ENT[11]. Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have just rolled by several edits to the article by the ban-evading sock who created the article. (Sock case updated.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction to above - I meant "roll back" and this one was edited by, but not created by, the sock. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - I don't know how my Google-fu failed so badly on this one. The sources I found were truly quite weak. That said, the sources provided clearly demonstrate notability. Thanks all! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am aware of quite a bit of significant coverage in addition to the sources mentioned. DollyD (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has been improved and sourced. Nominator has withdrawn, changing his opinion from deletion to a speedy keep. As there are no delete comments, this seems to be worth considering for a snow closure. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 31 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) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The It Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has no content, just a link, so there is nothing to salvage here.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This "article" doesn't contain any information for reader.--Robixen (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After checking history it looks like user SkrallAgori deleted part of the article but I still think it should be deleted from Wikipedia and moved to Wikitionary.--Robixen (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirty Years' War and Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like one in a series of articles, but no other country has a "Thirty Years' War and ..." article devoted to it. And I question whether Norway should have. They were very little involved in the war. The first and third paragraph of this article don't describe Norway at all. The second says that Denmark-Norway participated, but this was a venture of the Danish king, and the fighting did not reach Norway. Finally, the fourth paragraph mostly describes the Torstenson War, which has its own article, and if anything should be linked to from the main Thirty Years' War article. To sum up, this is an unneeded article which hardly even describes what it pretends to. Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Torstenson War per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to merge? Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Norway did not exist as a country at the time—it was a mere province in Denmark–Norway. I'm not saying that an decent-length article on Denmark–Norway in the Thirty Years' War is not appropriate (if sufficient sources can be found), but why is this single province (which did not participate as an entity in the war) interesting? Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Firstly, I think nominator should take the trouble to notify the creator of this article, as is standard procedure. Secondly, contentions that this should be original research appear to be considerably lacking in assuming good faith, as the article has a considerable source list even though footnotes have not been applied. As for giving my opinion I shall await the statement from Williamborg. __meco (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. – sgeureka t•c 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sonic Colors (edit | talk | 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:Crystal - No ref given for release date, nor can one be found on Google - WP:RS or otherwise. Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Nom withdrawn as there is now more than a like hood this game will be released. Codf1977 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The release date is at the end of the teaser trailer Sega released. (Edit: it's at the end of the press release as well.) SynergyBlades (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sega official sites are now up. Can we close the deletion nomination now? Thanks. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no date - all it says late 2010 - wait till a date is announced. Codf1977 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not crystal balling if the game has actually been announced. There are plenty of games with articles here and no solid release date, just vague seasonal dates given: The Last Guardian, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, etc. This game exists, just as they do, so either put an AfD on all of them or close this one. Cheers. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no date - all it says late 2010 - wait till a date is announced. Codf1977 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Codf1977, I think you've misunderstood the crystal rules... They state that since the release date has been announced officially (regardless of how vague it is), the article can exist. --Josh (Mephiles602) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, a game doesn't need a release date to be notable. Look at Duke Nukem Forever, been in development for 13 years, no release date in sight. That among tons of other games. ScienceApe (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, it's an official game, the date says this year even in the trailer so therefore the article should stay. --VitasV (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: It is a real video game on a notable video game platform, even if it didn't have a release date yet, it would still be notable. --Deathawk (talk) 23:36, 26 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) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ReggiiMental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this article doesn't meet WP:BLP. The article makes claims of notability by saying that the artist has been mentioned in "a host of reviews including Hip Hop Connection and Big Smoke Magazine", but I can't find any actual articles to corroborate either claim. All the other references given on the page fail WP:RS in some way - a lot are blogs, some are links to Amazon products, some Youtube videos of songs he's made, and I see a handful of self-published data about albums. There's one link to a RollingStone article, but the article doesn't exist anymore, and I can't find a version of it anywhere. On top of all that, the article is being used for promotional purposes by Rustyjay (talk · contribs), who I'm pretty sure is the subject of the article given this version of his talk page which points to the subject's MySpace. So overall, I'd say that notability is really sketchy, and the page is largely promotional. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Meets neither WP:BLP, nor WP:MUSIC. One of the group's members Sutten Catchy, created an autobiographical article a few weeks ago and it was speedied, recreated and speedied again with the user, also called Sutten Catchy, being blocked. I nominated that article for deletion for the same reasons as this one. I also think that the creator is also pretty much a Single Purpose Account and that the account should be considered for blocking. Fenix down (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I initially thought of adding RTillery, Mud Family and Unfriendly Neighbours to this AfD for similar reasons. All of them have been largely edited by that account, which does seem to be an SPA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was going to suggest those three too, but didn't want to seem to have some sort of vendetta. I completely agree with your comment, though I think that this is only one of a sizeable number of UK music stubs concerning genres such as hip-hop and drum n bass that, whilst they are of significance to fans of those genres (of which I am one), they simply don't even meet WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. looking at the creators username Rustyjay and the company that connects his articles RustyJukeBox and the nature of this article the coi appears clear. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apiramy Visuvanathan (edit | talk | 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 nominated this yesterday sometime for a speedy on nonsense; but, well, it's not patent nonsense. In any event, though, it's riddled with weasel words, and in my opinion borders on an attack article. Notability is most certainly at question. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability problems. — Timneu22 · talk 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I removed a great deal of POV material questioning the validity of the election - information of that sort goes elsewhere, probably to Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam or Transnational Constituent Assembly of Tamil Eelam election 2010. The remainder is a two-line stub - I can't find any other notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (although I would consider a redirect to Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam). Unless there's an alternate spelling I haven't tried, there appears to be no coverage of this individual apart from a very brief mention in this story, which is replicated on a couple of Tamil websites, so the general notability guideline hasn't been satisfied. Furthermore, the fact that the office to which Visuvanathan has been elected is not within a recognised government means the politician-specific notability guideline is not met either. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect it to Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, which has coverage of the group. The article is a magnet for BLP violations, and as pointed out above, there isn't a great deal of coverage on this person that one would expect if they were notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:49, 27 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 already speedily deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vikas Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A credible assertion of notability is made, calling Sen an "author of successful blogs". However there is no indication (either in the article or elsewhere on the web) that his blogs are "successful" (i.e. no indications that they are referenced by any other reliable sources). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, maybe speedy. Nothing notable here. User has created this page and another one for the blog; I have reported this to administrators' attention for vandalism. Seems to be a promotional-only user account. — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, a credible assertion of significance so not WP:CSD#A7 but that does not translate into meeting WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-Notable blogger. SpigotMap 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- on 21st May his blog has been read 1000+ times. http://welcome3g.blogspot.com and yesterday's hit count was 800+ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.201.55 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Be that as it may, hit counts do not make a blog notable. References in reliable sources do. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please hold this Artical, we will get back to you some good references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.201.55 (talk) 13:56, 26 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) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coy Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP with one source. Zero independent sources. "Best known for" work on a sitcom that hasn't aired yet. One other role, supposedly in post-production. SummerPhD (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree that it's hard to be "best known for" a future show. Maybe this article is valid later, but not yet... — Timneu22 · talk 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cute kid, and he may one day have a career and coverage, but as for now... its simply TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, go ahead and delete. But when the show airs on June 2nd, his guest spot on the Glades airs in July, and the upcoming season of the Electric Company, (which he shoots this summer as a regular cast member) airs in the fall, you'll be right back out here creating his page again. Besides, who are all of you to decide who has a page on here and who doesn't? Are any of YOU "Best known" for anything? Or just a bunch of wanna be's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaysecoy (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are Wikipedia. We decide what is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. It looks like Stewart is not yet notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I'll check back at some point in the future to see if this kid has become "notable" enough in the eyes of the Wiki Gods to be considered worthy of a page.
- We're not trying to be difficult. If the youngster gets the coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO or WP:ENT, the article can be recreated. You might consider asking that it be userfied to you at User:Chaysecoy/Coy Stewart until that time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 30 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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirates versus Ninjas (edit | talk | 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 should just be a summary in List of Internet phenomena. As the article stands, it's just a single line of actual information followed by a (largely self-serving) list of places that mention the phenomenon. This is only ever going to become a horrible mess; it's just not necessary or helpful. Wikipedia does not need to be a hub for pirate/ninja humour. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Minkle Slowberries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Popular meme. Well sourced article. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't sources, they're just links. A reference is something attached to information to show where that information comes from. The article is essentially a portal. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read two of the points in the article, followed the reference links to the relevant page and the information was there. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Perhaps you think that the wp article has to have exactly the same words as that on the cited page? Unless they are direct quotes they don't, they have to demonstrate the point is factually correct, not taken out of context or otherwise skewed. I don't necessarily disagree that the article looks a bit like a portal, but this is an internet meme, so articles like this will always look like a portal, it lives on the internet and nowhere else much. To me the article looks fine and the cites look fine, so I don't really have much else to say on the matter now. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more links to other articles and websites than there are words in the informative part of the article. They're not references, they're indiscriminate trivia. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read two of the points in the article, followed the reference links to the relevant page and the information was there. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Perhaps you think that the wp article has to have exactly the same words as that on the cited page? Unless they are direct quotes they don't, they have to demonstrate the point is factually correct, not taken out of context or otherwise skewed. I don't necessarily disagree that the article looks a bit like a portal, but this is an internet meme, so articles like this will always look like a portal, it lives on the internet and nowhere else much. To me the article looks fine and the cites look fine, so I don't really have much else to say on the matter now. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It certainly needs cleanup, but I think this meme is a notable one. NPR:[12][13]; Emory's student paper:[14]; Fredericksburg paper:[15]; Rocky Mountain News:[16]; Wired's GeekDad blog:[17]; the offical Google blog:[18]; Know Your Meme:[19]; lots of sources cover the meme in the context of the Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball computer game[20] and Facebook application[21][22] and other games.[23]; a comic book:[24]; a musical:[25] Fences&Windows 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This the place for notable memes. Note that your suggestion to keep and improve is same as the result of the first AfD request. It didn't work then, and I don't see why now is any different. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know so much about Wikipedia, you'll be kind enough to let us know the accounts you've edited under before? Actually, keeping and improving is not the same as merging to a list, and if you want to improve it using the sources I've found, please do go ahead, and then you can withdraw this nomination. Fences&Windows 20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should he/she have to talk about previous accounts? This isn't a social club or popularity contest, is it? It's supposed to be a repository of information. Or was once. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a legitimate accusation to make (with y'know, facts and evidence to back it up) then please go through the official channels so that it can be dealt with. If your comment is as it appears, please find better ways to cope with opinions that do not match your own. Have a read through Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the duck test, an account created for the purpose of nominating an article for deletion that uses jargon like AfD is not a new user and is probably a sockpuppet. Using an alternative account to nominate articles for deletion is not a legitimate use. As for WP:NOT, try reading WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a "test" of anything, that's outright attack via policy! Nominating an article for deletion is not unusual behaviour, and is in fact something that Wikipedia explicitly suggests that you create an account for. Not every new user deserves to be accused of sockpuppetry for not being a blustering idiot.
- Can you find anything that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(memes) in any way? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the duck test, an account created for the purpose of nominating an article for deletion that uses jargon like AfD is not a new user and is probably a sockpuppet. Using an alternative account to nominate articles for deletion is not a legitimate use. As for WP:NOT, try reading WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know so much about Wikipedia, you'll be kind enough to let us know the accounts you've edited under before? Actually, keeping and improving is not the same as merging to a list, and if you want to improve it using the sources I've found, please do go ahead, and then you can withdraw this nomination. Fences&Windows 20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Default to keep A deletion discussion ending or merge and/or redirect is one thing, but since the nominator identifies a merge/redirect location in their nomination it renders a discussion about whether or not to delete the thing completely redundant. Someoneanother 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep No attempt has been made to observe the deletion prerequisites. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones, specifically? I would expect very clear and concrete violations of those rules to qualify your claim--not vague interpretations--so I must be particularly dense in not seeing any. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of those points could be twisted to argue for the inclusion of any non-inflammatory content in Wikipedia, which is no doubt how poor articles like this manage to exist. Similarly, I could interpret them to suit my argument: 2) I read it, understood it, and saw the poor editing. Didn't come to the conclusion that the article should stay in spite of this. 3) It's beyond tagging, but I would agree that tags would be an improvement should the article stay. 4) Considered it, proposed it. It should redirect to a blurb in the Internet memes article. 7) Read it, didn't come to the same conclusion as you. 9) Apparently we disagree on what is a source and what is cruft/spam. 10) Not a recent article, history suggests that it's an unsalvageable mess.
- I'm yet to see an argument showing the content to be useful. Instead we're just told that it's a popular meme (so? It belongs on the popular Internet meme page as suggested in the nomination) and that it has a lot of sources (Wikipedia likes sources, right? So we'll just call the inappropriate collection of links sources and pretend that this makes the content legitimate...? No.) Minkle Slowberries (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to wherever the stupid Internet catchphrases are usually kept. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a notable stupid Internet catchphrase though. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a long-lived and widespread internet meme, which also combines two other long-lived and widespread memes. It's hard to see why this should *not* be seen as notable. Ringbark (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete i do not see any third party sources that actually discuss this "meme"; merely a list of primary sources to games that contain pirates and/or nijas. WP:SYNswitched to weak keep EDIT to add or merge end of editPer User:Dream Focus I went to the google news and was able to find (minimal) third party content from reliable sources about Pirates v. Ninjas which has been added to the article. Active Banana (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting most of the article was an improvement, but watch as people add their own links back in, meaning that it has to be tirelessly watched and pruned forever (and I'm sure it will just end up back its previous state). The article content in its current state could be moved to List of Internet phenomena and we wouldn't have this problem. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not oppose a merge.Active Banana (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Take a brief moment to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [26] The "Pirate versus Ninjas" internet meme is mentioned in some news articles. Its got coverage. Dream Focus 03:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Real Ultimate Power. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barrett Kerschbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Professional Bog Snorkeler? Unsurprisingly no evidence is presented of this and and a search has turned up nothing. I very much doubt there are professional bog snorkellers and there is no other indication of notability. JD554 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — subject does not meet WP:BIO. Zhernovoi (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was able to find references to Bog Snorkeling 'championships' but no indication that these events included professional athletes. Unable to locate any professional leagues that would confirm inherent notabilty, nor any indication that this apparent novelty sport would have the level of amateur competitions to classify its athletes as notable. Marcy Winter (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 17:29, 27 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) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dors Feline (edit | talk | 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 nude model. Fails WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — does not meet WP:BIO. Zhernovoi (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is nothing more than a promotion for her website. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails to meet GNG, BIO etc; Nothing notable about her whatsoever. EuroPride (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:PORNSTAR. SnottyWong talk 17:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I made it, and I've spent the last few days trying to find the right sources to establish notability, but I can't. She's gaining popularity, so I'm certain sometime in the near future those sources will exist. However, as I'm burnt out on the attitudes and poor manners of most wikipedians, I won't be the one making it. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:16, 27 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) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wheat Thin Bomber Incident (edit | talk | 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, looking for WP:V and WP:RS. Elevating for discussion, but I believe this is a delete. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per nom. While this may not be a hoax, it does fail both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. I did a gSearch for "A Gaper's Guide to Jackson Hole", one of the references and guess what I found, just the article, nothing else, Also found nothing on the author of the book, "Dojen Gurhani". Two of the references don't even mention this "incident and one that does is unreliable. Not a hoax, but a very un-notable incident that also fails WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteTotally un-notable and not even a candidate for Uncyclopedia. I looked up '"Tensleeper Press"' and guess what? Peridon (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked up '"Steve Swan" "wheat thin"' and apart from Wikipedia (2 entries) absolutely nothing. Same for '"wheat thin bomber"'. I can't even find 'Slight River' as a town - or even as a place. Who can demonstrate that this ISN'T a hoax? Peridon (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The so-called Togwotee Dispatch has only one contributor, its creator, and virtually no content. "Yottaly joined our community, Today, 3:31 AM EDT" (quoted from http://togwoteedispatch.wetpaint.com/whatsnew - wetpaint.com being a free web-hosting site). Peridon (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, how odd. The creator of The Yellowstone Tribune is Yotta Yoctaly. About six hours ago. No older site activity is listed. I change my !vote to Speedy Delete as this is a hoax and would mention WP:SNOW as having relevance to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked up '"Steve Swan" "wheat thin"' and apart from Wikipedia (2 entries) absolutely nothing. Same for '"wheat thin bomber"'. I can't even find 'Slight River' as a town - or even as a place. Who can demonstrate that this ISN'T a hoax? Peridon (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delelte - No evidence of notability as all "sources" are faked (and would fail as local news anyway). Did I ever tell you about the time one of the other instructors rewired the controls on my scooter while I was in class? Not quite 6 boxes of Wheat Thins out of a plane window, but still pretty funny. We still talk about it all the time, not that it was notable... - SummerPhD (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete - I just found this page, so I apologize for a slow response. I'll say what I said on the talk page: I know this seems fishy, but you have to realize that it's coming from a part of the world that simply doesn't use the internet for its normal, day-to-day business. I can get you pictures of the same stuff in print, if you like, but I don't know that you would take that any more seriously. I know this is a very informal sort of proof, but here's a picture of a "Wheat Thin Bomber" T-Shirt that I found. I would point out two things: 1) People do not make T-Shirts about things that never happened, and 2) people do not make T-Shirts about things that are not interesting. As for the credibility issues, I'm not sure what to say. The sources I cited are not exactly encyclopedias; they're basically tourist literature, the sort of stuff you get at welcome centers and novelty shops. The book is much the same. I don't know where it's published, or if it's produced by professionals or amateurs or what. But they are sources. Besides which, this isn't exactly a controversial topic. I would think that somewhere throughout all this you would at least come to believe that the event did happen and that some people do care, and beyond that the sources don't really matter for something of this nature. I've been looking at the Wikipedia citation guidelines, and it seems to me that the only circumstances for which sources are absolutely necessary are those that involve some sort of conflicting info, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If it's really a problem, put a request for more citations at the top of the page, but at the very least remove the deletion candidacy. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Another thing comes to mind, regarding the first two citations. The event took place in the thorofare region of Wyoming, which is a very noteworthy area, since it is the farthest you can get from a road in the lower 48 states, is home to the earliest hunting season in the state, is one of the only places in the world that straddles drainages of two oceans, and forms a critical part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. However, there is no Wikipedia article about this area, and the only references you can find to it online are passive mentions in either commercial outfitters' sites or personal pages about expeditions in the area.
- If you're not from Wyoming, this is bound to seem strange. But the fact of the matter is that people from this state don't write wikipedia articles; I've traveled all over the U.S. and abroad, and the only place I've found that is more remote (as a whole) is rural Alaska. Even there internet has more of a presence than in most of Wyoming, since alternative media are even harder to come by. This event is not un-noteworthy or a hoax, it's just begotten of a region and a culture that is probably very foreign to most people who are not themselves a part of it. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- My final petition is this: The Wheat Thin Bomber Incident, whatever else it may be, is interesting. Or at least I think so. It is not vandalism, it is not hurting wikipedia's image or credibility, it is not defaming anyone, it is not unreasonably promoting anyone, it is not inhibiting any more important issue from being addressed, and it is not altogether poorly written. It does not violate any of the statutes for which wikipedia stands. And finally, it may be useful or interesting to someone, somewhere, sometime. If you have found it even the least bit meritorious in some regard, than it may have been worth it. I am not going to pursue this issue any further; I am not a passionate wikipedia editor by nature, and I would have preferred not to have spent as much time as I have debating this issue. I merely felt like the claims against this article were unfair, and I wanted to justify them reasonably. I have made all the justifications that I am willing or able to make. I am signing off now, and I don't plan on returning, either to add to what I've said or to see how others respond. I leave this to the rest, and I only ask that they earnestly ask themselves whether this article stands to benefit or detriment the wikipedia as a whole. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment These papers haven't got a single ghit - not even a directory reference that comes up. Nor has the cited book. This doesn't do much for their acceptability as sources. Anyone can get a t-shirt with anything on it. I have one that says 'So many cats, so few recipes'. Doesn't mean I eat cats. As to rural Alaska, an editor on Wikipedia that I know from elsewhere lives in fairly rural Alaska. The main problem here is that no sources are showing up that we can regard as reliable. Both those papers going online at the same time as this article appears, and both carrying the subject and little else? Have a look at WP:DUCK and you'll see what we mean. So far, you appear to be the sole source - assuming you are Yottaly and co - and therefore if this is not a hoax, it is Original Research WP:OR. Happening in a notable area doesn't make something notable in itself. And if the area is so notable, why not give us an article on it rather than this almost non-event? Peridon (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is allegedly published in Slight River, Wy, by the Tensleeper Press - according to the information given by the creator who now doesn't seem to "know where it's published, or if it's produced by professionals or amateurs or what.". As the info is supposed to be on pages 85 and 86, I would imagine some professional involvement. If it was home produced on legal size paper at four pages to a sheet folded/stapled, that would be a minimum of 22 sheets which would take a reasonably large amount of force to hand staple - plus a long arm stapler. (I am a professional...) As I said above, I can find no evidence of the publisher or the town or village - or even the river. I would be interested to hear how the Togwotee Dispatch manages its paper edition and what its circulation is, not to mention who they are seeing as Togwotee Pass (elevation 9658 ft/2944 m) is a rather high mountain pass. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidental to the above, why are both these 'papers' carrying the story of something that 'happened' nearly five years ago? Rural and out in the sticks maybe, but I do wonder... Peridon (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is allegedly published in Slight River, Wy, by the Tensleeper Press - according to the information given by the creator who now doesn't seem to "know where it's published, or if it's produced by professionals or amateurs or what.". As the info is supposed to be on pages 85 and 86, I would imagine some professional involvement. If it was home produced on legal size paper at four pages to a sheet folded/stapled, that would be a minimum of 22 sheets which would take a reasonably large amount of force to hand staple - plus a long arm stapler. (I am a professional...) As I said above, I can find no evidence of the publisher or the town or village - or even the river. I would be interested to hear how the Togwotee Dispatch manages its paper edition and what its circulation is, not to mention who they are seeing as Togwotee Pass (elevation 9658 ft/2944 m) is a rather high mountain pass. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I don't often participate in AFDs anymore, but I couldn't pass this one up. Obviously most of the stuff on this page is misleading or false. The Thorofare Plateau is only about 16 miles from the nearest road, and only about 50 miles from Cody, Wyoming. Rugged yes, notably remote no. The nearby Two Ocean Pass is notable for having a stream that drains into two oceans and indeed we have an article about it. We also have an article about Younts Peak which is the most notable peak in the immediate vicinity of the Thorofare Plateau and the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, so the region is already reasonably represented on the pages of Wikipedia. As to the ruralness of the area, the event in question occurred between two of the more technologically savvy areas in Wyoming; Cody and Jackson, Wyoming. Both cities have well established newspapers (both of whom have an online presence), so it is highly unlikely that this event would have gone undocumented both on paper and online. I don't doubt that something resembling this event probably occurred and that a handful of locals in the area consider it to be a fine tale, but there is an alphabet soup of policies that preclude it from being included in Wikipedia, sorry. And on a personal note, I am from Wyoming, and I've written plenty of Wikipedia articles, thank you very much. But thats okay, feel free to keep underestimating us. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYOHelp!) 05:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The evidence to establish notability does not exist. Nuttah (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just reporting that there has been no activity on either of the online 'newspapers' since the 24 hours of their creation, which was approx. five days ago. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax, http://www.wetpaint.com/ provides a "roll your own website" service. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Cull (edit | talk | 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, elevating to discuss and determine notability. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He wrote for the series Urban Gothic back in 2000. Next we hear about him he's writen and directed the film The Possession Of David O'Reilly. Searches find the fellow who runs Remote Medical International,[27] the drummer for Urban Divide,[28] and a number of other false positives. This guy does not have coverage to meet WP:GNG and his career fails WP:ENT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion page for my comments. Thank you. KimSimpkins (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless references can be improved. Deb (talk) 17:08, 31 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) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiranandani Meadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable residential complex in India. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the page statistics View count for Hiranandani Meadows which is good enough, I think we should keep this article. KuwarOnline (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — does not meet WP:N. Sources (accessible on Google News) are mostly covering events/actions associated with the subject and therefore the notability is being inherited, which does not meet the “No inherited notability” requirement of WP:COMPANY. Zhernovoi (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 - not notable. SnottyWong talk 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Does not meet notability.--Nilotpal42 07:22, 28 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 redirect to ball chain. Straightfoward fork once the spam had been removed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bead chain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declining speedy G11, as this is not about a specific product, nor is it promotional. However, it's little more than a dict def, and that's not speedy allowed either. delete UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 26 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. I'm going to mark this for merger instead. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mary Ellis grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable grave, nothing more than an obituary or genealogy. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 26 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) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Culture of Jewish Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonsensical ego-stroking, with mild sexist connotations. <Hollandmc><Talk> 09:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic original research (despite the references). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quote from the article: "Being a Jewish woman in contemporary times is relevant to any other woman in today’s world. They go to school, search for jobs, get married, and have children. A typical Jewish family has more than two children, as they are encouraged to “have sex and give birth to many children.” GONG!!! Topic is notable, presentation is complete garbage. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not safisfy minimum wikipeadia standarts. As said before its unencyclopedic original research. A proper article sould be Judaism and gender.Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This looks like a school assignment essay and not a very good one at that, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per everything above. — Timneu22 · talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's quite an assortment of generalizations about a group of people who number in the millions. Mandsford 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly redirect to Women in Judaism. i suppose there may be some accurately sourced statements from this article that could be added to women in judaism. I of course have no way of knowing if any of this is accurately sourced. if the author of this can understand why this is completely inappropriate for WP, perhaps they can join the discussion at that article, get an education on what to add and how, and perhaps they can contribute. I dont mean to encourage the person if they dont see the problems here. hello: if you are angry about this afd, DONT go there, please.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 27 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) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allison Lee Quets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E, although admittedly the event has stretched over the course of several years. Should be deleted on the "do no harm" basis. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nomination sums it up, drawn out but one event. Nuttah (talk) 14:45, 30 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Love Doctors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The City Link/southflorida.com reference is enough significant coverage to establish notability. For what it's worth the Palm Beach Post writes about these guys all the time -- most articles are behind a paywall however. if you'd have done a search you'd see this. riffic (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did do a search (I even said that in my nomination). I don't think that local news show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why not? what is the scope? is local notability not true notability? Mind you The Palm Beach Post is a major paper with a large readership. riffic (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, none of the notability guidelines say anything about local news coverage; Let me remind you of the general notability guideline: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. riffic (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why not? what is the scope? is local notability not true notability? Mind you The Palm Beach Post is a major paper with a large readership. riffic (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. A single mention in the local news does not do much to establish notability. A science fair at a local elementary school might generate a similar amount of coverage and that's certainly not notable either. If this show were notable, more people would have more to say about it.--RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but it has plenty of significant coverage.. see that link above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "The Love Doctors" – news · books · scholar · images)?" Go ahead, click on news, it won't hurt. Keep simply because this nomination is invalid, nominator didn't bother to do a good faith attempt to confirm that sources do not exist before nominating for deletion. riffic (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and if that search link at the top of this AfD is too confusing for anyone, do this: click here and qualify your search with the phrase "love doctors" wzzr. What does this look like? OH YES SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES. riffic (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but it has plenty of significant coverage.. see that link above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "The Love Doctors" – news · books · scholar · images)?" Go ahead, click on news, it won't hurt. Keep simply because this nomination is invalid, nominator didn't bother to do a good faith attempt to confirm that sources do not exist before nominating for deletion. riffic (talk) 16:50, 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) 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment While the number of hits in the Palm Beach paper's archives on the search string you've provided is impressive, the notability of this show is still not clear. These all seem to be coming from the same Palm Beach newspaper and are more along the lines of calendar items or mentions of this show when the subject of the article appears on the show rather than the kind of coverage that WP:GNG is looking for where the show is the primary subject of more in depth coverage. Its really difficult to tell how significant this coverage is since this newspaper charges for access to its archives. Has this show been covered in any books or other newspapers?--RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not just the Palm Beach Post, the search I provided also listed these other fine news organizations: TCPalm (E. W. Scripps Company), South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, and Bradenton Herald, so basing your argument against the sources "all seem to be coming from the same newspaper" is disingenuous, and incorrect. riffic (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the lions share is coming from this one paper and none of the other google news hits seem all that significant either. I'm not seeing any of the coverage "address[ing] the subject directly in detail". They are just brief mentions of this radio program, little more than calendar items or mentions of the program in promotion of some other event that the article is addressing directly in detail.--RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm sure you read each and every single article listed in these searches. riffic (talk)
- not only that, but http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Glenn+Curtis%22+%22Rich+Dickerson%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=a also shows more newsprint wasted on the hosts. but you can choose to ignore sources as much as you'd like or keep stating your subjective analysis of the above to "not seem all that significant" while clearly not even reading anything. all I know about wp policy requirements is the ability to source, which I have proved beyond any doubts. riffic (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm sure you read each and every single article listed in these searches. riffic (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have relisted this, as the only additional comments arising from the original relisting are from the editors who commented in the first week. I feel that more people need to present their opinions here before a decision can be made -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:10, 26 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) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amorth band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy contested with a claim of notability on talk page. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND and reliable sources could not be found to verify this band. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 14:39, 30 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) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthony Iannarelli Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. People running for office are not considered notable on Wikipedia. No other evidence of notability presented." Prod removed without improvements. Google news give sno significant results[29]. Fram (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks significant WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He hasn't even got the nomination yet; he's just running in the primary. Has never held office. Fails WP:Politician. I would say to redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010 except that nobody has created that article yet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- N-Strike (edit | talk | 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 toy line. Notability is not asserted, and article is rife with personal opinion and original research. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. No assertion of notability per WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As this article has already been speedied, can someone please close this AFD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine A. Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event : "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
Her involvement in video games, her career and so forth - hardly sets her apart from the millions of other people who play Second Life, or the hundreds of thousands who work as translators around the world. The subject has been quoted - briefly - in two low-profile newspaper articles, one on Wired and the other in the New York Times. She was not of primary importance in either article. Both mentioned a number of individuals, and she, like the rest, was covered in only a small percentage of the total content. There have been many newspaper and magazine articles about Second Life over the last seven years, in which numerous players have been quoted; yet, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, it would be inappropriate to create articles for everyone who has ever had anything to say about the subject in a newspaper or magazine.
There is already a Wikipedia article about Second Life. If anything, a "notable residents" section could be added to that article, and perhaps her name could be put into that section, although that might look rather like trivia and perhaps not be appropriate (and if so, is further justification for removing this writeup.) Second Life has a Wikia site as well, and she is listed there. As it stands, the rest of her biography is not supported by the notability requirements; there is just nothing that sets her apart as a translator or anything else in a way that is broadly interesting.
There is one final (and significant) matter, which is that the subject objects to her real life ("RL") information being "outed." This is based on the presumption of anonymity in Second Life; a user's RL name, gender, location, etc. are not normally revealed. This is an unusual case, as she deliberately gave her full name to a magazine and allowed them to photograph her. Nevertheless, on her own blog, she strenuously objects to the outing of her name and gender:
"Weedy Herbst, that vitriolic little busy-body on the forums, is quick to show up and viciously mock Cocoanut's naming of my RL name and outing of my RL gender. She completely forgets that this was not my wish last April, was not on this blog, was not in the game anywhere, and was not said inworld -- indeed only became known because of vicious stalkers trolling around year-old posts upon posts in old Herald articles and putting it together with other factoids they dug up. [...] I'd prefer that my RL information not be discussed and spread about. But because I was willing to go to the SLCC as my RL self with my SL avatar linked -- unlike Aimee Weber or even Weedy Herbst herself -- these facts were covered by the Herald." (Emphasis mine) HunsV (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because she is a prominent human rights activist and expert on the former Soviet Union, not because of her involvement with video games/virtual worlds. She has been an editor with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a major broadcaster, the Executive Director, a Program Director and the UN representative of the International League for Human Rights, and a research director with Human Rights Watch. She has translated a bunch of important books (like Boris Yeltsin, The Struggle for Russia) and published some herself. As far as her involvement with virtual worlds is concerned, it has been covered by Wired and the New York Times. See the article for sources. She's definitely not known for "one event", but as a prominent human rights activist over a period spanning three decades. Also, the claim to "anonymity" is nonsense, per this interview in the New York Times and this interview in Wired. Jasonobrian (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would being an editor with a radio station make someone notable? There are thousands of such people. There are TENS of thousands of people working with and for the UN - again, how is this notable? She translated some books - should everyone who works for Berlitz get a writeup? I simply do not see how any of this qualifies as encyclopedic content. The deletion debates contain plenty of DELETEs for things like middle schools, which - in the case of those that have been around for many decades, such as my own - are relevant in the lives of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. Yet, someone who has done things - good and wholesome things, certainly, but whom, like that middle school, doesn't stand out, because there are tons of examples of people who have done the exact same thing. Why would anyone who doesn't know her professionally or have an interest in griefing her in Second Life (read on...) find this information even remotely interesting? How is it useful to have any of it in an encyclopedia?
Regarding anonymity, you really should read her blog. Whatever her motivations for giving these interviews, she seems to have ten gallons of vitriol for anyone who mentions her true identity and her Second Life identity in the same place, which should be perfectly obvious if you take a look at the blog entry I quoted. Now, just in case that wasn't enough evidence for you, take a look at this OTHER blog entry, which she made in February of this year:
And - if that isn't enough for you - she harbors abject hatred for Wikipedia, considering it akin to the Ministry of Truth, and would probably blow a fuse if she realized you put an article about her on this site, linking her real and virtual identities together, and providing a large quantity of heretofore unknown information about her to countless people who enjoy harassing her in Second Life? (Again, documented perfectly well in her blog.) You are really not doing Wikipedia a favor by posting this, and you are not doing her a favor, either. HunsV (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]"Before all this, Pathfinder played an outrageous part in outing my RL identity on the forums [...] Pathfinder, that zealous keeper of forums decorum who would later hasten to ban me without due process, let posts outing my RL gender and promising to link to the rest of my RL information with only an email, were allowed to languish for days, with no action. Finally, they were lazily ellided, and a policy never enforced very belatedly articulated -- that if information is not on the First Life profile of the avatar in SL, it is not fair game for discussion in forums and inworld."
Keep - I am the one who contested prod. There are two things to consider -a) she seems to have received coverage because of her role in SL b) Many of her translations have received multiple reviews in Reliable Sources. IMO taken together, she qualifies for inclusion as a notable author, who has some coverage for other things. And regarding the privacy concern - as Jasnobrian points out, she has given interviews before in media and only those should be used to source her biographical details.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Regardless of what HunsV may argue upthread, a person's reaction to a wikipedia article is not a valid reason to contest it. There are a few very simple rules in play here. Let's see..
- Notability: Check, check, and double check. I've seen articles with less with no issues.
- Verifiability: Check. The valid sources seem to check out.
- POV: Check. Looks neutral and factual to me.
- Article structure: Could do with some cleaning up, (maybe some wikify-tag is in order), but cleaning up != deleting. This is going to become hot-button as hell in the next few hours/days. TheGreatTK (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article has posted about it on her blog. I strongly suggest locking the article down while this vote takes place (which I probably should not vote on, having tangled with her in the past in my own blogging capacity) as it *will* attract vandalism thanks to its current visibility. SJennings (talk) 05:45, 28 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. Eventually this could be merged as well but I'll go with a keep for now. Tone 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Grohl discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another example of my being on the fence. While I would normally suggest merging this article to Dave Grohl, I don't think that would make sense because he has never recorded any albums as a solo artist. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge He's clearly notable, the list is potentially helpful to users... But this should be a section at the bottom of the biography page (without all the headlines), just as is done for writers under "Works". Carrite (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning his notability; I'm questioning his having a solo discography article when he has never been a solo artist. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The self-titled first Foo Fighters album was technically a solo recording, solely written, performed and recorded by Dave Grohl under the pseudonym Foo Fighters, so you can't really say that Grohl has never recorded any albums as a solo artist. --Canley (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the album Pocketwatch was a Dave Grohl solo album, also recorded under a pseudonym (Late!). --Canley (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that, but since they weren't credited as such... Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the album Pocketwatch was a Dave Grohl solo album, also recorded under a pseudonym (Late!). --Canley (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The self-titled first Foo Fighters album was technically a solo recording, solely written, performed and recorded by Dave Grohl under the pseudonym Foo Fighters, so you can't really say that Grohl has never recorded any albums as a solo artist. --Canley (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning his notability; I'm questioning his having a solo discography article when he has never been a solo artist. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge The information itself is important enough, but might not be important enough to go into the Dave Grohl main article. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge. Clearly encyclopedic. Either way, a deletion discussion isn't appropriate.--Michig (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would only be inappropriate if this were a bad faith nomination, which it wasn't. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Substantial article. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:31, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Victory Services Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- This article was created, was deleted as copyvio of http://www.vsc.co.uk/who-we-are , was re-created under somewhat different name, I obeyed a request to move it here. My 2 queries are:-
- Notable?
- Is the alleged copyvio merely what I call "selfcopyvio"?, i.e. the same man, or two people in the same club or company, set up http://www.vsc.co.uk/who-we-are and article Victory Services Club. The allegedly copyvio edits are the 4 oldest edits.
- weak delete - This certainly reeks of WP:COI, but that in and of itself isn't enough to delete. The removal of the copyvio text surely reduces this to a neat little stub, and the club seems to have a few prestigious members. Can we find any appropriate sources to confirm the membership? If not, then my !vote will stand. If we can find some, then I'll probably change my !vote. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteLots of Google web search hits, but as far as I can tell they are all related to the fact that the club has conference facilities and lodgings for rent. In Google book search, I found this and this. Unfortunately, only snippet views are available for the two books, so I can't really verify if they can be used as references. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am changing my !vote. As a charitable institution (according to its website) the relevant notability criteria are found in WP:CLUB. In addition to the, admittedly terse, book references, I've come across two news sources: The Glasgow Herald and The Montreal Gazette which in my opinion (combined with a healthy dose of AGF in the history section of the web site) gets the article across the finishing line. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the fenceThis organization seems like it ought to be notable: in existence since 1907, housed in a historic building (Connaught House), new wing was dedicated by Winston Churchill; but all this is according to their own website. I'll see if I can find anything more independent. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regretfully, after a search. It appears this is more of a place of public accommodation than an actual club. Clearly it is a well known place; there are many references to it in fiction, as a place where the hero meets someone or the traveler rests; but nothing that constitutes in-depth coverage about the club itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Its size and its premises, along with notable people who are associated with it, get it over the line. It clearly is a club that offers, as many do, accommodation for members. It is not just accommodation. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:41, 26 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 Deltron 3030. Shimeru (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deltron Event II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Result of first nomination in 2008 was keep due to sources saying that the album would be out soon. But now, even after being in the works at least six years, there is still no confirmed release date. Most recent source in the article says release will be in "2010" but given the project's history that's not too believable and is not verifiable to the necessary level of detail. WP:CRYSTAL is still the overriding issue for this album as it s was in 2008. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - just learned that the article was also PROD'ded in July 2009 for the same reason and the PROD was removed by an editor, once again because sources said at the time that the album would be out "soon." It appears that nobody followed up on that PROD removal. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Deltron 3030. Information on this album has slowed to a trickle — not even Del's own newsletter has mentioned it — and no reliable sources have written about it in over a year. White 720 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from Nominator - I think the merge suggested by White 720 (plus a redirect) is a pretty good idea. Even though the album might never see the light of day, its production is probably a matter of historical interest for the supergroup project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per White 720.--PinkBull 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Another Comment from Nominator - I'm willing to accept merge/redirect as the "consensus" if nobody else comes along with a strong argument to delete. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 30 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 National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. Shimeru (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Centre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources in the article are limited at best and a group inside of an academic unit isn't generally notable. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. No need for a separate article - I agree with the nom, this centre of excellence doesnt have enough coverage to have a separate article on its own. The information in this article should be added to the NIPER article.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge- Agree with Sodabottle.Nilotpal42 07:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Obscure foreign entity. Goldamania (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence intended, but why should being "foreign" is a ground for deleting or merging any article? What countries are foreign and which countries are not?--Nilotpal42 16:14, 30 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) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Towers (edit | talk | 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 of the article is not notable. He does not meet the notability guidelines for academics or for creative professionals. Could possibly qualify as a vanity article. MidnightDesert (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apparent self-promotion by an entrepreneur with a famous grandfather. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Seems promotional, but there are some semi-valid references. Mostly this seems like a non-notable person (is an entrepreneur in the intro is a red flag). It's possible that someone could rewrite this with more notable references, but that may be tough to do. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 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 Unanimous, Non-admin close Chzz ► 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Donkey show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand: As it is the article is pitiful, but Donkey Show's is a real term that is used fairly regurally and I feel it deserves a proper Wikipedia article. --Deathawk (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well referenced and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least you aren't vain – ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several RS exist and are cited in the article with proper quotations, which show that the topic has generated substantial coverage and interest for the outside world. As such, it is a notable topic, and it is well within WP:GNG. There are no reasons to think that the article meets WP:NOT, so deletion is not a proper option. --Cyclopiatalk 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See the DRV for rationale, meets all wikipedia policies and guidelines based on ability to reference with reliable sources riffic (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Impossibly weak keep—I'm not convinced that the (sordid) subject is notable, but it makes a decent enough pretence at it that it shouldn't be deleted immediately. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, the standards of notability have nothing to do with having an editor convinced that a subject is notable, but rather that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. riffic (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a hint – badgering people who are arguing for the same result as you is a)useless, b)dull and c)in no way endearing. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- just a hint, I don't care. riffic (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, your edit summary was (marginally) more polite and illuminating than the accompanying content. In response: this is not mainspace, and I do not have a problem with policy. I was simply surprised to !vote "delete" in a discussion and be heckled by someone who agreed with my position. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- just a hint, I don't care. riffic (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a hint – badgering people who are arguing for the same result as you is a)useless, b)dull and c)in no way endearing. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, the standards of notability have nothing to do with having an editor convinced that a subject is notable, but rather that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. riffic (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yeah, Keep for sure!. The Donkey Show has a cultural resonance that bridges generations. As the "Sexy Stud" proclaimed in Clerks II, "Kelly can be a guy's name too... shheah!!!" Gattosby (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Gattosby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can people come to article that I have rewritten. The history section is being removed as "trivia" and after being restored, a quote from the Godfather was removed as being "unsourced" despite the source clearly there. Bring your own opinions to the talk page to develop consensus for removal or inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As DGG said in the DRV it does not matter whether or not donkey shows are a real phenomenon, when there are WP:RS that use the term. Since there are WP:RS that use the term I regard this as an obvious keep. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sometimes, despite my love for Wikipedia, I completely hate Wikipedia. This is one of those times. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable urban legend, important in why US people decide to visit Mexico, appears both in a Godfather book and in a Kevin Smith film (which means that it has been famous in US pop culture for years, it's not a barely famous trivia item that gets forgotten in a few weeks), good secondary references (I added one more). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 30 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inferno Nuker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Basically, the concept is that the user inputs an IP Address, and Inferno Nuker attempts to crash that computer. I would be quite surprised if software designed for this purpose is widely discussed in reliable sources in a way that gives it technical, historical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Smerdis of Tlön. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons summarised above. Nuttah (talk) 14:19, 30 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- House! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacking any significant coverage is nowhere near WP:NOTFILM. Lame Name (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid Keep of the now expanded and sourced article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 26 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) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerry Giordano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arguably non-notable news anchor and realtor. Secondary coverage in Google News seems to reflect a DUI charge in 2008, there is no coverage that I can find of the disposition of that arrest. Joe Decker (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Unnotable person and without actual coverage of the guy, beyond his DUI charge (which itself is not noteworthy), fails WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 31 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Carlos Gamarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources found to support notability. A Google search ("Jean Carlos Gamarra" -Wikipedia) returned 47 hits, of which none appeared to be reliable sources. Google Books and Google News searches returned no hits. I proposed this article for deletion on 18 May 2010 ("No sources found to support notability; external reference links provided in article have all expired"), but this was contested by Macpl on 26 May 2010 ("awards and titles support notability"). Janggeom (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see the awards that confer notability. There are 4 awards listed--2 are for the "Bolivarian Games", 1 is a diploma from a Univiersity, and 1 is an award from his hometown. Titles like "Honorary Representative" and "Legal Respresentative" don't confer martial arts notability. In addition, there are no sources (much less independent ones) for any of the claims. The article badly needs a rewrite as well. 173.79.35.108 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above arguments. Astudent0 (talk) 13:45, 27 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 Withdrawn by nominator HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine D. (Kitty) Kimball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination- I declined a BLP PROD for this article because a source is provided. How notable the individual is, I'm not sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some references to the article and formatted it a bit. Based on her current position and the positions she has held, notability seems to be established. SilverserenC 02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court" assures notability. Mark as a stub. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 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 Einherjer#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aurora Borealis (MCD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see in WP:MUSIC regarding demos is that unreleased material is usually not notable. This recording was later given wide commercial release. This is a useful stub. ×Meegs 19:37, 23 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) 00:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Comment - the EP started as a demo but later became an album, so the "assumed non-notable" argument from the nominator is illegitimate. This AfD could possibly be closed as "moot" for that very reason. Meanwhile, if someone thinks this album article should be deleted, then a proper nomination should be conducted with distinct arguments about notability or the lack thereof. With all that being said, the EP does not appear to have received significant coverage beyond discography sites and file-sharing sites, so the article could maybe be deleted for that reason. If someone did a proper nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:46, 26 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. Can be recreated if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moda (association) (edit | talk | 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. Velcro Christmas Tree (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 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) 00:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep a news archive search turns up a number of sources, none of them great. But it does look notable in the English sense of the word and so more detailed sources likely exist... Hobit (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing but advertisement. --Prove you wrong (talk) 09:35, 26 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. No consensus to delete. Merge is an option that may be discussed on the talk page. Shimeru (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Parker Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like McKenna Theatre, I can find no significant coverage of this small, college theatre building. Any gNews hits are unrelated or event listings. As with McKenna, the article also doesn't attempt to assert any notability, but no speedy criteria seems to quite fit for a building. » scoops “5x5„ 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Needs a whole bunch of quality tags: a coherent lead, wikification, and so on. Give broad leeway to public buildings, chances are the information will be useful to someone eventually. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So wp:ITSUSEFUL because? Just saying it might be useful in the future isn't a constructive argument. » scoops “5x5„ 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — under a google search for parker theatre new paltz there are 21,500 results for this locationDemetri Music™ 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzim78 (talk • contribs)
- The number of wp:GHITS alone is not a good indication of notability. As I mentioned in my nomination, deeper searches at gNews and gBooks turn up no wp:RELIABLE sources. » scoops “5x5„ 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage that I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to State University of New York at New Paltz as a separate chapter. ----DanTD (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 20 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) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep [30] provides a bit of detail. The primary sources provide plenty. Eh, I really really suspect someone has written a book about the school and a theater that sees as much use (and has the history this one does) likely has enough coverage. But I can't find it. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I object to the proposer of the AfD debating the comments about the proposal which are not to his liking. Make your nomination, state your case, and let the chips fall where they may, please. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 26 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kimber Sissons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ah models..... how to know if they are notable when your head is spinning with their loveliness.... UtherSRG (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remember what she looks like and I'm not going to look. That way it won't cloud my judgement. =) Henrymrx (t·c) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't multiple movie and TV roles establish notability? Torchiest talk/contribs 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To "Torchiest", it depends on how many and what kinds - I'm not sure the few roles mentioned in the article would be enough. OTOH, the IMDb listing for her has 31 entries, and that OUGHT to be enough. IMO. David V Houston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A few dozen roles with names like "Girl," "Waitress," and "Woman at Craps Table" do not establish notability. There do not appear to be any leading roles of any kind in her career. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only substantial film roles are in pictures that stunk (but not badly enough to be even remotely notable). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 20 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) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very minor roles Vartanza (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sika redem (edit | talk | 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 tagged it a few days ago as CSD but was declined today by Bubba hotep because "there is some credible claim of notability". However a gSearch for "Sika Redem" failed to show reliable sources except for band listings and a few passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw the references of the article, and while they seem to be reliable, most of the gHits are passing mentions or listings of their songs. I could not find anymore reliable sources, the ones on the article seem to be it. If someone finds enough reliable sources then I will be happy to withdraw this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 19 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) 00:05, 26 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Tardieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article comprehensively fails to explain why this person is notable. The individual seems to be "notable" solely for formulating a theory which has "remained far from securing unanimous adhesion" (weasel-words for crank theory). In context, this looks rather like a WP:COATRACK on which to hang ridicule of this theory. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom andy (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs substantial improvement, but he has an article in Le Wikipédia Francais, fr:Michel Tardieu (historien), which appears to include enough evidence that he's notable. I'll add a translation request to our article. --Qwfp (talk) 16:03, 22 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) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This scholar and his theory are not notable due to a lack of sufficient coverage in the media and in scholary peer reviewed journals. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I failed to explain my reasoning above. The French Wikipedia article (Google translation) says he was directeur d'études (1976-91) at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes — to quote our article, "Many of France's greatest scientists in Humanities were professors ("Directeurs d'études") there" — then Chair Professor (1991-2008) at College de France — again quoting our article "the professors are chosen from among the foremost researchers of the day, with no requirement other than that of being at the top of their fields". I reckon both those fulfil WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 (in spirit if not in letter as WP:ACADEMIC doesn't always entirely comply with WP:WORLDVIEW at present IMHO). In 1975 he won a Bronze Medal of the CNRS — to quote translation of french WP article, "awarded annually to forty winners (one per section of specialties). It «rewards the first work of a scientist , which makes him an expert talent in his field. This award is an encouragement of the CNRS to pursue research already well underway and fruitful»". I think that meets WP:ACADEMIC #2. —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the creator of the article Clive sweeting (talk · contribs) has no contributions since the recreation of the article following the review of its speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 10). I've wikified the article a bit but i'm afraid i don't have time right now to incorporate the above material into the article (and i'm reluctant to take the time while there's still a risk my work may be deleted). —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted by Qwfp, Collège de France selection implies peer-selected notability. I've also added some biographical references to the article from their website, and listed his book translated into English and published by University of Illinois Press last year. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The CdF selection goes some way towards WP:PROF #3 or possibly WP:PROF #5 (I'm not familiar enough with the French academic system to tell which) and he also has some mainstream media coverage for his theories [31] [32]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 31 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 second keep !vote was based on the lack of a rationale. The nominator later provided one. That leaves one keep !vote. Epastore makes a good argument but unfortunately, one !vote is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ExploreLearning (edit | talk | 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 tagged with db-corp, but the speedy was contested. Elevating to AFD. with no opinion. delete so a discussion will be had. UtherSRG (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep (from original author) – As noted in my objection to speedy deletion, this company is notable. Click on the scholar link above to see what impact they are having in academic circles. They are also very, very well recognized in educational circles, where they have been nominated for and won numerous awards (now noted in the article). This company doesn't appear much in regular Google searches or in top-line publications, but it still appears to be notable and worthy of inclusion in a 3+ million-article encyclopedia. This stub should be allowed to grow, as has that of a somewhat analogous company, BrainPOP. — Epastore (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 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) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep "No opinion" => no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 27 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. Unsourced BLP. No prejudice to recreation with sources. Shimeru (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerard Plunkett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability questioned but speedy declined, elevating to AFD with no opinion. UtherSRG (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a piss-poor article, but I immediately recognized the name - anyone who watches sci-fi TV will probably have seen him in several different shows. (He also had a small role in Snakes on a Plane.) Before deleting, it would be a good idea to find if reliable third-party sources exist. *** Crotalus *** 18:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 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) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This actor lacks notability since there no listed references for him. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's really a poor argument. Notability is determined by whether references are available, not whether they're currently listed in the article. Still, I'm not sure if this guy does have independent references available: I don't see anything really good right now. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 26 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) 23:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mexican Universities Comparative Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems to be describing a study (WP:OR) that is not notable, and it appears (given the links in the article) that the author is using this article to call attention to this original research. No third-party resources found, completely lacks WP:NOTABILITY, obvious WP:COI. If you'd like to see speedy criteria for essays, join the discussion. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 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) 00:03, 26 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfD previously Proded BLP. Not notable and no sources to comply with the policy. Wikidas© 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources to assert notability.Gaura79 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No third-party RS. All references are ISKCON publications or about his Hollywood star father. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 29 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ajit Gunewardene (edit | talk | 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 contested, elevating to AFD as the subject does not seem notable, despite author's protestations. delete UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See here and here. There appears to be plenty of sources which can be used, and they appear to define his notability in Asian business circles. --Haruth (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong deletebeing a business people or managing directer is not notable.Those positions will be change by subject to subject. if it is, why don't we give permission to create pages all business man in all over the world. I strongly proposed to delete this article under G11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 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) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Article should delete ASAP because this description is not useful public users .--Anilpresantha (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, "usefulness" or lack thereof is not one of the valid reasons to keep or delete an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. - enough sources exist to pass WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable individual. Also LMD is a major publication, and their profiling of his shows sufficient media coverage. A few other sources, Bloomberg, Business Week. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Chairman of major companies and organizations -- like in this case a stock exchange, are notable. Not all businesses; it depends on the business. As different people take the position, they each of them become considered permanently notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is verified that he was Chairman of a national stock exchange.[33]. That's notable.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:12, 30 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 At_That_Point#Recorded_songs. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sponsor (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)
Per WP:NSONGS notability goes beyond simply charting. The song has not recieved extensive coverage and serves no purpose as essentially it only gives up two pieces of information: release date and chart position. it could easily be merged to the album especially considering it is unlikely to grow in size. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 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) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to album. While charting makes it "notable", lack of coverage in independent sources says the article is a no go. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 26 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. In a perfect world, an article would exist about the crash and this title would be redirected there, but as it is, there is no such article and the consensus here is leaning towards keep and there are high quality sources in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Annette Herfkens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
db-person disputed. I disagree that she is notable. Others may disagree, so listing it here for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - If subject's incident is notable enough to be included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sole_survivors_of_aviation_accidents_or_incidents, so should the subject, especially in light of the recent survival of Libyan plane crash Ruben van Assouw. I have seen Wiki entries of less notable figures. References have been included, including video of subject discussing situation on Fox News —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankitosway (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecelia_Cichan --Blankitosway (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)--Blankitosway (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ATA. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above person is of no more notability in a similar circumstance. Additionally incident is included at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_Vietnam_Airlines --Blankitosway (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found this news article: [34]. It would probably be better to have an article about the crash, and redirect this title to that article. Buddy431 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, I see that this news article is already cited. Anyways, she's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, even if it's not in her own article. Buddy431 (talk) 21:59, 23 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) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Likely to be searched for, well-covered. At a minimum, merge or redirect. Vartanza (talk) 22:08, 31 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. This AfD has now been open for nearly 17 days, during which time there has been a lot of "if it's sourced..." and similar arguments in favour of keeping it, but no reliable sources have been added to the article and no sourced were provided in the course of the discussion which covered the subject in sufficient detail (ie more than just a passing mention) for them to be considered notable and the article is a newly-created, unsourced BLP so procedurally, the removal BLP PROD should have been reverted, had that happened, the article would long since have been deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remco pardoel (edit | talk | 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 - contested BLPPROD without adding references. GregJackP (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A new unsourced BLP probably should have been speedied. Created by user Ufcremco, a clear COI. Claim of "introduced Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Grappling in Europe" needs strong sourcing. Independent sources showing the world championship claimed in the article would be enough for me to change my vote. Astudent0 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up all the spammy promotional bits, fought in UFC 2 semi-final (2 wins & then lost to Royce Gracie) and @ UFC 7 plausibly introduced BJJ to Europe (1993 fits with UFC 1 & BJJ's international expansion) but this obviously needs research & sourcing. --Natet/c 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Utterly agree with above. David.snipes (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Natet/c 09:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If sources can be found for the claims made, he meets the notability criteria. He's well known, but the article clearly needs to be rewritten and sourced. I'm willing to give the rescue squadron a chance. Papaursa (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - unreferenced BLP. The one (primary) reference in the article proves that he exists, nothing more. SnottyWong talk 23:01, 21 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) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if reliable sources can be found to support the article's claims (European championships, international championships, etc.). On a cursory search, I found [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], but most of these appear to have only passing references to the subject. Janggeom (talk) 00:18, 27 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 Gerardo Yepiz. Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Acamonchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a dictionary. GregJackP (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gerardo Yepiz. Both articles are terribly written but a reading of both and Google searches make it clear they should be one and the same article, and that the subject of Gerardo Yepiz is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 19 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) 00:01, 26 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Torn Between Two Worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 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) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this demo in independent reliable sources; appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 23:05, 27 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Six Song 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)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 19 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) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found = not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:26, 26 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadini Premadasa (edit | talk | 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 are lots of singers in Sri Lanka .There is no any importance to create an article about this person. She has participated to superstar program on TV channel few years ago. But it is not an issue for create an Article on worldwide encyclopedia describing her personal descriptions. Proposed to strongly delete Wipeouting (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete --Wipeouting (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sirasa Superstar. She won the 5th place in that reality show in 2007, see TNL Radio, Asia Tribune. I don't think this is enough for a stand alone article, but a redirect could be useful. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are more than 10 reality programs are running on most of TV channels in Sri Lanka. Approximately 12 people are selected for the final round. As an example you can see page of Sirasa SuperstarSirasa Dancing Stars. I am asking, what is the logic give web space for all award winners or nominated candidate from this kind of programs. At the moment any one can be someone using media publicity or creating Articles themselves. If Wikipedia is a Platform for create blogs for community, should give space for exist this kind of personal promotions.Wipeouting (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, more than 10 reality shows? I can remember only 4 or 5 "superstar shows" broadcasted ever in my country. Sri Lankans apparently enjoy this kind of entertainment more than Czechs. Anyway, I'm talking about redirecting the article, not about creating blogs for community. But I see your point, I too don't like the insignificant superstars :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wipeouting. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this singer fail to meet WP:MUSICBIO and there are no reliable sources in the article. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:53, 31 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. Although Google is from infallible, a grand total of 3 Ghits, of which 2 are Wikipedia, is hardly indiciative of notability. During the course of this AfD, there appears to have been a fair bit of arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but no addition of sources to prove the notability of the term or the concept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Workout delayed reimbursement of advances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOT#DICDEF article has almost no sources and the term is only referred to in a single report. βcommand 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is not lexical at all and so the DICDEF argument is not supported by the relevant policy. The topic is a technical aspect of commercial mortgage-backed security and is covered in multiple sources. At worst, we would merge into some larger article about such mortgage dealings. Per our editing policy, deletion is not at all appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment for further deletion, I googled] the article title and got a total of three hits. One and Two being wp's article and the redirect to it. the third is one of the two sources listed in the article. βcommand 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term / concept is not notable. It is not in most financial dictionaries / acronym lists. There are vanishingly few web its for it, no Google News archive hits for it, and no Google Books hits for it. Neither that it is mentioned in one technical article, nor that it is a term in possibly a huge number of actual mortgage loans demonstrates its notability. Bongomatic 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GOOGLE, such searches are not an infallible guide. The topic is an aspect of mortgage workout which is a more common and general term but which is still a red link. We do not assist readers of this complex area by knocking out search links as they arise. By merging to an article such as predatory mortgage servicing, we will improve our coverage in accordance with our editing policy. Editing in a purely negative, predatory way is not our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they're not infallible. However, the way to demonstrate that they're wrong isn't to say that they're not always right—it's to demonstrate that something that doesn't show up with the standard searches is given significant coverage despite that. The suggestion that a concept / practice of this vintage isn't representatively covered in sources indexed by search engines is odd. In fact, for recent phenomena, Google is likely to overstate, rather than understate, the coverage. Bongomatic 23:54, 27 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) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanka Dineth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- DeleteI can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no any importance to create an article about this person. Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable. --Wipeouting (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fear he fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:36, 31 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.