Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Content can be restored on request for anybody who wants to transwiki it to any other project. Sandstein 20:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Painting methods and Brushwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undiluted how-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, an undiluted, unreferenced how-to guide. But it's quite a good one, and wikiHow doesn't seem to have anything about brushwork. Transwiki. (The creator may read this, and he seems to be new to Wikipedia, so I want to say "welcome!" and to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The content we want is encyclopaedia articles. The place for user-submitted how-to guides of the kind that you've written is wikiHow, so I've suggested that the closer -- which means the person who judges the outcome of this discussion -- should send it there.)—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support transwiki to Wikibooks and delete here. I agree that Wikibooks seems to be the best project for this article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the top entry at User talk:Terence Kearey - the poor guy has been there already. Wikiversity or wikiHow? But delete here as pure how-to. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems too generic, vague, needs referencing; perhaps merge to a larger materials oriented article...Modernist (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to WikiBooks. Reyk YO! 23:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS generally, and WP:BOOK and WP:CREATIVE specifically. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John E. Richman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WB:NBOOK (self-published, no outside coverage, no reliable sources); article was created by an account with apparent COI (username similar to topic of article, has only made edits to this article) rahaeli (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no evidence of any sort of coverage about him and his series of self-published books. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While an author of self-published works could be notable, they are usually the exception. There is no hint this author is an exception. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. THe books are entirely self published (available on Amazon from the publisher directly. I can't find any independent sources of the books.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hellgate Rollergirls (edit | talk | 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. The only source for this article is the team's own website, and it does not seem to be a notable roller derby team. Cmprince (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: G-hits the usual heap of Youtube vids, blog posts and social media. No evidence that this passes the GNG. Ravenswing 14:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is the closest thing I could find to a reliable source, and it's really just an event announcement rather than actual coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Aw, come on! Roller Derby is awesome! They've gotten fairly significant coverage in the major Missoula paper [1], I added two of these refs to the article. Would appreciate a re-listing for additional editor input as to whether to keep before deletion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Having grown up watching roller derby, I can relate to its awesomeness. But this team has only local coverage out one single paper. That's not enough for me to say notability is established. And Skinny Minnie Miller was awesome. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a sec! wait a sec! I just added more cites from two of the major Missoula TV stations + another newspaper, the team has received major local coverage.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will amend to a Weak Keep based on the variety of sources, but it's still very localised. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a sec! wait a sec! I just added more cites from two of the major Missoula TV stations + another newspaper, the team has received major local coverage.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - successfully rescued, this article now has multiple good sources. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rafael vargas (edit | talk | 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. Only third party source that is reliable only mentions that he will run for the post vacated by the person the article is written about. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails under WP:POLITICIAN: "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". No evidence this person has been given substantial coverage of them as a specific subject in WP:RS under WP:BIO; anyone who announces candidacy and passes the laugh test is going to be mentioned as an element of other stories. --Closeapple (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of special routes in Michigan (edit | talk | 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 tagged for G7, but looking at the number of minor contributions by other authors over the past three years, I do not believe G7 applies unambiguously. Referring to AfD for discussion, I am Neutral Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't seem to be important enough for Wikipedia. Endofskull (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The information was merged into other lists and articles. –Fredddie™ 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the major creator requested deletion. Information has been merged elsewhere. Admrboltz (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Information is now elsewhere. Dough4872 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the major creator requesting deletion. There are now tables in the Interstate, US and State Highway lists to hold the special routes of those types of state highway in Michigan in an expanded format. This list is now redundant and obsolete. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant and main author supports deletion (see above). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Vosbikian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Inventing something does not make one notable, and there's nothing else here to suggest notability. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is so little information provided in the article, but the subject appears to be this guy. That is a rather remarkable story, but ultimately, I can find no reliable sources writing about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of significant coverage. The article could be restarted if sources were presented. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Craft of Charisma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails to meet the notability requirements for corporations / organizations - third party media coverage is sparse, and not in depth where it is found. JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree per above. Notability is not established and it comes across as advertisement (not neutral or NPOV). Yankeefan233 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also in favour of deleting, the article was written by an account that has been flagged as a single purpose account and with what appears to be a conflict of interest201.116.29.243 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. THF (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no significant coverage. [2]. suspect advertising. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - Withdrawn I might have dropped the ball on this one. Sven Manguard Talk 01:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Qinqiang (edit | talk | 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 citations, Google does not reveal any hits, including news hits. Nothing in the article itself indicates notability either. Sven Manguard Talk 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Might I suggest searching in Chinese? Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep For information on opera styles, and for things about China for that matter, it would be much better for you to look in Google Books. If you had done so, you would have found that there are 4,450 results. I have added some of them to the article, along with adding a short history section that can easily be broadened. This is clearly a notable subject. SilverserenC 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Somehow I thought that this was an opera house, not an opera style. Plus you're right about the books thing. Good call. Sven Manguard Talk 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Longstanding consensus on this Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colombo International 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)
This is a copy and paste job which had produced an article on a school which reads as an advertisement. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Secondary schools are usually assumed to be notable. The solution to the shortcomings mentioned in the nomination is to improve the article rather than to delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: appears to be a simple WP:COPYVIO (e.g. lede can be found in this abstract), copied and pasted without formatting into Wikipedia. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" immediately apparent in find-searches. 'Usual assumptions' tend to turn out to be ill-founded as often as not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Secondary schools always justify an article in Wikipedia. Partial copyvio and promotional prose is very easy to revise; even easier is to remove the extensive vandalism from the foolishly inserted student jokes, I have just done rewritten it. It would have been much more useful to actually read the article and see what was needed than to nominate it for deletion. (It's really a disgrace that such an extensive amount of vandalism was not removed previously--perhaps we need to watch the non-US schools as carefully as the US ones.) DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- "Secondary schools always justify an article in Wikipedia." Lacking a notability guideline substantiating this claim, this amounts to nothing but WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a reasoned, substantiated argument for keeping.
- As to "partial copyvio", this version demonstrates that the entire article was a clear copy-and-paste.
- Your rewrite violates WP:BURDEN.
- Lacking sources, articles are largely unmaintainable, as it is often difficult to distinguish vandalism, OR, etc from 'legitimate' material (to the extent that any unsourced material is legitimate).
- Keep All secondary schools are considered notable. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The relevant notability essay is WP:NHS. Read the talk page on the essay as well, and you can see that Jimbo Wales commented on this issue back in 2003, in favor of keeping such articles in most cases except mass production of high school articles. Articles about high schools and similar secondary schools have never been deleted through the AfD process, according to that talk page, though there have been many such efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Keeping this AFD open seems to be a waste of the community's time. Jujutacular talk 03:08, 19 November 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}} . |
- State National (edit | talk | 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 by article author. An interesting essay, but pure original research with some WP:FRINGE thrown in for good measure. The article title itself appears to be a concept invented by the article creator. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author of this article has apparently coined the term “State National” and has created a Wikipedia article about this term, collecting disjointed materials from various sources, and cobbling together his/her theory. As stated in the article, with respect to the United States, the author has defined his term "State National" as applying to “the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required political allegiance.” The article appears to be overwhelmingly idiosyncratic, prohibited original research – a concatenation of various ideas promoting, among other things, the author’s fringe theory that “United States’ Nationality is Effectively Genocide”. This appears to be an essay of the opinion of the author of the article. Famspear (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not exactly original. It appears to be taken from www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Income_Tax.pdf (although I'll understand if it's blacklisted). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Valid Reference. The term "State National" is taken directly from the United States Code, as evidenced in the article, and is grounded in the principles of the foundational law of the United States of America. pacgroups (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.141.87 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Pacgroups (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. This article seems to be one big advertisement for his personal point of view. In his answer to my original post the author accuses me of making broad brushed views, but failed to refute my statement regarding his incorrect timeline. It has no outside verifiable references linked and has no other research noted, outside of his own. I do not believe that such an article has a place here. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, This article consists of inaccurate and misleading information cobbled together from a fringe viewpoint. It represents "original research" as that term is used in wikipedia and appears to be entirely the viewpoint of one individual.BBFlatt (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article (and the article's author) is simply wrong on his contentions about citizenship. He misinterprets the various sources he lists. It is well established law that most persons born within the geographic limits of the 50 states and various territories are United States citizens at birth. The concept that people who were born within one of the fifty states are not citizens of the United States is nonsense.Ngc6205 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Ngc6205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. At best, an extremely minority opinion of the facts not supported by credible research; at worst, opinion, original research and argument. Brett A. Thomas (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I disagree with user "pacgroups"' assertion that the term "state national" is "taken directly from the United States Code." It certainly is not.
- The statute referenced by "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section 1101(a)(21)) shows the term "national," not "state national." Further, the definition for term "state national" as used in the article is nowhere near the definition of "national" as used in the source statute.
- Here is the actual text of the statute:
- The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
- By contrast, the definition for term "state national" as written by user "pacgroups" in the article itself is:
- The term State National—in reference to the American union of states—is used to describe the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required political allegiance.
- The article is a "cobbling together" of the author's original research and personal viewpoints. Famspear (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An interesting read at first. Then the impression grows that this is cobbled together. Finally, the impression is that it is a load of cobblers. Original research, essay, whatever. Words are, and have been for quite some time, my business, but I find it hard to understand exactly what this is about. I do understand that it very much smacks of the soapbox (WP:SOAPBOX). Peridon (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, and not good research at all. --Hansm77 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, and not right. Not even wrong. Wserra (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Wserra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete An interesting essay on a point of view that does exists out there, but that is not backed by reliable and verifiable sources. An article on the subject might well be created that meets the standard, but this is basically a synthesis based on original research. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per, er, absolutely everyone.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as biased article promoting a fringe theory, and then redirect to Redemption movement#History where similar concepts are already discussed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article in question is at best an eccentric view with little support in treaties, statutes, and court decisions. At worst, it is fantastic and incoherent gibberish. Evansdb (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Users/NonUsers with Extreme Prejudice. These seem to be people that want to tie this to being an article about Income Tax, i.e., See the original flagger's (Arthur Rubin) notation about an article above that has nothing to do with the content of the "State National" Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, after investigation it is noted that "Famspear", "Wserra", "Evansdb" appear to be, or are, attorneys (or tax attorneys) that frequent forums such as Quatloos (http://quatloos.com) and Sui Juris Club (http://suijurisclub.net) and ridicule people who have alternate viewpoints, right or wrong.
- User
- NonUsers
- Notations, such as nonUserFamspear submits, "The statute referenced by "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section 1101(a)(21)) shows the term "national," not "state national." Further, the definition for term "state national" as used in the article is nowhere near the definition of "national" as used in the source statute. are ridiculous. Firstly, on its face this is an act of sophistry as there is sufficient evidence found within the United States Code and regulations (aside other references noted in the article) that show that citizens of the United States owe allegiance to the United States; secondly, the history of America sufficiently shows the progressive transition to the current state which exists. This article stands on its own without having to insert such history.
- Accordingly, as it is overtly clear there is some agenda, if not a disinformation agenda, here, hence their comments should yield no weight whatsoever.
- A User without an Account. Sorry, but it appears that this User Acct. has been omitted. Please clarify as User:pacgroups is new to Wikipedia.
- Users. These people have not given any sufficient offer of proof why the article should be deleted.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansohn -Unreliable research, you cannot be serious.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBFlatt -The research of Vattel was by one individual, but the Supreme Court uses Vattel. Sorry, your point?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90 -Redemption, you have got to be joking. This is pure Constitutional law and has nothing to do with that nonsense. Pacgroups (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notation. Evansdb fails to understand that this is a layman's environment and things must be explained accordingly; and his(?) use of the word "gibberish" is childish insofar as there have been people that have said the article is beautiful. Another attempt at sabotage, so it appears.Pacgroups (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User Pacgroups may believe other users have an 'agenda', but the simple fact is that the article does not meet the wikipedia standards as a valid entry. As others have stated, the article reads like 'original research' and is unsupported by prior research by accepted sources.
- From the article's discussion page User Pacgroups said
- BEGIN QUOTE As to the comment by Ngc6205, the Fourteenth Amendment created a "dual citizenship" and before that there was none. Soul[sic] state citizenship can be evidenced via naturalization acts prior to the implementation of the amendment, e.g., “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. Approved April 14, 1802. Section 1. Be it enacted, &c, That any alien ... may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them..." END QUOTE
- Even ignoring the fact that Pacgroups is misinterpreting the Naturalization Law of 1802, he is still wrong. Within the Article 1 of the Constitution, it specifies the qualifications for a person to be eligible to be a Senator or Representative. One aspect of those qualifications is a time frame that a representative or senator must have been a citizen of the United States before they were eligible. Obviously, the framers believed that a citizen of one of the 13 states was a citizen of the United States, otherwise, no one would have been eligible for the first Congress under the Constitution.
- Constitutional scholars from before the 14th amendment also had the view that citizens of one of the states were also citizens of the United States. William Rawle wrote in 1829:
- BEGIN QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. - William Rawle, LL.D. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Edition, Chapter 9, pgs. 85-86. END QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE
- Justice Joseph Story agreed with that interpretation when he wrote, Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.
- The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) wrote,
- QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.
- END QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT
- Pacgroups may believe that he is right, but he is not. Therefore, the article should be deleted because it is in the form of original research and because it is wrong. Ngc6205 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article's discussion page User Pacgroups said
- Notation. Just sophistry above by Ngc6205. The article evidences the INTENT by the drafters of the 14th Amendment. And, I would remind all that courts render OPINIONS. The fact is, there was no DUAL CITIZENSHIP prior to the 14th Amendment so the amendment made it so. Moreover, the naturalization act, as noted, is clear in its language "OR ANY OF THEM". According to Congress, there the state citizenship was not equal to that of the citizen of the United States variety. Those noted arguments FAIL, and have for some time now. And far as dead things go, understanding that some of you attorneys have issues with not only law but also grammar, in example some authorities that show that the current law system moves soulless things around:
- Virginia Code § 10.1-1000. Definitions. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, or corporation or other legal entity.
- Virginia Code § 10.1-1400. Definitions. "Person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a municipal corporation or any other legal entity.
- Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6. "Entity" includes corporations, business trusts, estates, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, organizations, joint ventures, governments, governmental subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities or any other legal entity, whether for profit or not for profit. "Individual" means a natural person.
- All those references are within the Law of Persons, which is referenced in the article that has been well documented in regard to law authorities. So, those are dead things that have no soul [sic]. And speaking of agenda, attorneys want people to be dead things so they can funnel money from them. It is thought that this is supposed to be an open format for all people, not those attempting to protect their "income".
- No one herein has shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed as a Wiki article. Pacgroups (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notation I would ask that the article be deleted under the rules of Speedy Deletion. It has become obvious that any post in favor of deletion will not be met with an intellectual discussion, facts by a verifiable or quoted source, or anything resembling a valid point. Pacgroups will continue to use mis-interpreted Laws to make their opinions seem legal and will ridicule anyone who does not agree. There has been no proof that the article does not fall under the original research clause and has since migrated to patent nonsense due to the arguments, for want of a better word. Since the poster will not retract the article and edit it to bring it up to standards, the decision should be made for them and this topic should be closed permanently. The mere fact that it has been only one "person" and or group to advocate for the article should verify that it is an individuals idea, consisting of original research, and there fore does not meet the criteria. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowy delete quickly please to put a stop to this verbal flood. I was going to collapse this, but maybe a friendly admin will do a vote count: all but one for delete. Or an argument count, based on WP guidelines and policies such as that for verifiability, no original research, no soapboxing ("United States' Nationality is Effectively Genocide) etc: all arguments but for that of one editor for delete. Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notation. Again, no one herein has shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the criteria to be removed as a Wiki article (see below). Like the other "attorneys" that are attempting to have the truth hid from the people of the world, Wolfstorm000 has not given any references where the article is specifically flawed in law. The references are all documented and there has been no evidence to refute them. An arbitrary deletion would prove as a miscarriage of justice to all that want to understand the constitutional system of law and how it operates.
- Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
- Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
- Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
- Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
- Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
- Redundant or otherwise useless templates
- Categories representing overcategorization
- Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
- Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
- Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
- Accordingly, Wolfstorm000 is making frivoulous broad brush statements that are unfounded and wthout merit. Pacgroups (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Original research" covers it well enough. Another relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would point out to User:Pacgroups that User:Uncle Dick is hardly "A User without an Account". He has been registered as a Wikipedia user for over 4 years as can be seen from his contribution history. The fact that his user page is a redlink is irrelevant; he isn't required to create a user page to be a valid and registered user with an account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is nothing short of a coordinated conspiracy to suppress factual content supported by paramount references is an embarrassment upon some of these protesters. The project called State National is founded on deeply researched material over the course of many years based on lawful principles, American history and the courts. There is no legitimate basis, based on the Wikipedia Deletion policy, for removal of this project beyond the self serving desires of some of these protestors conducting nothing short of a witch hunt. Some protestors have been identified as long-time antagonists of the project’s authors and who have demonstrated a disregard for fact. The material presented in the project is threatening to the some protestors in that they have most likely built their careers, reputations and livelihoods on misdirection, deceit, and falsehoods, and the project’s exposure of the true nature of things threatens their bidding. The project contains irrefutable references and factual content. 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk)
- Did you forget to sign in, Pac? Drmies (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this information hidden from the public's viewing, I relate it, to the book burning, by the Hitler Administration. On the person who has said, the term State National is not defined as the article suggests, here is the copied uscode Title 8 (21) The term “national” means a person "owing permanent allegiance to a state." The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. How does the above poster suggest that this in no way means what it says. A state is a Nation. A Nation is a state. My state/nation is Rhode Island. My permanent allegiance is to my state of Rhode Island. How is this misconstrued at all? Do the US Codes Titles, not really mean what they say? For, if they do, then we are all in deep doo-doo. If you don't believe that there was a Genocide trying to be committed by the United States National, just ask the Indians about a United States National Genocide. The people who want this article deleted are clearly upset with it's truthful content. As, it could be the end of their de facto laws and courts,which could be their demise of stealing off of the peoples that are railroaded by this corrupt, deceitful system that only rewards the criminals de facto and holds the de jure courts/laws hostage. Please do not delete this article, for how are the people ever to learn about the truth, and be able to be the judges for themselves, to decide what is best for them, and not a bunch of Administrative de facto Courts, who are trying to take away our Common Law Courts, with this kind of disinformational rantings. They have hidden our true Public Laws within these private laws of US Codes Titles of BS. They are trying to remove our true judicial organic U.S.Constitution and Bill of Rights. For they cannot continue to rob us, if our true laws/history are out here in Wiki land, for people to start researching more for themselves to decide. Not a bunch of greedy lawyers, who are clearly upset of knowledge getting out about State National Status's. Please keep this so people can decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StateNationals (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — StateNationals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Does anyone doubt that pacgroups and StateNationals are the same person? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodwin! Please note that pacgroups/StateNationals use more orginal "research" and personal, unfounded views to defend the article. --Hansm77 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Arthur, may I suggest that we keep to the merits of the subject and reserve your petty conspiracies and suggestive conclusions at Quatloos where they belong? This is not a chat room designed for your entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. It appears that the reason most are stating that this article be deleted is "original research", but what is "original research"? If the article is referenced properly and is not merely stating personal opinion, in the opinion of those in favor of deleting, then the article should be permitted to stay and further edits allowed, based on verifiable sources and evidence. At some point in time all research is classified as "original research" but if all new or original research is suppressed then how is knowledge advanced. I get the impression that those that are wanting the article deleted are simply trying to suppress information that they personally find offensive, but being personally offended does not truly meet the Wiki guidelines for deletion. I would like to see some verifiable sources, references and evidence that contradicts the article, rather than redirection and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QahalPastor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — QahalPastor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Notation QahalPastor may not consider it to be original research but the additional problem is that the article is simply wrong. No one who matters, either a founding father, or current legal experts would agree with the author's interpretation. The other problem is the author may believe that he has somehow "discovered" the original intent of the founding fathers, however, the courts have disagreed. In the United States, if there is a disagreement on the meaning of a law or the Constitution, the courts determine who is right. While those court decisions are called "opinions", it is those "opinions" that determine who is right as a matter of law. User "Pacgroups" has claimed that there wasn't a dual citizenship in the United States before the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court and various Constitutional experts from the time before the 14th amendment have expressly stated that a citizen by birth of one of the states was also a U.S. citizen.Ngc6205 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As I mentioned on the introduction to the delete discussion, this article is simply an effort on the part of the author to promote his original work which is only available via sale on his web site. Clearly this is little more than self-promotional advertising through an attempt to be found on web searches. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 20-Mule-Team Delete: The next Wikipedia essay on fallacious arguments I write will likely be called WP:ITSTRUEBECAUSEISAYITIS. Pacgroups and his sock/meatpuppets have obviously mistaken Wikipedia for a discussion forum on constitutional law. For someone so interested in legal arguments, I'm surprised that he hasn't grasped that deletion discussions can only center on whether the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't, as amply (and exhaustively) argued above. As far as Pacgroups' repeated whingings about "miscarriages of justice" and suchlike, again, someone so interested in legal arguments should readily grasp that Wikipedia is a private website and can adopt (and implement) such rules for inclusion as it sees fit. Ravenswing 16:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It makes no difference at all whether we agree or disagree with the argument made in this article. The point is that it *is* an argument - it's original research/synthesis, which doesn't belong here under WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While QahalPastor arguments may have merit in that all research starts as original research, the rules clearly prohibit it here. No outside sources that have done comparable research have been noted, no links to verifiable sources about the conclusion drawn have been offered and, as was pointed out by Pacgroups, the majority of the opinions rendered in this debate have been by attorneys, who would know if there was a case for the findings. No additions have been made to rectify this and, as was pointed out by NawlinWiki it doesnt matter if we agree or disagree, the rules are clear and nothing you have said or can say will change them. Now I suggest that this discussion be considered over and allow the moderators and admins do what they feel is right.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete; Keep this article. This is a truthful and correct article. This is one of the ways, to honestly help educate peoples on their true laws and history. I say, let them investigate for themselves and come to their own conclusions, and not let a bunch of tax attorney's dictate how Wiki operates. The 14th Amendment usurps our Founding Father's organic U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. We were all of a different form of U.S. Citizenships originally, before the installation of the 14th Amendment. Point, if we were already a 14th Amendment U.S.Citizen, why did they need to make us a one again? Does not make sense. Taking us out of our original citizen status and bringing us into a new one. Just,the usual word trickery, that the Queen's Esquires of the B.A.R. like to do, to protect their Master's rule over the U.S. system of laws, that they created with "their" new form of government via the 14th Amendment. I say bring back the original 13th Amendment, and disallow any and all Titles of Nobilities from holding any public office seats or accepting gifts of any kinds (bribes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StateNationals (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — StateNationals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Would you care to express a valid policy ground upon which to retain this article? Ravenswing 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is nothing more than abusing Wiki for free Internet advertising. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What is the house rule for number of votes per user ID? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.91 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In response to un-logged in user from 75.190.150.91: As the box at the top of this page notes, this isn't a vote. It's a consensus determination based upon the quality of arguments, about whether or not the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As you might imagine, Wikipedia has a lot of people trying to include non-notworthy or incorrect things into it. Rather than play arbiter about what's right, or not, the policies state that articles must be sourced such that their claims can be verified, and that those sources must be respected (so, a random web page doesn't cut it). Other than lack of notability (e.g., writing an article about your Mom, or yourself), one of the most serious accusations that can be made against an article is that it contains original research - that the claims in it aren't supported in other, outside, verifiable sources. Most of the people calling for deletion (including me) are doing so on the grounds that the assertions in the article aren't sourced. Simply "voting" over and over that the article is "true" or "correct" isn't going to convince people on Wikipedia - even if the article is true, what Wikipedia cares about is verifiability. An article that claimed the sky is blue, without citing any sources for that assertion, would be similarly ripe for removal, because it doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies. A great first step to you or anyone else wishing to defend this article would be to find a single generally respected source that even uses the the phrase "State National" - as far as I can tell, none of the linked "sources" do so, which implies strongly to me that it is a phrase used by a very small group of people and not the sort of thing that should be included in the general encyclopedia.Brett A. Thomas (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE.. I have found this quite an interesting page/'discussion'. I lived in the States for 7 years and without meaning to, became involved in researching law while living there. Mostly because I was fighting a few court battles as a pro se defendant. I also studied, while in Los Angeles, about people and their behaviours. The two combinations, studying people and their behaviours and law, came together quite neatly when defending myself in court. Because of those experiences I became involved in researching law outside 'normal' channels. I have found that without a doubt, the legal system in America is beyond corrupt. It is immoral and evil and is nothing to do with justice. So the comments about this subject, whether or not this reference to State National should be deleted I find quite interesting. Namely because the ones requesting deletion hardly address the actual article. They attack the individual. Anyone reading the various comments can see this quite clearly. This happens when the FACTS of something cannot be disputed, or have more truth than not. So the classic alternative is done: attack the one doing the writing and make slurs about that person. And this is done when a group of individuals discover that their ivory tower is about to be demolished. I am talking about the regular folks finding out what the legal system is really all about. I myself have read the Law Of Nations and have created a website on it ( http://www.matrixfiles.com/lon.html ). Having read this and also Intervention in International Law by Ellery C Stowell (http://matrixfiles.com/int.html) I can say that these two works are more vital now in how to deal with all the fraud and corruption in the US system, as well as in the EU, than at any time in history. ALL nations of the world abide by the principles as laid out in the works referenced above. I have also come across hidden data (hidden from view but in plain sight, which is another classic tactic of war and deception) that actually makes this article quite valid. The problem with those who do not want this article to be deleted is that they do not write anything about their views like I am doing. While those that have evil intentions get their way PRECISELY because they do just that (act as a group). So while it may seem that a majority want this article to be deleted, the tone of their comments tells me that they have ulterior motives for doing so. [[User:Judge Dredd¦[email protected]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.235.158 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we lock this now or do we have to continue being insulted by random people who, while not contributing any real substance to the discussion, also seem to be hypocritical since they denounce everyone elses arguments as being "attacks" on a person, turn around and attack the people that are trying to discuss the "facts" and have been ignored or been called names in an effort to draw away from the facts that have been brought up? No one has presented one iota of evidence that supports the case of the article not being "original research" and has been turned into a slanderfest intent, not on support of the article, but on the belittling of others. When Ravenswing asked for the author to state one guideline that the article did follow, his question went un-answered and has yet to be answered even when an IP that looks familiarly like the authors and has been used multiple times in defense of the article has been here after the question was asked and no reply. I, for one, believe that this has gone on for far too long and there are no new "facts" or "evidence" to present. Personally, I feel that this discussion should be closed, the article should be deleted and salted, as there has been ample opportunity for the author to edit and present verifiable facts to support his article, and any account or IP that has intentionally "flamed" another contributor should be officially warned or banned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts, not a place to air original research to drive up your Google hits. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I am done being offended by others. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this article is a synthetic essay - that is, it takes information from a number of sources, and puts it together in a manner to advance a thesis that is not in any of those sources. Being an essay is not a bad thing in itself, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. There are other venues for the publication of essays; Wikipedia is not such a venue. LadyofShalott 01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Rivellino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible vanity article. Author of the article and subject are the same. No other pages link to this article. SDC (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The material is clearly cribbed from here. This article is really about real estate using his family as an example. Aside from that, there is no coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Article was deleted once before: [3]. Previous article was written by same person: User_talk:SRivellino. Suggest salting this article. SDC (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Straightforward fail of WP:BIO. No significant coverage found. Concur with the suggestion to salt if deleted, in light of previous deletion. RayTalk 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Both of subject's books are self-published. Also, most of the information in this article is also posted on User:MSignorelli, who has contributed nothing else to Wikipedia except this article. Mr. Rivellino is obviously trying to use Wikipedia for self promotion. SDC (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and looks like WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Johnson (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 about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Having never actually played for Aston Villa, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some limited coverage of this footballer exists, the nominator fails to mention that for the last two weeks the guy has been on the subs bench and it only a matter of time before this person does meet the above criteria.VERTott 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VERTott 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pure Crystal Ball gazing. Sitting on the bench does not qualify him to pass WP:ATHLETE; only actually playing in the first team does. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus "limited coverage" is not the same as the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires...GiantSnowman 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pure Crystal Ball gazing. Sitting on the bench does not qualify him to pass WP:ATHLETE; only actually playing in the first team does. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS, and a Google News search I performed found no evidence of the coverage about him that was referred to above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral- This source [4] states that Johnson is the captain of Aston Villa's youth team. I do not know if that confers any notability. I suspect not. Reyk YO! 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: clearly fails WP:ATHLETE currently (youth player for Aston Villa explicitly does not count), and as the relevant section of that only says that "players who have appeared ... in a fully-professional league ... will generally be regarded as notable" (my emphasis), I would suggest that it would take more than a single appearance to conclude that he is definitely notable under that criteria. No non-trivial, non-WP:NOTNEWS coverage, so no WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NSPORTS. No prejudice against re-creation of the article if this guy plays in a few games and gets some coverage. SnottyWong prattle 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We've said it many times, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because this kid has been named on the subs bench a few times recently definitely doesn't mean that he will necessarily ever take the field, which is a requirement for notability. – PeeJay 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One small point, taking the field is not a requirement for notability - meeting the notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources is. Taking the field lets us make the assumption that significant coverage could be found, but not taking the field doesn't mean that can't happen anyway. Camw (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In the future he will probably play 1st team football. Until he does, he is just another youth team player--Egghead06 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find any significant coverage to meet notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge The basic facts about this person seem well established and I see coverage at national level such as The Guardian. Perhaps the article should be merged into Aston Villa or some sub-article/list so that the edit history is not lost, per our editing policy. Deletion and recreation of the article would be a pointless chore contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aston Villa have been around for nearly 150 years and have had over 1000 players. Merging the biography of a kid from the youth team who's never even played for the senior team into the main club article would be the most ridiculous WP:UNDUE violation ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is large then we merge into a suitable sub-article, as I suggested. I know little about this club but had no difficulty in finding List of Aston Villa F.C. players which seems quite appropriate. The point is that our policy is to be constructive not destructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ........except that he's never played for Aston Villa, only for their affiliated youth team. That list starts with "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club", whereas he has played zero first-class matches. Would you have it changed to "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club, plus Daniel Johnson".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That figure of 100 seems quite arbitrary and so I would indeed discard it. The list would be better as a sortable list with the number of appearances as a column so that readers could form their own idea as to the threshold, rather than it being forced upon them. And, now I check, I find that this has sensibly been done already and that the list includes players whose appearances are 26 or "n/a". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A whopping great five players with fewer than 100 appearances are included on the grounds that they made a significant contribution to the club's history (club record holder, trophy-winning captain, etc). I don't think you'll find too much support for including a teenager who's kept the sub's bench warm once under that criterion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room enough to place this developing article in a pending state. The person in question is captain of the youth team and has now been selected for the main club roster which are no mean achievements. This seems quite adequate to support retention of the article as a redirect for now, awaiting further developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That same policy also contains WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so we do not need to provide information on every (potential) player, no matter how obscure. And there is no indication that WP:PAPER is meant to trump WP:ATHLETE (which this article clearly fails). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER and WP:PRESERVE certainly trump WP:ATHLETE, being policies rather than guideline. And the issue here is not whether there is space for a full article but whether there is a space for an an entry in a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP:NOT at WP:IINFO explicitly references WP:NOTE (and by implication WP:ATHLETE), and then states "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This would certainly suggest that something that does not meet notability guidelines is not suitable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER and WP:PRESERVE certainly trump WP:ATHLETE, being policies rather than guideline. And the issue here is not whether there is space for a full article but whether there is a space for an an entry in a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That same policy also contains WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so we do not need to provide information on every (potential) player, no matter how obscure. And there is no indication that WP:PAPER is meant to trump WP:ATHLETE (which this article clearly fails). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room enough to place this developing article in a pending state. The person in question is captain of the youth team and has now been selected for the main club roster which are no mean achievements. This seems quite adequate to support retention of the article as a redirect for now, awaiting further developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A whopping great five players with fewer than 100 appearances are included on the grounds that they made a significant contribution to the club's history (club record holder, trophy-winning captain, etc). I don't think you'll find too much support for including a teenager who's kept the sub's bench warm once under that criterion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That figure of 100 seems quite arbitrary and so I would indeed discard it. The list would be better as a sortable list with the number of appearances as a column so that readers could form their own idea as to the threshold, rather than it being forced upon them. And, now I check, I find that this has sensibly been done already and that the list includes players whose appearances are 26 or "n/a". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ........except that he's never played for Aston Villa, only for their affiliated youth team. That list starts with "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club", whereas he has played zero first-class matches. Would you have it changed to "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club, plus Daniel Johnson".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is large then we merge into a suitable sub-article, as I suggested. I know little about this club but had no difficulty in finding List of Aston Villa F.C. players which seems quite appropriate. The point is that our policy is to be constructive not destructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aston Villa have been around for nearly 150 years and have had over 1000 players. Merging the biography of a kid from the youth team who's never even played for the senior team into the main club article would be the most ridiculous WP:UNDUE violation ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe has played on this team. [5] One of the results mentions him playing, not just being on the team[6]. Playing on a professional team makes you notable. WP:NSOCCER Every member of this team has an article about them, some about as young as him. I don't see anywhere saying there are two different teams either. 18 is old enough to play professional. Dream Focus 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All those links clearly state in the titles that they refer to matches played by clubs' reserve teams. The second starts "Crystal Palace reserves finished their season in third place of the Totesport.com Combination League, after a 2-2 draw with QPR yesterday. The Eagles' second-string twice came from behind to secure a point". A club's reserve team is not fully professional, and has never been considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's for clearing that up. I had no idea since I'm not a sports person. Withdrawing my keep then. Do they get television coverages for these types of things? Do they get coverage in any magazines? Dream Focus 13:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No would be the quick answer there. I live in Birmingham and am pretty sure I have never seen any press coverage of Aston Villa or Birmingham City's reserve team games. Even the scores aren't usually reported -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's for clearing that up. I had no idea since I'm not a sports person. Withdrawing my keep then. Do they get television coverages for these types of things? Do they get coverage in any magazines? Dream Focus 13:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All those links clearly state in the titles that they refer to matches played by clubs' reserve teams. The second starts "Crystal Palace reserves finished their season in third place of the Totesport.com Combination League, after a 2-2 draw with QPR yesterday. The Eagles' second-string twice came from behind to secure a point". A club's reserve team is not fully professional, and has never been considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG (someone above claimed that he was the subject of coverage in The Guardian, but the only mention of him I could find on their website was one throw-away sentence in a match report about how he'd been on the sub's bench but never entered play.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played highest professional level. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment consensus is very clear here that WP:ATHLETE is not met but Colonel Warden brings on his usual policy but no evidence of notability argument of WP needing to be constructive or improved rather than addressing how the subject meets an established notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). SnottyWong chatter 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asit Bandopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Withdrawn pending another line of research, I'll refile this if that comes up empty.
Verifiability (and, as a result, also notability) concerns. Trouble sourcing this dramatist. There is a similarly named land-reform commissioner, there is a similarly named academic (middle name Kumar), but in terms of references that line up with anything here, the only reliable source I could find is [7]. The awards sounded like a source of notability but I was unable to find references to the specific awards, links g.t. the name of the persons the awards were named for.
Sources to better verify this apparent BLP welcomed. j⚛e deckertalk 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonder Girls (US TV Pilot) (edit | talk | 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 TV show that was "mentioned". Let's wait until we have some more information. Nolelover It's football season! 18:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, way too little information, almost no reliable sources. Let's wait until the series is actually broadcast instead of writing an article upon the first hint of its upcoming existence. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until we have a network, any network, this article is completely useless. A currently shopped pilot project with no home. WP:CRYSTAL. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing here that warrants an article. Fixer23 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Puriece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this article to be a hoax. In addition to the improbably romantic story of lost and fragmentary texts, secret wills, and dying revolutionary leaders taking their secrets to the grave, I can find no evidence that the cited source ("Rivista di Studi Lombardo-Siculi" exists; no evidence that Ugo Bleiro exists or is notable; and he does not appear to be listed among the faculty of the University of Messina or of the University of Shkodra, where he is claimed to work.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be integral parts of the same hoax:
- Alexander Caserinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ugo Bleiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RandomCritic (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete all three articles. If "Puriece" was really the only example of "Agricane Nordic" poetry, then surely there would be at least one relevant google hit for "Puriece" or "Agricane" or "Agricane Poetry" or "Ugo Bleiro" or "Alexander Caserinus". There are no sources available to verify any of these three articles, and the sources provided do not appear to exist. I agree that these three articles were created as a hoax, in the hopes that we'd be tricked by the fact that all three articles link to each other. All three articles were created by the same editor, Maltisafi (talk · contribs), and these are the only contributions by this editor. I say speedy delete as a hoax, and indef block Maltisafi unless he can prove beyond a doubt that these are not a hoax. SnottyWong confabulate 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ugo Bleiro article was previously nominated for deletion because of a lack of sources. User:Maltisafi added two citations, and the nomination was dropped. However, both citations appear to be fraudulent; I can find no evidence for the existence of the named articles in either Corriere della Sera or L'Essentiel. Also, the language of the lines from the supposed poem looks like complete nonsense — random Italian, Latin, and pseudo-Latin words thrown together without meaning. RandomCritic (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Sophomoric hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete all Clearly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sunningdale Shooting 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)
Delete as an unremarkable piece of news. This belongs "In the News" or on Wikinews. Nolelover It's football season! 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete just another news story. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence that this is more than any everyday news story. SnottyWong gossip 19:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reasonably claim to notability per WP:EVENT. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "One Person Killed In Sunningdale Shooting Incident" Sorry, this isn't even regional news and a column-filler on page three of Sunningdale's local newspaper, not an international incident. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete classic WP:NOTNEWS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it wasn't even a shooting. The victim was bludgeoned to death. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - was headline news for a while in the UK, but doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS. You'll find a lot more information if you google "Sunningdale Van Murder", which is where it should be moved if it was kept. Worm 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G7 requested by author JohnCD (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Britney Spears 7th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law. Is an unreferenced Chrystal Ball, listing the "rumored tracks". Lets wait till we get more. Nolelover It's football season! 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FlexiScore (edit | talk | 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 neolgism created by purveyors of product by the same name. See their website. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:NEO and WP:ADVERT. This term is not used anywhere outside of flexibilityscore.com, flexiscore.com, and bodyflexibilitytest.com, all of which are the exact same website. SnottyWong spill the beans 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with SnottyWong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it may not fail WP:ADVERT, it most certainly fails WP:NEO. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sign on google of any significant usage beyond the company's own website(s). Its arguably a neologism and an advertising tool for the company, but those could be argued against, and the article fixed, if anyone had adopted the term. Its just too soon to qualify as an article. the business itself would be the subject of the article, which would have a fair section on this unit of measurement, but only if and when the product offered gets some notability, which it hasnt yet. It SEEMS like a great idea, but thats not for us to judge. Hell, i might even buy one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very little coverage by third party sources, can be recreated if it takes off. --Worm 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G4. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curse of Keith Hernandez (edit | talk | 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 blogger coined a phrase and a beat writer went with it. There is zero news coverage about this. There are blogs that mention this, but in reference to how the Mets are cursed, not the Cardinals. This fails GNG. Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I looked on the talk page before initiating the AfD and saw nothing. Now that I created it I see a successful AfD and a successful speedy deletion. Now I'd like to update my request to speedy delete and salt the earth so this isn't recreated again. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Smerge (Selectively merge) to the team article. Meme created by a blogger and remarked on by the local paper, mentioned by sports writers in subsequent years [8]. This is hardly a "notable superstition" but more of a bit of humor on the part of a few sportswriters. Rather than a standalone article for every phrase related to an article subject such as the ball team in question, it seems more encyclopedic to briefly mention it in the article about the team. Presently, Hernandez is not even mentioned as a player in the article on the team. Edison (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to be any more notable now then when we last AFDed it in 2006. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per previous two unanimous AfD's. There is no indication that the notability of this subject has not changed since 2006. SnottyWong chat 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 The Count Of Monte Cristo - Musical by James Behr (edit | talk | 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 musical play that has been written and showcased, but not yet actually performed, written by an otherwise non-notable writer. Not notable yet, although it may well become so in the future. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but absolutely no prejudice against and article when and if it's ever performed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertisement for a musical that someone is trying to get performed. Recreate it once someone has actually bought it and it is being performed. SnottyWong spout 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice to recreation, when and if it is (a) finished and (b) performed in a notable professional theatre. The showcase was not for the complete musical, and even the fragment performed did not have full-staging. The only press coverage was in News Blaze [9], and given that it offers this service and this one, I'd discount it. It was picked up by no other New York papers [10]. The article is a blatant advertisement, and the title is completely inappropriate but no use copy-editing. Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Autumns Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND. References are not reliable. Written in a promotional tone. The Interior(Talk) 10:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, DumbBOT. (you bots aren't very patient!) The Interior(Talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability shown here, lacks coverage in iundependent reliable sources, reads like it was writ by someone directly connected to the band (creator is a one edit SPA). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Synnack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam. Not notable. Fruktoĝardeno (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Interesting stuff, but fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Also appears to be a copyvio of [11]. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion because of the copyvio. mono Chrome and cut.rate.box appear to be similar articles created by the same COI editor, and may also need to be nominated. SnottyWong prattle 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all the data that appears to be a copyvio (and the CSD tag). There is quite a bit of article left. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed more material that is a copyvio (see edit summaries). The only thing left is the lead. SnottyWong verbalize 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete closest thing to notability here is having a member, Sand, being a member of to blue linked (for now, won't last long) bands but that is not good enough for wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott A. McLuckey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a simple CV with no indication of any notability - though given the CV there probably is none. Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he is apparently a good professor, there doesn't seem to be any notability. Even the folks who gave him the Anachem Award don't include any information about him on their website[12].--Habap (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to far better sourcing and evidence of notability, as well as replacement of the CV info with prose, it's now a reasonable article. Great work, Mr Eppstein! --Habap (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the state in which this article was originally nominated, it seemed to be close to an A7 speedy. But he passes WP:PROF C1 (11 papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar), C2 (multiple national-level awards), C5 (named chair), C6 (president ASMS), and C8 (editor IJMS).
The sourcing on the article needs improvement, but that can be fixed.I've improved the sourcing, so that's no longer a reason to delete either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Clear keep as shown above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Well done David Eppstein. This now seems to be a useful article and notability has apparently been established. I'm happy to remove my nomination. Emeraude (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: meets WP:PROF criteria #5. More third-party sourcing would however be preferable (otherwise its "lack of reliable, independent sources" caveat may apply). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per David Eppstein. Passes several of the criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Civil defense siren. Courcelles 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Community Siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
spammy, undually weighted, coi, duplicate article Mannafredo (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertisement for a non-notable product which fails WP:GNG. Part of the article is a copyvio of this site. The rest is probably a copyvio of another site, but I haven't been able to find it. SnottyWong spill the beans 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to civil defense siren as a plausible redirect as emergency sirens usually serve one community. Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Porirua Little 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)
Article about a community theatre. Pure original research; no sources cited, and none available to construct an article out of. Several GHits, but nearly all appear to be notices of upcoming shows with nothing written about the theatre itself. One GNews hit on a story in local media. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Appears to lack sufficient noatability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete current version, without prejudice to later recreation. The tone of the current version is very unencyclopedic, and given that no independent sources have been cited, it's probably easier for someone to start this again from scratch. I don't agree that there is no evidence of coverage that could establish notability, though. The theatre's mentioned on the local council's website, for instance, along with a book on local history that seems likely to provide more detail. The theatre building is listed on the Porirua Heritage Database, with the building report discussing the theatre. Together with the local newspaper story, I think there's enough coverage that at least a short article on this theatre would be possible. (I would like to see an overall article on theatre in New Zealand first, though.) --Avenue (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Simply WP:OR. It may be notable, but with no sources cited it should be deleted for now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete current version, without prejudice and/or move to user space. I suspect that this can be made notable Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyvios are bad and if the article is irredemably bad then deleting and starting again is a well established process. So delete this but specifically encourge the creation of a properly sourced article at this location Spartaz Humbug! 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Green restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
How-to guide with little encyclopedic content and no indication of notability Mean as custard (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of course being "green" is a good thing for a restaurant, as for any other human endeavour, but not really notable as a topic. Same as "inexpensive restaurant" of "green drug store" would not be. Or any other combination of adjective and noun unless some new meaning is created beyond that of each word. Borock (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (even though I am a greenie!) per all the above comments. There may be, however, room for a Sustainability in the food service industry article at some point in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is mostly a collection of copyright violations. Each citation in the article points to the website from which the content was copied or paraphrased. However, despite copyright violations, the article is about a non-notable intersection of Environmentalism and Restaurant. SnottyWong babble 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The green restaurant concept is quite notable and I have cited a couple of encyclopedia to demonstrate this. The article title would be better as Green restaurant per WP:SINGULAR. Any objections if I move it, as part of the process of clean up and improvement? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Before trying to decide if something is notable or not, its best to spend a brief moment clicking on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Notice that many news sources have covered this concept, they thus notable enough for a Wikipedia article about them. 265 results. Just read through the titles and the summaries and some stand out right away. Like the one from the Houston Chronicle titled The Haven of green restaurants. Dream Focus 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:
WP:HOWTOWP:NOTHOWTO guide. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) [link to policy fixed.... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC) ][reply]
- We expect reasoned and policy-based argument here, please, not vague waves to non-policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [... and tendentious, snarky, WP:AGF-violative comment laughed at: ROFLMAO, I would have thought it would be perfectly obvious that I did not mean Category:Wikipedia how-to. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- No, it is not obvious what your hand-waving means. NOTHOWTO is a stylistic point. The same section also says that we shouldn't use academic language or style but we would not delete on that account because it is possible to rewrite to improve the style. In this case, the instructional style seems fairly minor and fixing this is just a matter of copy editing so that the article states the plain facts. There is nothing about the topic which makes it impossible to present in an encyclopedic style and I have cited two encyclopedia to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is pervasively a how-to guide. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository for how-to guides. This means that this article should not be there. It is of course possible to write a completely new article in its place. This however would be 'destroying the village in order to save it', not 'rescuing' it. WP:NOTHOWTO is part of WP:NOT and thus P-O-L-I-C-Y! I know that many inclusionists like to pretend that the only part of WP:NOT that exists is WP:NOTPAPER, but it does contain other policy content. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [... and tendentious, snarky, WP:AGF-violative comment laughed at: ROFLMAO, I would have thought it would be perfectly obvious that I did not mean Category:Wikipedia how-to. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- Sources Here are a selection of sources for this topic:
- B. Lorenzini, B (1994), "The green restaurant", Restaurant & Institutions, 104 (11): 119–36
- Hsin-Hui Hu; H.G. Parsa; John Self (August 2010), "The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage", Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51 (3): 344–362, doi:10.1177/1938965510370564
- J. Carbonara (2007), "Foodservice goes green", Foodservice Equipment and Supplies, 60 (9): 48–54
- E. Elan (18 February 2009), "Chains growing green efforts despite economy", Nation’s Restaurant News
- B. Horovitz (19 May 2008), "Can restaurants go green?", USA Today
- notable topic disguised by crap article: Nomination should not be as to notability, because you can't just assume topic isn't notable. This nom is deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish furniture in that respect, marketing copy ruining a topic that has been the subject of coverage. I propose stubbing this and merging Green Restaurant Certification into it. I would do it now but don't want to get everyone going crazy like happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that deleting everything except the lead would improve this article immensely. Most everything below the lead is either a blatant copyvio or a very close paraphrase. SnottyWong speak 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable topic, but eliminate a lot of duplicate information with a summary of, and section hatnote to Green building. It needs a major copyedit into an encyclopedic voice ("It's no secret that..." Really?), eliminate the external spam links found in the body text, summarize any information already in other articles that is not specific to restaurants, and we might have a useful article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but I just glanced through this article and it is horrendous. Without even considering the copyright problems, the writing is atrocious. Any individual sentence could probably be fixed, but the hours it would take to improve this article might well be better spent starting from scratch. "The more obvious way of illuminating you restaurant is the sun." Seriously?--SPhilbrickT 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As was argued above, the topic in its own right might well be notable--there's even an association of green restaurants (dinegreen.com). But the article IS atrocious, no doubt about that--a combination of a manual and a bunch of synthesis. And how to improve this? A clean slate is best, though if someone walks by with a blunt ax and prunes it (and then keeps an eye on it) I would be happy as well. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, out in California green restaurants have been making news for years. Chez Panisse is a god example of teaching communities to be more organic and self-sustainnig. The article need better writing though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blldggr (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The topic is obviously notable. The big problem is the copyvio/plagiarism issue. If that has been fixed, the article should be kept and improved. If it hasn't been fixed, then I could go either way on this; either keep and fix, or burn to the ground and rebuild. Cardamon (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaws (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary article stub about a non-developed "character" from the film series. The shark in each film dies, so it's not even the same animal in each film sequel. This article is not the same as Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees, characters which clearly are notable, have been developed and have specific personalities.
What more can be said other than "it's a shark"? Sottolacqua (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Just when you thought it was safe to post a new article on Wikipedia..." New article from a new contributor, welcome, hope you keep contributing. While this information can be added to the article about the series (maybe Jaws (franchise), there's not enough for a stand alone article. I agree with the nominator that there's not much that one can say. To my knowledge, the filmmakers made no attempt to distinguish between the shark in Jaws 2 and the one in Jaws. Because these are suspense films, the shark didn't get much screen time anyway. So far as I know, none of the sharks were actually referred to as "Jaws". Sorry. Mandsford 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The entire character is nothing more than "it's a shark". There is nothing more to the character than that. This could be just as well summed up with one line in the article about the film. JIP | Talk 20:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Calling the shark in Jaws a "character" is a bit tenuous. There isn't much to say about this "character" except that it is a shark, it bites people, and it eventually gets killed because of its insatiable need to bite people. Not enough for an article here. SnottyWong babble 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Jaws (franchise), which shouldn't be heard because aside from the fact that the character was AFI's 18th greatest movie villain, there's not much else that needs carrying over. — Hunter Kahn 22:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the concerns by Sottolacqua and Mandsford. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Silly. The JPStalk to me 12:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: separate article not needed, creation may be a joke.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete almost nothing you can say about this "character". Whatever you can say would be redundant to the plot summary and thus a WP:CONTENTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesse Stay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreated A7. Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for WP:BIO. Orphan. Creator (the subject's grandson) removed notability tag rather than improving article, so I assume that this is as good as it's going to get. If it does meet BIO, I'd like someone to write an article about my grandfather. THF (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's always sad when a close relative dies, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:MILPEOPLE and the WP:GNG, as well as my own standards. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - he played a significant role in Wake Island, and if you give me time I can provide additional secondary sources for this (see his Bio, as well as the BYU documentation stating his honors) - see #5 - "Played an important role in a significant military event". In addition, he was seen as an expert by his peers in military matters. He, just before his death Foreworded a book about one of his peers in his Pacific bombing squadron - I can provide links to that as well. Jesse Stay (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Read some of the newspaper clippings here for more information on his accomplishments during Wake Island - I'll see if I can find the newspapers and dates those were recorded: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038875112&set=a.18722195112.38309.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He also commanded one of the very first Parachute landings - see this newspaper article here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038585112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also from his letter awarding him one of his Distinguished Flying Crosses: "In the face of heavy antiaircraft fire and strong enemy fighter opposition, First Lieutenant Stay skillfully led his squadron of heavy bombers over the targets on Wake in a successful attack which resulted in extensive damage to Japanese material and personnel. His courageous leadership and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Armed Forces." - see http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038595112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112&pid=858911&id=683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From this article, "Organizer of Air Force ROTC" - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038775112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Another article on Jesse Stay being the first Commanding Officer of BYU Air Force ROTC: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038780112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112&pid=858966&id=683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. More on Jesse Stay being respected by his peers - see the comments about him in this article: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038820112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here's an article showing him getting the Distinguished Flying Cross: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038545112&set=a.18722185112.38307.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He's also quoted numerous times in this book: "Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, andRedemption", By Laura Hillenbrand http://books.google.com/books?id=injpY-EerZgC&pg=PT538&dq=%22jesse+stay%22+-%22jesse+stay'd%22+-%22jesse+stay+where%22+-%22jesse+stay+here%22+-%22jesse+stay+there%22+-facebook+-%22jesse+stay+with%22+-%22jesse+stay+in%22&hl=en&ei=WSboTJ6TE8HLnAf9trXzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=7&ved=0CE0QuwUwBg#v=onepage&q=%22jesse%20stay%22&f=false Jesse Stay (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also more in this book: "11th Bomb Group (H): The Gray Goose", By Turner Publishing Company, Turner Publishing http://books.google.com/books?id=Gbtu8yLAIncC&pg=PA73&dq=%22jesse+stay%22+-%22jesse+stay'd%22+-%22jesse+stay+where%22+-%22jesse+stay+here%22+-%22jesse+stay+there%22+-facebook+-%22jesse+stay+with%22+-%22jesse+stay+in%22&hl=en&ei=bSboTOjLAs3PngfWqvWFDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=%22jesse%20stay%22%20-%22jesse%20stay'd%22%20-%22jesse%20stay%20where%22%20-%22jesse%20stay%20here%22%20-%22jesse%20stay%20there%22%20-facebook%20-%22jesse%20stay%20with%22%20-%22jesse%20stay%20in%22&f=false Jesse Stay (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DFCs are not enough, and his service in WWII is not distinguished enough for our criterion (simply participating in a abttle is not enough, and there is no evidence that he commanded a "sizable body of troops" in a battle). And ROTC? You've got to be joking. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like there is an agenda here by you to get this removed. What part of "First Lieutenant Stay skillfully led his squadron of heavy bombers over the targets on Wake in a successful attack" is he *not* leading a sizable body of troops in a battle? And what about his involvement in the dugway_sheep_incident as Air Force Press Officer as the man that commissioned the report that is so controversial? Jesse Stay (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DFCs are not enough, and his service in WWII is not distinguished enough for our criterion (simply participating in a abttle is not enough, and there is no evidence that he commanded a "sizable body of troops" in a battle). And ROTC? You've got to be joking. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Based on the evidence presented, Mr. Stay may not meet the usual notability standards in force here. I agree that his military bio (as presented here) is not "notable". The issue is not quite as clear with respect to his role in Mormon cinema. The source material presented for this subject [13][14] is actually quite interesting (although not much of it is actually about Jesse Stay). Whether or not his bio article stays, these contributions could be profitably utilized to improve the existing stub article LDS Motion Picture Studios as well as the larger article LDS cinema and/or other articles within Category:Latter Day Saint cinema.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Not much of it is actually about Jesse Stay" - there's an entire chapter devoted to him in the History of Mormon Cinema article. I'm not sure how that can be defined as "not much". Jesse Stay (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here's a picture of Jesse Stay with Ernest Wilkinson, President of BYU at the time he was over the BYU Motion Picture Studio: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038865112&set=a.18722195112.38309.683545112&pid=858983&id=683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here's Jesse Stay's letter from Dallin H. Oaks, appointing him as Director of BYU Motion Picture Studios: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038710112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Another article on Stay being appointed Director of BYU Motion Picture Studios - lots of other supporting information as well (including him being a former Pentagon PR Officer): http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038330112&set=a.18722185112.38307.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. More on the awards he won for his films, and more films he produced: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038455112&set=a.18722185112.38307.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would not object to a userfy and merge to a larger LDS cinema filmmakers article. THF (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the grandson who wrote the article - I only removed the notability tag because no one was specifying why it wasn't notable (the discussion for that page only has my comments if you look). If you need more second-hand sources, we can get this. This is more than just me memorializing my Grandfather. He had a notable place in Mormon cinema, and also was a key player in the Wake Island bombings and other elements of the Pacific war (as evidenced by the Medals he won, which I can also get more documentation on). I can provide second-hand sources for that - I just need time to gather my material. I also think him starting the BYU Air Force ROTC was also interesting, and can also be backed up with second-hand material. I haven't done this with any other of my relatives - I only create this because I think he is very notable, and others would find it very interesting to learn about his life. I'd hate to see an interesting article like this removed despite the references already provided. Jesse Stay (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I'm new to adding articles on Wikipedia. If every experience is as difficult as this, it's no wonder Jimmy Wales is begging for money. Jesse Stay (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note there is a very similar article for Judge Whitaker here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Whitaker - it was that article that made me think Wikipedia needed an article for Jesse Stay, who was just as notable. Jesse Stay (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (again, not sure why this conversation isn't happening on the conversation tab of the article) - more notability about Jesse Stay - he served as a PR rep for the Air Force at the Pentagon, and played a large part in both the Dugway_sheep_incident and the Air Force's discontinuance of its UFO task force. This book has a lot of data about that: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/fsar/fsar18.htm - I'm looking around for secondary sources on his role at Dugway, as well as more on the UFO Task Force. Jesse Stay (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesse Stay was also a member of the Sunday School General Board for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - see this article: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21038815112&set=a.18722190112.38308.683545112 Jesse Stay (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Darkside Bowls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Madeup neogolism... Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since this is the only mention of this on Google, it's pretty obviously a case of WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's also one mention on MySpace, but I agree it's too new to be notable. I'm open to re-creation of the article, when and if this cancerous junk becomes widespread. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The content is obviously nonsensical and unverifiable. Being a queen down with no compensation is not a "gambit" but a blunder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stock's Gambit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty much a hoax and fails the made up one day test. Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not for something you made up two days ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be a Speedy delete as no indication of importance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I PRODed it, but the author removed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask yourself why this isn't a speedy category. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I PRODed it, but the author removed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete technically doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria, but come on, it's something literally made up in school one day, specifically, that day being three days ago. No need to give it another week to pointlessly sit there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Made up to entertain friends at school. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I would say that this fits the criteria of {{db-hoax}}. The creator is new to wikipedia but should be warned against creating hoax articles Quale (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Wikipedia:Snowball clause applies; and it can be deleted. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant hoax, wow, White is a queen down after three moves. That one's certainly gonna make it into all standard text books. --Pgallert (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nom withdrawn - mistake about professional level. Non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samu Manoa (edit | talk | 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 professional athlete without additional coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources, such as the AIA Guide and New York Times attest to the building's notability. The redirect will be deleted as an unlikely, recently-created redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 408 Greenwich Street (edit | talk | 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's no indication this building is notable... it's only described as an address in Manhattan and I can't find any other suggestion it's notable. (this nom also includes the redirect to it 408 Greenwhich Street) Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow, a 9-story building in New York City [15].... The Morris Adjmi firm has made self-laudatory contributions of this type before, and I can't see any purpose for this one besides promotion. Unless it's famous in the world of architecture, it's not notable enough for an article here. Mandsford 14:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above. Part of a spate of promotional edits, without rationale for notability. JNW (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Now inclined to weak keep. JNW (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete This building is notable in the neighborhood for its design and the character it adds to the area. It has been written about in the NY Times and in the AIA Guide to New York. It was inspired by Aldo Rossi's design ideas and is an interesting example of postmodernism in NYC. It does sound a little advertisey (although not intended), but perhaps you could help me clean this up. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfr3x (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it appears all of your edits are promotional in tone [16], and suggest a WP:COI account. Please remember to sign your talk page posts. JNW (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I find one substantial article from 2004 about this building in The New York Times ("Residential Real Estate; 9-Story Project Approved in TriBeCa Warehouse District") as well as one passing mention in 2009 of its significance to the "North Tribeca" neighborhood[17]. As stated by the editor above, the building is also written up in AIA Guide to New York City[18]. This does suggest the building may be at least marginally notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Local papers reporting approved building permits is not a substantial article, and I find your rationale highly worrisome. Your criteria for inclusion is amazingly explosive; I cannot imagine the future success of the project if users had to monitor and watchlist every address in Manhattan that had a building permit involved. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's news coverage plus coverage in a significant architectural guidebook. The 2004 article is not just a routine report about a permit: it describes the plans for the (then-unbuilt) building in some detail ("a project that is intended to weave together the old and new, both in the curved arch of its windows and the unusual mix of uses planned for the building" and more) as well as the controversy over allowing a new building in this historic zone and its anticipated effect on the neighborhood. As I said in my original comment, I still find the case "weak", so far. I'd like to know, for example, if there are write-ups in significant architectural magazines.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding additional reference links plus revising content to sound less like an add and focusing on the historical significance of this building in the TieBeCa Warehouse Historic District district.
- Local papers reporting approved building permits is not a substantial article, and I find your rationale highly worrisome. Your criteria for inclusion is amazingly explosive; I cannot imagine the future success of the project if users had to monitor and watchlist every address in Manhattan that had a building permit involved. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
("Case Study: Samuel A. Ramirez Building, New York, NY") ("On Greenwich Street, Second Try No Charm for Proposed Buildingt")--User:jfr3x —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: unsourced, and proposed new sources are tangential at best (the NYT "substantial article" above appears to be about a new building proposed on the site of a garage on that section). Does not meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All the relevant policies require multiple reliable sources describing the subject in "significant detail." Passing mentions do not count. Multiple passing mentions are a "0+0=0" deal. There's no scope for passing the GNG for short of multiple substantive sources. Ravenswing 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement for "multiple" reliable sources to demonstrate notability. This topic has more than one anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Arxiloxos mentioned, the New York Times article along with a write-up in an architectural guidebook does show notability. It does need to lose the advert language though. But that's a case for fixing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AIA guide is essentially a specialized encyclopedia, and any building listed specifically in it is notable (not by fiat, in this case, or by special definition, but as passing the GNG--just the same as any person in the ODNB is notable.) Wikipedia includes what is in other encyclopedias , because that passes the basic idea of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: the AIA guide is over a thousand pages long, with typically several listings per page. To claim that all of these thousands of buildings, in a single city (even one as large and prominent as NY), are inherently notable is ludicrous overreach. This, and similar arguments from yourself and like-minded editors, amount to little more than a de facto attempt to abolish notability criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of topics are notable then we can have thousands of articles. And in a city as historic and large as New York, it's not only understandable, but expected that so many buildings are notable. Please avoid the bad faith claims. There's nothing here or anywhere else to indicate that DGG is attempting to abolish notability criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IINFO right back at you. "If thousands of topics are notable..." has been simply asserted, not demonstrated for the buildings listed in the AIA. The directory itself does not provide the depth of coverage needed for a substantive article, and it is likely that many will lack substantial coverage elsewhere -- as is the case with this building. Thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands?) of such guidebooks exist for this, and other such topics, throughout the world. If we lowered notability criteria to include every building, street, park, bridge, etc, etc listed in such, then we would be liable to be flooded by millions poorly-sourced unexpandable stubs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For a building to be considered inherently notable, I would generally expect some sort of official historic preservation status, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the AIA source was indiscriminate, you'd have a point, but the fact is the American Institute of Architects, one of the most respected architectural organizations in the world, has singled out only a tiny percentage of New York City buildings to profile which includes this one. It's not up to us to decide what is considered worthy of standing out, but learned professionals in a given field. I will go with professionals opinions, not specific Wikipedia editors ones. --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the AIA publication is a directory, I would not think it establishes notability. Different circumstance, but I'm reminded of this discussion, where the distinction was clarified for me [19]. JNW (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have changed from delete to neutral (above), on the understanding that the AIA source is not a mere directory. JNW (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samuel Mark Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google search reveals nothing immediately relevant. No indication of notability. Probably could be A7'd but worth bringing here first. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article was created by new use Soliver2 who says in the edit summary that they are "creating a personal Wikipedia page". Perhaps they thought they were creating a user page, not an encyclopedia article. However, Wikipedia is not Facebook. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete posthaste. freshacconci talktalk 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Free Movement as Freedom (edit | talk | 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:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Notability is not established, the only link is to original site with movement manifesto, IMHO looks pretty much as a WP:SOAP. Will be glad to withdraw nomination if reliable 3rd-party sources are provided to establish notability (my own search was difficult because of name being too generic). Ipsign (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but, per nom, will change my vote if reliable sources are brought forward. Currently, notability is not established.--KorruskiTalk 11:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in my research I did not find any source other than the one website linked. Delete per WP:SOURCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voomoo (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:G11 deleted by User:Stephen. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Survey 360 (edit | talk | 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 indication software's notable Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: a unique automated survey application which delivers real time actionable feedback about customer or employee experiences. It was developed by InsightNow and is used by companies who wish to capture opinions and feedback from customers. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Swagghop (edit | talk | 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 prodded this article myself by saying it sounded like a genre that was invented on the spot, but then I brought it to AfD instead after learning that my instincts were right. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Page should really have been a speedy deletion at CSD A7. This genre by the article author's own admission is recently created. Nothing as new as that can possibly have accumulated sufficient notability for an entry in an encyclopedia. Very sorry but it fails our criteria for inclusion on multiple issues such as :WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and is completely unsourced apart from sel-published materia. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE. --Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, I think this just slips by CSD because it does explain (albeit poorly) what the supposed genre entails. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. Falsely claims that this just-created genre with one extremely obscure performer is "quickly becoming one of the most popular around". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax, but clearly not notable as of yet. The wider picture is that "Bishop B (now known as Bishop Swagghop)" is a DIY artist touting their own style. As for sources - The main one is their Reverbnation - Bishop Swagghop self created artist page. It contains is the same basic bio found at Our stage - Mr.Swagghop, tinychat - Swagghop Entertainment (Click on the "Description" tab) and Mr. Swagghop - Myspace page. Variations can be found at Bishop B - Myspace and Bishop Swagghop - Facebook. They have a Twitter account and they also have a U.K facebook page where they recently boasted "WHILE YALL PASSING OUT MIXTAPES IM GETTING HEARD ALL OVER THE GLOBE!" and the next day claimed "Finally made #1 in HipHop in the Twin Cities." I find no independent sources to back that up however. The only thing I could find that comes close to be an "independent" source is Unsigned Hype Bishop SwaggHop, but is it a WP:RS? And even it it were I don't feel one interview on a website that seems to feature indy/unsigned artists is enough. And when all is said and done - the article being discussed is not about the "artist" Bishop Swagghop, it is about the "Genre of music" called Swagghop. And on that I can find not find anything that comes close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the sources provided by Soundvisions1 none of them are good. The conclusion found above is right. No meeting Wikipedia:Notability guidelines here. Nothing but promotion here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:MADEUP/WP:NEO --Closeapple (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elan (IIT Hyderabad) (edit | talk | 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 event by Wikipedia's standards. No independent coverage, not even a credible claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not have any independent coverage to meet the inclusion criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs)
- Delete, doesn't pass notability criteria and not a plausible redirect either. —SpacemanSpiff 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable student festival. Salih (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Non notable. BINOY Talk 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of places in Victoria by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary, problematic, difficult to manage, quickly outdated and relatively pointless list that apparently serves only to rank cities in the state by size. Discussed at WP:AWNB and the only opinions expressed suggested deletion. It was originally created as a list of cities by an editor who appears to be under the misconception that an "Urban Centre/Locality" (UC/L) is a city. However, the list is simply that of various places in the state and does not necessarily include all UC/Ls in the state. Based on examination of all three similar articles created by the same editor (List of cities in Victoria by population, List of cities in Tasmania by population and List of places in Northern Territory by population) the list is likely incomplete. Article includes only a single generic reference. A more detailed explanation of the issues and a comparison with the other articles may be found at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#List of cities/places in <state> by population AussieLegend (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom. It's redundant to the much better organised and defined List of cities in Australia by population, uses a schema which isn't intended to be used for this purpose and is inconsistent from place to place, leading to misleading impressions. There are so many errors in the existing list that it's impossible to determine how it would be maintained. No such list is maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in any of its publications. Some examples: The SSCs of Mt Eliza, Mornington and Cranbourne have been used (I didn't bother to check all places, but those three do not have UC/Ls). The Cranbourne one ignores the fact Cranbourne has several suburbs, so is comparing apples with oranges. Mt Eliza is part of Frankston, which is unlisted. Pakenham has a UC/L, but its SSC has been mysteriously used. The neighbouring SSC of Mt Martha was not selected - noone knows why. All of them are being weighed against Traralgon, which is individually defined as a UC/L. One could argue all day like this, but it's simply a poorly assembled list created by a new user who does not understand the statistical context in which these figures exist and that we don't just create lists because we can. Orderinchaos 19:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your objection is that it is factually inaccurate, I think. This is not a reason to delete it, it's a reason to fix it, or ask for someone else to. (Also, your objection is factually inaccurate; see my observation about a source.) —Felix the Cassowary 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is that it is a factual mess which cannot be cleaned up. You seem to have the false impression that a list which meets Wikipedia's neutrality provisions actually exists. It does not. You have a list of UC/Ls which is arbitrarily determined by the ABS from time to time; it carries no legal weight and it is not an extensively used measure by statistical demographers (who tend to use SSDs which are just as arbitrary but are at least comparable with each other). It's not like the US where towns have gazetted boundaries and thus a clear authority exists to define the boundary of an area. Orderinchaos 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the other "arguments" made, that one has weight; and I realise I don't know enough to counter it (or even if it is counterable). I will retract my vote, but I will not vote to "delete". —Felix the Cassowary 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is that it is a factual mess which cannot be cleaned up. You seem to have the false impression that a list which meets Wikipedia's neutrality provisions actually exists. It does not. You have a list of UC/Ls which is arbitrarily determined by the ABS from time to time; it carries no legal weight and it is not an extensively used measure by statistical demographers (who tend to use SSDs which are just as arbitrary but are at least comparable with each other). It's not like the US where towns have gazetted boundaries and thus a clear authority exists to define the boundary of an area. Orderinchaos 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your objection is that it is factually inaccurate, I think. This is not a reason to delete it, it's a reason to fix it, or ask for someone else to. (Also, your objection is factually inaccurate; see my observation about a source.) —Felix the Cassowary 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a list of towns and cities in Victoria sorted by population—which is essentially an indication to everyone of their relative significance; it also allows readers to understand the population distribution of Victoria. I think this sort of information is quite relevant to an encylopædia, and there's no clear basis for deleting it. —Felix the Cassowary 19:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for AussieLegend's claims, I don't understand what the relevance of "unnecessary" is. What list is necessary?
- It is not problematic. The criteria for inclusion is straightforward and a correct list is easily generated by a script. I could do it in half an hour, and I probably would if I had time. But replying to AfDs takes time, so it will have to wait.
- Based on its criteria, it will be outdated in 2012 (when the next census is released), and every five years after that [UC/Ls are only defined during censuses, and population projections are not published between times]. It will take about half an hour every five years to bring it up to date. If this is unmanageable, I don't know what would be manageable! Perhaps some other definition will provide itself for a list of towns and cities in Victoria, but given the current one there's nothing wrong at all with it.
- Objections at WP:AWNB have been provided; it cannot be a serious argument in favor of deletion that I didn't object till I read it and objected.
- If Urban Centre/Locality is not essentially a town/city, what is it? "City" is certainly commonly understood in Australia as referring to a sufficiently large built-up area. The source seems to be perfectly well suited for the task.
- If the articles are incomplete, then complete them, or ask someone else to. I think there's a template for that. Don't just delete the lists!
- I have a file I downloaded off the ABS website showing the UC/Ls in Victoria by population. I can't provide a link to it, because it's the result of a search. If I wasn't busy defending this AfD, I would be able to actually write down a source for it. In order to verify it, you'd have to do some manual searching, but it's not fundamentally different from a citation in a book.
- In the interests of good faith, could you share this with us? There are hundreds of errors in the Victorian file alone, I have spent more than half an hour trying to fix them and there's still probably 20+ to go. I honestly have no idea what the creator's rationale or source was. Orderinchaos 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic instructions from memory (if this doesn't work let me know, but you'll probably have to wait a day) is you use the most complex of the ways of accessing census data. It's a pretty complex web app, I forget its name, but if you're used to their website you probably know the one I mean. Search by sex and population and add a UC/L (I think just one is possible during the phase where you go into it). Then, edit the columns using the box on the left hand side, to add all the rest of the UC/Ls in a state into it. Be careful to make sure everything's at the same level, otherwise it whinges, but you can have things from the same level but different subgroups as long as they're the same kind of thing. Update the data and you can download yourself a CSV file. The creator left his rationale here in this debate, and even if he hadn't, it's fairly straightforward to work it out. The fact that he made mistakes doesn't contradict this: Not everyone is as perfect as you. —Felix the Cassowary 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last comment in your reply to Orderinchaos was inappropriate. Please, be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have been quite uncivil, and my incivility was in direct response to OIC being uncivil. WP:That doesn't make it right, but your selectivity in criticism looks like point scoring. —Felix the Cassowary 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've been uncivil, but that's not the issue. I simply asked you to not make uncivil comments, and I don't consider that OIC was uncivil. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have been quite uncivil, and my incivility was in direct response to OIC being uncivil. WP:That doesn't make it right, but your selectivity in criticism looks like point scoring. —Felix the Cassowary 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last comment in your reply to Orderinchaos was inappropriate. Please, be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic instructions from memory (if this doesn't work let me know, but you'll probably have to wait a day) is you use the most complex of the ways of accessing census data. It's a pretty complex web app, I forget its name, but if you're used to their website you probably know the one I mean. Search by sex and population and add a UC/L (I think just one is possible during the phase where you go into it). Then, edit the columns using the box on the left hand side, to add all the rest of the UC/Ls in a state into it. Be careful to make sure everything's at the same level, otherwise it whinges, but you can have things from the same level but different subgroups as long as they're the same kind of thing. Update the data and you can download yourself a CSV file. The creator left his rationale here in this debate, and even if he hadn't, it's fairly straightforward to work it out. The fact that he made mistakes doesn't contradict this: Not everyone is as perfect as you. —Felix the Cassowary 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interests of good faith, could you share this with us? There are hundreds of errors in the Victorian file alone, I have spent more than half an hour trying to fix them and there's still probably 20+ to go. I honestly have no idea what the creator's rationale or source was. Orderinchaos 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think AussieLegend has provided any actual reasons for deleting.
- (—Felix the Cassowary 19:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- You say it "indicates to everyone [the places'] relative significance" - no it doesn't. It indicates what managed to make it into an arbitrary list with inconsistent and unknown criteria. The criteria for inclusion is not straightforward, as I have demonstrated in my argument for deletion. Some places have UC/Ls which are not centres of population; a lot of places don't which are. It's not a matter of "a script will sort it out" as the entire concept of UC/L is a matter for interpretation by ABS staff - as to what is "contiguous" or not. Orderinchaos 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that it would be interesting to see population change with next year census, there been talk for years about rural decline.
- The state government has spent a fortune advertising about the advantages to move to provincial Victoria, after next years census we will see if it was money well spent. Purrum (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unnecessary because it serves only to rank other places against each other. That has no encyclopaedic value, especially when the list is incomplete and, for the reasons Orderinchaos has explained, it compares apples to oranges. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there any difference between (the principle behind) List of cities in Victoria by population and List of cities in Australia by population. Disregard the present problems with the apples and oranges placed in the current list, because we can make it exclusively apples of one sort or another. You say that the very idea behind the Victorian list is non-encyclopedic: "[Ranking other places against each other] has no encyclopaedic value". Does the same apply to the Australian list, or not? If the solution applied to the Australian list were applied to the Victorian list, would that satisfy you, and you'd change to keep? or do you dislike the Australian list too? or what other difference is there between the two? I do not ask this to "catch" you, but as you can see, my conscience tells me I must revert my vote to "keep" until I see why there should be some difference between two articles which seem to me identical in concept. I feel that the Australian list demonstrates that ranked lists are in principle encyclopedic, and that the task is in principle doable, because no-one has ever nominated it for deletion (so far as I can see). —Felix the Cassowary 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian list takes a much more thoughtful approach to the problem - it uses three different mechanisms to compare size, and notes some of the limitations involved. Especially once one gets below the 15-20,000 mark, things start to become very scattered, especially given the lack of clear definition of "what is a town" (unlike other countries which define such things). Orderinchaos 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there any difference between (the principle behind) List of cities in Victoria by population and List of cities in Australia by population. Disregard the present problems with the apples and oranges placed in the current list, because we can make it exclusively apples of one sort or another. You say that the very idea behind the Victorian list is non-encyclopedic: "[Ranking other places against each other] has no encyclopaedic value". Does the same apply to the Australian list, or not? If the solution applied to the Australian list were applied to the Victorian list, would that satisfy you, and you'd change to keep? or do you dislike the Australian list too? or what other difference is there between the two? I do not ask this to "catch" you, but as you can see, my conscience tells me I must revert my vote to "keep" until I see why there should be some difference between two articles which seem to me identical in concept. I feel that the Australian list demonstrates that ranked lists are in principle encyclopedic, and that the task is in principle doable, because no-one has ever nominated it for deletion (so far as I can see). —Felix the Cassowary 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing the points Felix the Cassowary's put forth:
- Orderinchaos' issues today along with the convoluted and confusing description of how to download a complete list of UC/Ls with populations demonstrates how problematic this article is. The article's creator initially intyended it to be a list of cities when clearly the article is not, so it was problematic even for him. The criteria for inclusiion is not straightforward. The article mentions urban centres with a population of 1,000 or more, but OIC has removed a number of locations that are not UC/Ls at all, clearly the criteria does not match the content.
- No, it will be outdated each year, when new population projections make the content in the article redundant. UC/Ls are only updated every census, but the ABS releases population projections every year. Claiming that it will take half an hour (this period of time seems a common, but unsubstantiated claim in FTC's points) is a rather optimistic estimate that ignores issues such as the likelihood of UC/L's changing, as they did between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. It will be a major task to update the article, ensuring that such updates are accurate. Those of us who've had to update List of cities in Australia by population, which is more limited in content than this article needs to be can attest to that.
- "City" may be "commonly understood in Australia as referring to a sufficiently large built-up area" but the actual definition of a city is not. It was removed from the NSW legislation and different states have different definitions as to what constitutes a city and UC/L seems to have a different definition altogether. For example, in NSW cities are defined by LGA boundaries. The city of Newcastle is both an LGA and a city, as is the city of Lake Macquarie. However, the Newcastle UC/L includes much of Newcastle, parts of Lake Macquarie and part of one suburb in Port Stephens Council. It has some very peculiar exclusions.[20] I'm not as familiar with Victorian locations as I am with NSW but the Victorian UC/L maps provided by the ABS seem to show the same sort of inconsistencies.
- Since FTC apparently has no problem downloading complete lists that others can't seem to get, perhaps FTC can volunteer to fix the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Awhile ago, I said: "I could do it in half an hour, and I probably would if I had time. But replying to AfDs takes time, so it will have to wait." Why do you think I said it? What sort of substantiation do you think such a sentence needs?
- In any case, the fact that there isn't a direct link to the data doesn't limit the fact that the data is available. Lots of articles on Wikipedia depend on articles or books in foreign languages, in deadtree fromat only, or behind paywalls. All of these facts make it non-trivial to access them, but that doesn't limit their validity. —Felix the Cassowary 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Twice now you've said things would take you only half an hour. If that's really the case, then please, spend a half-hour to fix the article and bring it up to a standard that justifies its retention. As to data availability, nobody said that it's not available. The point is that if you can fix it in half an hour, because we can't, go ahead and fix it. You told OIC that his objection is a reason to ask someone to fix it,[21] so I'm doing that now. Would you please fix it? Rather than spending time "defending this AfD", fix the article and post "I fixed it!" If it really is fixed I'd happily consider withdrawing the nomination. There have been 344 half-hours since you claimed you could fix it but you haven't made a single edit to the article. As it stands now, your claim that it can be fixed in half an hour lacks credibility because it's not supported by action, so I'm not at all convinced there is any reason to keep this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that the list is redundant to the australia-wide list. Each state-based list has much more detail than would be possible when comparing the whole country. If that list is acceptable, then so is this one. Bandwidth is plentiful. Whether the localities are somewhat arbitrary or not, they are still verifiable to the most highly respected statistical agency in Australia. The definition of "urban centre/locality" should be explained in each article, so readers know exactly what is being asserted. I also suggest linking directly to the exact ABS citation for each entry, as has been done on the List of places in South Australia by population list.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would also support a merge to List of cities in Victoria and converting data there to a sortable list, which effectively achieves the same thing anyway, with the added bonus of not duplicating information. However as someone stated above, there may be some issues with implementing this given the ABS definition of locality.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since its creation 3 1/2 years ago, List of cities in Victoria has been a redirect to List of cities in Australia#Victoria. That article is a list of city names only. It doesn't include towns and other randomly selected places in the state. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeti Hunter, how do you propose to address the problem I've raised in my submission? Orderinchaos 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply contend that a list of places (by whatever definition) ranked by population is an informative item to have in an encyclopaedia. As long as it is explained that the list ranks ABS-defined localities (which may or may not not coincide with towns or suburbs as such), I don't think the article is irretrievable. A possible solution would be to have a column of the list for the name of the ABS area, and a column for the areas/suburbs encompassed by said statistical locality if the name differs from the existing WP article(s). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reality is that this article, like the others recently created by this editor, is a mess and needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. As it stands, it serves no useful purpose. The single function that it first appears to provide, comparison of UC/L populations, is voided by the fact that only 106 of Victoria's 350 UC/Ls are listed. There are no references for any of the populations, other than the generic link to the 2006 census data, which provides no confirmation at all. The creator seems to have made his own determinations as to where the UC/Ls are located so these all need to be confirmed. When I rebuilt the table for the New South Wales article last night I had to throw away everything except for the population data, which I transferred across and then confirmed manually. The suggestions you've made could be included, but this would be more easily done at List of urban centres in Victoria, a new article. The article itself is likely to be huge though. When I rebuilt the List of places in New South Wales by population table, effectively only adding actual UC/L names and refs for each UC/L, the article jumped from 5.4 to 95.6kB. Of course, somebody needs to do the work. Who will that be? If the people voting keep don't want to step up, there's not much likelihood of anyone else doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply contend that a list of places (by whatever definition) ranked by population is an informative item to have in an encyclopaedia. As long as it is explained that the list ranks ABS-defined localities (which may or may not not coincide with towns or suburbs as such), I don't think the article is irretrievable. A possible solution would be to have a column of the list for the name of the ABS area, and a column for the areas/suburbs encompassed by said statistical locality if the name differs from the existing WP article(s). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeti Hunter, how do you propose to address the problem I've raised in my submission? Orderinchaos 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since its creation 3 1/2 years ago, List of cities in Victoria has been a redirect to List of cities in Australia#Victoria. That article is a list of city names only. It doesn't include towns and other randomly selected places in the state. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of cities in Australia and make the other lists there sortable too. We have software features for sorting, no need for a separate article just for that. Sandstein 06:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Realmuto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:BIO. He ran for municipal office and didn't win. None of the references given refer to him as "trail-blazing" or a "rising star", they're pretty much neutral election results. ... discospinster talk 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsuccessful city council candidates are not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Article does not comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete The notability derives from the stunning campaign, and the manner in which it resonated throughout New York State politics. Winning is not the only measure of a person. The newspaper references provide confirmation of facts, context and NPOV. C.P.Taft (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)e[reply]
- Comment C.P. Taft is the new editor who wrote the article. Welcome to Wikipedia! However, words like "stunning" and "shocked the political world" are not neutral. You claim the candidate nearly won, but the sources say the winner got 60% and the subject of this article got about as many votes as the remaining candidates combined. I deduce he got about 20%. This former candidate is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, you made a good point re the word "shocked." I changed it to "surprised," and also the word "stunning" to "striking." I certainly invite editors to assist in this process. Thank you. C.P.Taft (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, when a candidate gets more votes than seven other candidates combined, that is a striking result...and as the newspaper articles show, it was recognized by the New York press. I see many articles in Wiki that have much slimmer notability and little, if any, authentification from recognized press. That is not the case here. Thanks again for your input, I hope you see some merit in my presentation. C.P.Taft (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you provide some sources to back up the claim that it surprised the political world? For example, articles by major political commentators, or editorials in mainstream news. Thanks!--KorruskiTalk 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The facts are that Realmuto got trounced by a better than three-to-one margin. Reading more sources, I learned he actually got less than 15% of the vote, and less than 1200 votes total. How can that be described accurately as "nearly winning"? The only surprise here is that the remaining candidates performed so badly. That does not make Realmuto notable by our standard of WP:POLITICIAN. In the best independent reliable reference, Realmuto isn't even mentioned until the 10th paragraph. In the other reference, it is dozens of paragraphs in - I lost count. The coverage of Realmuto in the press is exactly what would be of expected of any city council campaign anywhere. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, and article as written is a potential G11 candidate to boot. RayTalk 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete full of unsourced claims but sorting through the chaff, we find that he's an unsuccessful candidate for a city council and appears to have no notability or press coverage beyond that. Valenciano (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boyko, Viktor Sergeyevich (edit | talk | 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 chose not to speedy this, since it is a lengthy article. Still, I do not believe it makes a credible claim to notability. Moreover, it is written in inappropriate (promotional) language, including use of first person, and has no independent sources to verify notability. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This person has all that it takes for notability. Promotional language is not a case here. This autobiography is an objective one. In any case I am writing a biography now. Regarding independent sources. There is "National Health League" under the aegis of Russian govenment. Also you could read the Viktor Boyko's certificate of the Indian embassy in the references. This man is the most known Russian yogin. His contribution to Yoga is colossal. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doctor Zevago, the main problem with this article is the lack of independent, reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability. Sources affiliated with the subject are not sufficient. The certificate is a primary source, not an independent secondary source. If you can add them, perhaps the article can be salvaged. Without them, it will have to be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info. As I wrote I got caught in the middle of the editing process (it could be seen in the history of editing), so I will bring more information and sources. I will also write some important information for the Wikipedia community that will make the situation clearer. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at the following list sir. I brought several links (almost all of them in Rus. Lang.) that give us some understanding who is Viktor Boyko. It is what the talk was about: the independent secondary (the majority of them are reliable) sources. I didn't place many of these mentionings in the article before 'cause IMO Viktor Boyko makes their meaning, not they make his meaning.
- The key word is "Бойко". It is surname Boyko in Russian. We also could use online translators: http://www.worldlingo.com/en/websites/url_translator.html
- This person has all that it takes for notability. Promotional language is not a case here. This autobiography is an objective one. In any case I am writing a biography now. Regarding independent sources. There is "National Health League" under the aegis of Russian govenment. Also you could read the Viktor Boyko's certificate of the Indian embassy in the references. This man is the most known Russian yogin. His contribution to Yoga is colossal. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about Viktor
- http://6rasa.ru/dlya-tex-kto-praktikuet-jogu/
- http://www.fengshuiby.com/ru/page/index.php?id=1006
- http://www.mediazavod.ru/articles/55220
- http://www.evdokimenko.ru/radio.htm
- http://www.egoist-generation.ru/2004/7_2004/egoist.shtml
- http://poiskistini.ucoz.ru/publ/14-1-0-208#
- Articles about Viktor
- Reviews on his books
- http://www.yogalib.ru/boyko-viktor/1515-viktor-boyko-yoga-skrytye-aspekty-praktiki
- http://www.labirint.ru/reviews/show/149700/
- http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/136784/Nikolaeva_-_Filosofskie_osnovaniya_sovremennyh_shkol_hatha-iiogi.html
- http://yoga.co.ua/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=39
- http://yogaway.spb.ru/recenzb.html
- http://yogi.at.ua/publ/nashi_recenzii/suvorova_marina_recenzija_na_knigu_bojko_quot_joga_iskusstvo_kommunikacii_quot/2-1-0-30
- http://www.livelib.ru/review/67789
- Reviews on his books
- Yoga-teachers who are not affiliated to Yoga school of Viktor Boyko at all but still consider Viktor as their teacher
- http://www.realyoganyc.com/about.php
- http://michail-yoga.narod2.ru/moya_biografiya/
- http://schadilovyoga.tomsk.ru/?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=31
- http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/6317.html
- http://www.vadimignatov.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=45
- http://www.sibyoga.ru/prepods/akademgorodke/irina_vladimirovna_marina.html
- http://www.yogamagazine.ru/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/yoga_15_2006.pdf
- http://lib.rin.ru/doc/i/54056p3.html
- http://yoga74.ru/people/bugrova-anna
- http://kievyogastudio.com/rus/studio/bublik
- http://inveda.ru/2010/02/25/yoga/
- http://www.a-klub.ru/special/evgeniya_atarova.htm
- http://www.vishime.ru/blogs/2010/11/03/mogu-jogu/
- http://board27.ru/drygoe/message-164.html
- http://www.sneglotus.ru/instructors/janyshenko/
- http://www.nvek.com.ua/masters/42-2010-10-25-23-00-27/93-gurakov
- Yoga-teachers who are not affiliated to Yoga school of Viktor Boyko at all but still consider Viktor as their teacher
- Yoga-related and other deserving secondary sources that mention Viktor’s great services to Yoga
- http://www.vedanta.ru/library/brodov/vasily_brodov_Russian_philosopher_and_yoga_practitioner.php
- http://www.rian.ru/report/20070903/76271972.html
- http://www.finmarket.ru/z/anl/anlpgv.asp?id=448210
- http://www.vecherka.org/arhiv/yanv/4/21.pdf
- http://yoga.siyanie-kaliningrad.ru/yoga3.php
- http://km.ru:8080/magazin/view.asp?id=BBE289B33F4845B28AAF2B8AB046D705
- http://www.ligazn.ru/business/infoconcultingLigaZN/meropriatia%20/
- http://surat0.narod.ru/links.html
- http://www.yogaforever.ru/
- http://superkarate.ru/blog/page/5?s=%D0%B5%D0%B7
- http://www.shantiom.ru/index.php/forclients/classes
- http://progressman.ru/2009/07/yoga/
- http://all-yoga.boom.ru/autoritet.html#boyko
- http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/6317.html
- http://www.numen.ru/index.php?section=library&text=722&page=1
- http://diytaiji.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post.html
- http://onpj.com/content/blogsection
- http://www.ngtraveler.ru/issue/16/1231
- http://woodash.ru/?p=771
- http://www.rasa-yoga.ru/7.html
- http://www.all-yoga.ru/section/nynezhivucshie-jogi
- http://ozevs.ru/soratniki.html
- http://www.burgonskyi.kiev.ua/?page_id=4&paged=4
- Yoga-related and other deserving secondary sources that mention Viktor’s great services to Yoga
- Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can always be userfied, that is, moved to your personal user space for you to work on--I am sure the closing administrator, should this end up in a delete, will do that for you. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On one hand I am glad to have this discussion, because it will help to do this article better. On the other hand I take the idea to delete this article as an unbelievable mistake. Though I still have to explain my thesises. I will try to do it step-by-step. First of all please see the additional links in this discussion. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the addition to article sir. I hope it will make the improvement of text more effective. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Going by the Russian that I learned about 35 years ago (but has gone very rusty since) these sources, listed as external links in the article, would appear to be independent and to have significant coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the addition sir. Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A search on a Russian search engine comes of with thousands of hits. The Russian language article appears to be in good standing and reasonably sourced. The English article has problems but I can't oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the diligent work that Doctor Zevago has done to show notability and add sources to the article. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So colleagues, as I promised, I continue. Firstly new worthy links are coming. They are sorted in accordance to the previous order
- Reviews on his books
- http://kargopolov.spb.ru/forum/8-obsuzjdenie_knig_i_statei_po_ezotericheskoi_tematike/2093-statya_viktora_boiko..html
- http://govind.eu/?page_id=299&lang=ru
- http://findyourway.ru/2010/09/17/a-davaj-te-ka-sostavim-spisok-luchshix-knig-po-samorazvitiyu/
- http://bookmix.ru/book.phtml?id=319255
- Reviews on his books
- Yoga-teachers who are not affiliated to Yoga school of Viktor Boyko at all but still consider Viktor as their teacher
- Yoga-related and other deserving secondary sources that mention Viktor’s great services to Yoga
- http://www.mestanet.ru/book/yoga/yoga_i_hristianstvo_vboyko.html
- http://yoga-beginner.by.ru/
- http://www.1000hp.ru/praktika/guru/page-7.html
- http://aurseva.ru/2009/12/йога/
- http://www.moscowuniversityclub.ru/home.asp?artId=4422
- http://kundaliniyogarussia.com/?cat=48
- http://www.imedia.ru/news/3063/
- http://www.mastersite.com.ua/106
- http://www.lor.inventech.ru/phlebol/phlebol0402.shtml
- http://new.vedomosti.ru/article.shtml?2007/11/01/49
- http://yoga.kiev.ua/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=17&year=2008&month=10&day=17&Itemid=0
- http://www.injan-center.ru/zyq/yoga.html
- http://www.yogatravel.kz/articles/yoga-practice-benefits.aspx
- Yoga-related and other deserving secondary sources that mention Viktor’s great services to Yoga
- Other mentionings
- http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&url=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fyogajournal.ru%2Fpractice%2Fquestion2teacher%2F%3Fteacher%3D%26PAGEN_1%3D36&text=%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8&l10n=ru&sign=b79c2e375c4f0d93f3c8af3f1c5da7f7&keyno=0
- http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&url=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.rus-lib.com%2Fbook%2F180796&text=%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE&l10n=ru&sign=c14bc33f46412d3020e9f3304b991a07&keyno=0
- http://vysotskaya.ucoz.ru/publ/8-1-0-8
- http://yogapskov.ru/article/vyzhimki-iz-knigi-viktor-bojko.html
- http://andrec.ru/article/?c=aphorisms
- http://www.vsluh.ru/news/society/176424.html
- http://www.yspehi.com/?p=587
- http://land-of-spirit.ru/publ/86-1-0-2274
- http://asfera.info/gazeta/N39Y2010/one-2808.html
- http://media.mamochkam.com:81/magazine/07.2009.pdf
- http://yoga.at.ua/publ/bez_uma_ot_jogi/1-1-0-13
- http://www.spirit-way.ru/articles.php?action=view&nid=186&pagenum=1
- http://yoga-class.com.ua/instruktor/boiko.html
- http://www.chaskor.ru/article/vavilonskaya_bashnya_v_krokus-ekspo_698
- Sites of the Yoga school of Viktor Boyko's branches
- The list of the school of Boyko's teachers in Moscow
- Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I should tell you a little bit about this man and his services to Yoga. All the upcoming text is based on logic but in any case before I start I should apologize for my English. Unfortunately it is far from ideal yet. Boyko has literally revived the original technology of Patanjali because the dominating majority of today’s Yoga leads to pure money-mining or esoteriс dreams. Almost each Yoga guru tries to make you pay him as much as it’s possible. Different but close scenario could happen when so-called gurus give you ordinary acrobatics and call it yoga. Some of them hide it, some of them don’t know them-self what the real Yoga is. But the real Yoga is just what its Founder Patanjali has written. It dictates static asanas, relaxation and creating conditions for stopping of activity of the mind during practice. That’s all. Boyko explains that Yoga is simple but strict technology to make human healthy. It has no relation to any religious teachings or esotericism. It does not require escaping out of social life or paying a lot of money.
- Try to google or yahoo "yoga forum" colleagues. What are the results? Yoga teachers and gurus don’t hasten to tell you a lot about technology. Instead they try to sell you yoga accessories, they tell you about fantastic siddhis and ghostly chakras. Boyko’s forum exists 10 years. http://www.realyoga.ru/phpBB2/ With near 75 000 posts It is one of the largest Yoga forums in the WWW. This man wrote there more than 7000 posts him-self and it’s not like how-are-you-bla-bla-bla chatter. It’s full-grown, clear and understandable texts that explain the technology. People can learn it paying nothing. By the way his book is free to read. It is available at the main page of his site http://www.realyoga.ru. Everyone could register on Boyko’s forum and say his or her opinion even if it’s severe criticism. His forum is a very democratic one. It is a place for fair and thoughtful discussions. Also as you could see there is no promotional links at his site. There a lot of links to his site everywhere. But Boyko does not try to become a celebrity or something. He does his work no more. That’s why I was not able to bring many secondary sources about this extraordinary man. But if to talk about fame, I would point out the following thing. Please take a look at the section of the article called "Personal Resources And Official Links". We could see the meaningful thing here. In 2008 Boyko’s School won the All-Russian competition organized by «National Health League» and got the prestigious grant. This «NHL» is supervised by the Russian government’s commission. So it has some importance.
- You know Boyko is one of those not numerous living persons who fairly could be called the pride of Russia. On the irony of fate we have Chikatilo in Wikipedia, but the number of Yoga teachers taught by Boyko is more than the number of Chikatilo’s victims. It’s just unbelievable but if we delete men like Boyko one could think that you should rather kill people than teach them to deserve to be here. IMO it is unfair to say the least…
- Other mentionings
- So now I am ready to concretize or add more info if it is needed. Best regards,Doctor Zevago (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this is ridiculous. This AfD is longer than the article, and two-thirds of that needs to be cut already. I can't make heads or tails of it--long lists of links, long swaths of text, more lists of links--I don't see much diligence here, but a lot of WP:TLDNR. I am going to withdraw this nomination, with the request to the author that they a. incorporate sources and footnote them properly and b. trim the non-encyclopedic content out of the article. In a few weeks, I am going to revisit the article. Any friendly admins around who can close this? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me but I am not sure that I understood your discontent properly. I selected every link that is listed here. I can give an explanation regarding every one. I don't know why you think that the current discussion should not be longer than the article. At this moment I finished the editing of the article. If you tell that I have to add something, I'll do it. But personally I think that the article is completed and doesn't need anything more. All the arguments and links I brought to this discussion are summoned to show the notability of the article's subject. So what is wrong? Best regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellinore Ginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography by subject's daughter (see summary at File:RedHat2.jpg). Content is wholly unencyclopedic, a problem that can't be rectified by rewriting as there appear to be no reliable sources to construct an article out of. No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline and Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh dear. Maybe notability could be established as a performer, working at the Ceeb and Beeb, but as an artist, there doesn't appear to be anything notable. This article would need a complete rewrite to bring it up to standards. I wonder if there would be anything left once the cuts are made. freshacconci talktalk 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, and written in a cloying, fawning, treacly prose that at points almost approaches parody: "Her work is from the heart and is usually a reflection of her own gentle and child like nature.". That is an actual quote that I swear I did not make up. A word of warning: if anybody writes a goofy article like this about me after I'm dead I'm coming back and haunting them for sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a challenge... freshacconci talktalk 22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was more surprised that her father thought that she might be Sarah Bernhardt. Didn't he know who his own daughter was? And did he think that he was involved in the conception of someone almost certainly several decades older than he was himself? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 20:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SWRMXS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears to be written in another language (parts of it). I don't think this is even considered an article. Endofskull (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as A1. Looks like an attempt at putting in a list of tracks, but the template is broken, and even if it were fixed it wouldn't explain what the track listing is for, or what the article is about. Incidentally, the name of the page creator User:Amadeo bot indicates that it might be a bot - presumably not an approved one, however?--KorruskiTalk 10:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IMDB isn't a reliable source; the proposals to merge are to a vandalised section of the original Scream franchise article. I see no reason to waste any time on this, since it appears to be no more real than it was 4 years ago, and this appears to be a palpable hoax. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scary Movie 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been deleted about 4 years ago. This new incarnation is still pure unreferenced speculation. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is an IMDb entry but it doesn't even have so much of a cast listing; thus, it's too soon for this article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Scary Movie (film series)#Scary Movie 5 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Scary Movie (film series)#Scary Movie 5. The IMDB listing seems sufficient to justify the redirect, but not an article.--KorruskiTalk 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator, and thus qualifies for Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Candidates for WP:SK are eligible for Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. There is also clear WP:CONSENSUS to keep. Johnsemlak (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold My Hand (Michael Jackson 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)
Some editors believe this fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and are edit warring by turning it into a redirect. Seems like AfD is the place to find a consensus on this. I'm not bothered, but would like to stop the to-ing and fro-ing. Mechanical digger (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WITHDRAW NOM Consensus is quite clear here. I withdraw the nomination and will ask the remaining delete !voter to consider changing position so that this can be closed. Mechanical digger (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep why on earth would we delete a single from one of music's most notable and successful artists, especially the day after it's released!? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. - Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. 6 references is not significant coverage. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a silly AfD. The single just came out. Give it time to accrue more references before resorting to this. --TorsodogTalk 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very notable single. Elmao (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: even if there was a debate, its reasonable to have a separate article when you look at how all michael jackson information is organized.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous reliable sources to establish this topic's notability including MTV,[22] Billboard,[23] New York Daily News,[24] NME,[25] Reuters[26] Los Angeles Times,[27] Vibe[28] Rolling Stone magazine,[29] FOX News,[30] Chicago Sun-Times,[31] The Independent,[32] MSN News,[33] The Washington Post,[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111200035.html�] and numerous others: Google news search[34] and Bing news search.[35] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - rational for deletion is poor. crystal ball policy doesn't prevent stuff that will be obvioulsy popular from being not allowed prior to notability. The fact that this is a Michael Jackson single and there are thousands of articles on it mean this is notable for the same reason that the Olympic 2012 games are. Please read the crystal ball policy before using it incorrectly to fuel a silly AFD.--Manboobies (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You misread my nomination. The article was being edit-warred between an article and a redirect that claimed the article was non-notable per WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The only forum to discuss the notability of an article is AfD, hence why I raised it here. I'd be grateful if you could re-configure your remarks. Mechanical digger (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- String delete See my reasons for why at Talk:Michael (album)#First_single_Hold_My_Hand TbhotchTalk C. 16:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm no fan at all, but this is MJ we're talking about, and MJ singles...actually released as singles and not just filler on an album...are inherently notable IMO. More than enough WP:RS's anyways, per AQFK. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear delete - As per the arguments made on the relevant talk page, which I would re-quote here but there's no reason to. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Song charted, the war can end, It did not fail WP:SONGS any longer. There are quite a lot of reliable resources to support the article. Parabola1999 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Parabola1999. The song has charted on the Canadian Hot 100 and the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, which means it passes WP:SONGS. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can understand why initially well-versed Wikipedia editors made this a redirect. But no more. The song is gaining great popularity and has already charted in Canada. So we need to keep and develop the page werldwayd (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't really see any good reason to remove it. Now it has 22 references and this number can only increase. Ciszek (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet the notability requirements as it does not have significant coverage, the references used do not meet the criteria of WP:IRS as they are not independent of the subject, the article consists mainly of original research and, in my opinion, it falls into WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:DEL#REASON. The article also fails to meet the criteria of MOS:AM#Notability and it's more in line with a fansite. More importantly, it doesn't have real-world notability. Any relevant information here should be covered in the main article (Neon Genesis Evangelion) per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but, since there is not even a serious reference to support a merge and there haven't been solid arguments about a possible merger, the article should be deleted altogether. Jfgslo (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I liked this show but even its staunchest supporters would acknowledge that it's notoriously unclear and a timeline simply isn't possible without drifting well into the realm of fan speculation, which the article doesn't even try to deny: ("Dates are rarely mentioned in the anime, and often there are multiple possibilities."). While I'm sure this might make an interesting starting point for debate on a fansite, it's not material for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just looking at it confuses me and makes me think it was acquired from some EVA wiki. I've never watched the show, but this article's just ridiculous. Lacks coherent refs too. I can definitely see people like Gwern and other editors who've worked on all things EVA stepping in defense. Gwern brashly shot down a PROD a few weeks ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per all the reasons listed by Jfgslo. No reliable independant sources and too much OR, entirely in-universe with no element establishing notability. I also don't see the point of merging, the plot summary in the main Eva article is enough, there is nothing new and relevant in this list.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only describes a fictional universe which has no notability on its own. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It says second nomination, but I can't find the first anyway. Anyway, this aids in the understanding of a very notable fictional creation. This series revolutionized the industry, changing things forever as everyone else then went and started copying its format. It has made BILLIONS of dollars, there hordes of merchandise. Many notable fictional works that have grossed billions of dollars, have their own timelines/fictional history articles. Dream Focus 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but were any of those other fictions so terribly vague about their events? Also, yeah can't find first AfD for some reason. Can't even find a deletion log for it. NotARealWord (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the fact that the series has made billions of dollars matter? Notability is not inherited and all that after all. Perhaps if an explanation of how this aids our understanding of the series, in a way the episode descriptions don't, might help. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus as an experienced editor, you do realise you are using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost entirely plot points, which is a violation of WP:NOTPLOT, with no secondary information. There is clearly a level of original research going on as well. The fictional timeline also does not contribute to the understanding of the series and is only interesting to a small population of enthusiastic fans. The actual timeline of the series can be better expressed in the preexisting episode and chapter lists and not in this construct that is a text book example of WP:SYNTHESIS. —Farix (t | c) 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant to main article. It's a content fork that takes the parts of the series WITHOUT real world notability and tries to turn it into an article. We only have articles on topics where we can WP:verify notability, and no one has been able to verify the notability of this timeline. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51,
- Delete for the same reason Starbind and Farix have said. Dream focus, don't worry about other articles. if other articles have timelines that are equally notable as this one, then tell us and we'll put it for AfD. It doesn't mean we should keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, irrelevant plot reiteration, no inherent notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- clearly violates WP:PLOT and WP:OR, not to mention WP:N. Reyk YO! 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete no coverage [36]. interesting that one person votes keep despite very strong consensus here. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you feel the need to take a shot at that one person, instead of just commenting on the AFD itself, and that person is someone you have argued with on many occasions. Dream Focus 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it's a wake up call....accept it, or dont.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- agree with Bread Ninja, we use WP:CONSENSUS not because I like to vote everything keep regardless policy. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "That one person" often makes votes which are not only regularly contrary to our policies and practice but often bordering on outright nonsense. Such votes are surely ignored by the closing administrator so it's a mystery why "that one person" bothers making them at all. Only "that one person" knows for sure, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second nomination. The first one thus ended in Keep. The results are based on whatever random group of people show up to comment, and the mood and opinions of the closing administrator. And most of the articles I participate in are kept. Now can we follow the rules and focus on the article, and not go ganging up on someone you disagree with? Dream Focus 20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one ended in Keep, did it? Okay, now you've stooped to just making things up. Link to the first AFD discussion that ended in Keep, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is automatically generated isn't it? If there was no previous AFD, then why does it say (2nd nomination) up there? Maybe its just a bug, if so my mistake, not trying to deceive people. Dream Focus 07:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one ended in Keep, did it? Okay, now you've stooped to just making things up. Link to the first AFD discussion that ended in Keep, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second nomination. The first one thus ended in Keep. The results are based on whatever random group of people show up to comment, and the mood and opinions of the closing administrator. And most of the articles I participate in are kept. Now can we follow the rules and focus on the article, and not go ganging up on someone you disagree with? Dream Focus 20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it's a wake up call....accept it, or dont.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The first AFD for this was last month, it mentioned at [37]. Why can we not find a link to that AFD? Dream Focus 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only a PROD that you can verify by look at the article history. We are at this AfD because someone played the "do as if nothing happened and hope that this article will be forgotten". --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why do we bother? S/he has their opinion. i honestly doubt s/he's serious about this. we have yet to find a good reason why it should be kept relating to wikipedia's standards. This is clearly WP:FANCRUFTBread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. And once again, you are targeting me, instead of discussing the AFD. Dream Focus 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why do we bother? S/he has their opinion. i honestly doubt s/he's serious about this. we have yet to find a good reason why it should be kept relating to wikipedia's standards. This is clearly WP:FANCRUFTBread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the Ad Hominem attacks against me to be rather immature. [38] Hopefully such viciousness won't discourage others from posting their honest opinions here. Comment on the argument not the editor making it. And back on topic, I'll quote what I said when the Star Wars timeline was up for deletion, it the same case here. "Keep Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus quite helpful to those seeking information about it. Dream Focus 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)" I think that fits rather well. The Chronology of the Harry Potter series has been up for deletion four times, it ending in deletion in 2007, then a few weeks later ending in keep, then no consensus for the year 2008, and again no consensus in 2009. I mention these because valid arguments were made in those AFDs, and to point out my case that consensus changes according to whatever random bunch of editors shows up to state their opinions. Wikipedia policy is to ignore all rules WP:IAR. If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, then ignore it. The information can all be verified in the primary source, no doubting it. It does aid in the understanding of such a notable series, and nothing is gained by destroying it. Dream Focus 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For WP:IAR to work, you need to prove it would improve Wikipedia, which you failed to do. And because there is original research in the article, not everything can be verified in primary sources. You cannot make any comparison to Star Wars because these franchises don't have the same scope (far from it). This list doesn't help to understand the plot of Eva any better than the plot summary in the main article, and much is gained by destroying this article: we get rid of original research and redundant content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This will only ever be in-universe information, delete also per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream focus, you point these out but they're not really related to wikipedia standards, only up to User's standards. which some of them may lead to systemic Bias. Point is, it fails alot of other real guidelines such as the ones already mentioned. And just because another timeline out there was nominated for deletion and kept. That doesn't justify it for all timeline articles out there relating to more notable franchises like NGE to be kept as well. Thats what WP:FANCRUFT. Again, you're not mentioning it why it meets general notability guideline, you're the only one against the deletion, and you're reasoning is "other timelines have been kept so this one should too". LIke i said in the gloassary nomination. you're going to have to prove it. now that it's AfD. it's too late to say it can. And i've looked for reliable sources relating to the timeline, and i can safely say, there is no reliable source out there giving any information on the timeline specifically.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are books written about it. [39] Not sure if any are considered notable, but if they covered the series in detail, they probably listed a time line. And policy's must be followed, guidelines are just suggestions, and essays are personal opinion without any bearing at all. Dream Focus 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If there are books, why not cite them if you have copies of them?!?! DF, you're trying to use other arguments to defend your Keep vote and you attack other editors without even addressing the concerns that prompted this AFD in the first place. You expect every book that covers certain series to have a timeline? You're too speculative. I agree with Bread Ninja's points on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and FANCRUFT. You're right in a way, policies must be followed and deleting this article is part of that. So, no dice. This is happening.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have copies of them, so I don't know what's in them. I'm hoping that a fan of the series has one or more they can quote from. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If there are books, why not cite them if you have copies of them?!?! DF, you're trying to use other arguments to defend your Keep vote and you attack other editors without even addressing the concerns that prompted this AFD in the first place. You expect every book that covers certain series to have a timeline? You're too speculative. I agree with Bread Ninja's points on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and FANCRUFT. You're right in a way, policies must be followed and deleting this article is part of that. So, no dice. This is happening.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to http://anime.wikia.com and/or http://evangelion.wikia.com and/or http://annex.wikia.com -- 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already transwikied it to http://evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline a couple of days ago, full history and all. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can we have a default policy at AfD to transwiki to Annex.wikia.com for fiction deletions that are plot or trivia based deletion requests? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a bot to do that. Or one that just automatically copied the entire Wikipedia, deleted articles included, somewhere for those of us who are "inclusionist" to work on, and we could then fully abandon this place to those who want to change it from what it once was. This article has been around for five years without anyone having a problem with it, but alas, times have changed, and like so many other articles, people now seek to destroy it. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i've tried to improve it in the past, and make it the least in-universe as possible, but there are some things that can't be done. I dont think its that times changed, its more like people are noticing more flaws.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that what passes now as a rationale from the Rescue Squadron. It might help their members know that we'd take them a bit more seriously if they took themselves a bit more seriously in return. That the article stood for years before being prodded and then AfDed is of no concern, that someone found fault with it (and apparently many other editors agree) is. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see the Rescue Squadron anywhere? Did I tag the article for Rescue? Why take a swing at them? Was my comment made as a reason to keep it? Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline pages, so they could finally have an excuse to delete articles they didn't like. And lets focus on the argument please. Is it not reasonable to assume that with so many books written about it, that the timeline is covered in some of them? Would this count as notable coverage? Dream Focus 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiuserNI was right on the ball. And No, you're twisting it. They made the guidelines and policies stricter so we could have better articles. It also depends on what book it is. Such as if they are self-published or not. It also has to be if they are consistently to one another. If one book has one timeline and the other has a different one. then it will be harder to make an article. But for a timeline itself....that would fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:IINFO, and other may not be exactly appropriate to have an article. If you find any reception or impact that mentions timeline specifically, then yes, we probably could keep it. But i've looked for information such as that in the past and could not find any.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline pages", ah, there we go, reasoned discussion! I notice there's no rationale for keeping this article that focusses on what it provides the reader. Yes it relates to a well known and profitable franchise, no that does not automatically confer notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiuserNI was right on the ball. And No, you're twisting it. They made the guidelines and policies stricter so we could have better articles. It also depends on what book it is. Such as if they are self-published or not. It also has to be if they are consistently to one another. If one book has one timeline and the other has a different one. then it will be harder to make an article. But for a timeline itself....that would fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:IINFO, and other may not be exactly appropriate to have an article. If you find any reception or impact that mentions timeline specifically, then yes, we probably could keep it. But i've looked for information such as that in the past and could not find any.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i've tried to improve it in the past, and make it the least in-universe as possible, but there are some things that can't be done. I dont think its that times changed, its more like people are noticing more flaws.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sourcing arguments are null and void; I have repeatedly pointed out where the sources are but there's no point editing them in because I can predict how this will end. I am fascinated how everyone seems to be dead-sure what to do with this article, yet they are utterly unable to articulate any actual notability guideline that governs timelines. (Do we need a New York Times article about each Wikipedia article? The possibilities are fascinating.) I am especially amused by the argument that Eva is somehow of lesser 'scope' than Star Wars, given that they are both multi-billion dollar franchises. I suppose some multi-billion dollar franchises are more equal than other multi-billion dollar franchises... (What's that, SW has a book on its chronology? There's Eva timeline material - Evangelion Chronicle is the source of all the dates in the timeline that precede the anime series. But wait, Eva is foreign and so all arguments are automatically less convincing when applied to it. What's that, Star Wars has a bunch of video games? Gainax makes most of its money off video games! What's that, there are a few hundred EU novels and whatnot? Eva has a load of official fiction, and just the non-hentai doujinshi outweigh the EU easily 10-1.) I am especially interested in how no one seems interested in going through all of Category:Fictional timelines and deleting them, especially since the only articles in that entire category which could hope to pass muster are 3 or 4 articles like the Star Wars one (unless someone wants to argue that World of Greyhawk timeline or Shannara timeline sold billions while I wasn't looking?).
- tl;dr: everything here is IDONTLIKEIT and crying it's a witch!^Wfancruft. Nobody has a clue what notability is or isn't for timelines. --Gwern (contribs) 22:33 23 November 2010 (GMT)
- Gwern, tl indeed, but I took time to read. I believe I see a strawman argument or two, nobody is decrying the article for belonging to a foreign franchise for one. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A timeline article is basically, a list article of fictional or non fictional events. It's basically a list article. And if doesn't meet the GNG for list, then we should delete, merge or more. And even more than that it's all plot related information with no real world sources and is merely a guide than anything else. For any article in general, it would need to have real world sources and real world perspective to some degree, and talking about the NGE franchise is whats really null and void in this discussion, Star Wars has various independent games, novels, and films which all of them don't cover in one piece of media, unlike NGE which all of it is mainly explained in one anime series and even then, Star Wars article needs to be fixed. you also admitted that they don't meet the general notability guideline when you said the only ones that seem to pass are those two articles. you're inconsistent. You admit which ones will be kept, yet you don't want to admit their reasoning is correct. And on what grounds do you base WP:IDONTLIKEIT???? We have given more than enough reasoning.
- WikiuserNI, don't worry about it, dream focus and gwern always use that excuse. They believe the franchise justifies the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've pointed out in the glossary AfD, I'm very disappointed in Gwern's very aggressive behavior. He defends the article with unwarranted and blind fan rage, to the point of attacking those in favor of deletion. His arguments consist only in derrogatory comments and bad-faithed assumptions/accusations. As a matter of fact I like Evangelion very much, and both Evangelion and Star Wars are foreign to me (and even though I would also gladly delete a Star Wars timeline, I can't deny that Star Wars has a much larger scope than Eva). The general notability guideline exists, we can't help it if this article is clearly overstepping it. If the only sources available are directly tied to the creators of the show, then clearly the subject isn't notable. Attacking other contributors won't change this fact. Also, Gwern, no one will prevent you to nominate for deletion any of the other timeline articles, but here, we comment on this particular AfD and nothing else.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwern, tl indeed, but I took time to read. I believe I see a strawman argument or two, nobody is decrying the article for belonging to a foreign franchise for one. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr: everything here is IDONTLIKEIT and crying it's a witch!^Wfancruft. Nobody has a clue what notability is or isn't for timelines. --Gwern (contribs) 22:33 23 November 2010 (GMT)
- Delete per Jfsglo's and Bread Ninja's reasonings. This article seriously has fancruft issues and furthermore, it fails the general notability guideline. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Serdar Saygı (edit | talk | 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 chap is a Turkish director, writer, illustrator and photographer who lives in Istanbul. So there are four claims of notability. Verifiably, he takes photographs, and his website shows at least one illustration. For a writer, his website presents an amazing lack of writing. Perhaps he makes videos; some are linked. However, I can't see any substantive discussion of any of this. True, I can't read Turkish, but my question about him at WP Turkey was greeted with silence. Well, he's only 25; it's hardly surprising if he's not yet much known. Hoary (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no mention at the Turkish wikipedia or even an IMDB listing, so the claims of being an influential director are questionable at best. Also, the article verges on being an outright advertisement. Direct quote: "Method of working and technical perfectionism takes his works to a different level." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the references appear link to anything that is professionally comissioned work.Note: on 7 August I put a CSD A7 on this.--Kudpung (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bow Creek Ecology Park (edit | talk | 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 small park. De-prodded with additional references to having won the "The Green Flag Award", but this is not a real award, as it is only the benchmark national standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom - and it does not establish the park to be in anyway notable. This park may have some small amount of local interest, but it fails WP:GNG. Gorrad (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep though it's arguably true that this is only of local interest, the same could be said of any park: Central Park is of little impact to residents of Duluth or Seoul, after all. I'm not wholly convinced that the Green Flag isn't a "real" award either, as the site says "The deadline for voting for the People's Choice Award has now passed." My gut instinct is that this seems to be just barely notable, but it's definitely borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm the article creator, so perhaps naturally I'd say keep. As there's (still) no notability guidelines for places, we're obviously just using the GNG; significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I don't think there's much need to discuss whether the sources in the article or that I've included below are independent or reliable; critical is whether the coverage is significant. The GNG states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address 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. (emphasis mine) I'm pretty sure the Green Flag Awards are proper awards, though they are also a quality benchmark. Places have to be nominated and approved. The awarding of the Green Flag lead a fairly substantial piece in the Evening Stardard [40], which I think meets the GNG. The UK Landscape Award is certainly a proper award (and I'm rather surprised there isn't an article on WP about it, one for the list). Whilst not a particularly big entry, the inclusion in [Royal Docks Trust] page would pass the GNG. Events there have also merited a mention in Time Out [41] though this is an event listing website, so not necessarily an indication of notability. It's additionally mentioned via the BBC's Breathing Spaces website [42]. I think this demonstrates several sources that meet the GNG. GedUK 10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Newham parks and open spaces. There is a weak claim to notability, but as there's about 3-4 sentences worth on encyclopaedic information in the article at most, its best home is in an article covering all the open spaces in the borough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I'm a British local government employee, and it's part of my job (among other things) to manage and finance open spaces like this. I'm too close to the subject so I probably ought to recuse from actually typing out any words in bold, but I wanted to say that the Green Flag Awards are given by a quango which is financially supported by the DCLG. (Translation for non-Brits: Her Majesty's government pays Green Flag to make an objective assessment of the parks and open spaces that apply.) It's not a commercial award and, I can attest from personal knowledge, it's far from easy to obtain. I would view the Green Flag Award as a genuine badge of notability. This park will be very small, but being where it is and having the awards it has, it's tolerably important for its size.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Meenan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources verify the contents on this unreferenced WP:BLP, noes not pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Based on the article I suspect he has written a school play or two and his students honored him with this article, which would be nice but does not meet our notability guidelines. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete it looks like the situation isn't quite as dire as Jo4n makes out, but neither is it good either. Appears to have written a short film in 1995 and some of Baldi (radio), though it's of course possible that's someone else of the same name. Basically, he appears to be just what the article says he is: a schoolteacher who does some writing on the side. And there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever, but it isn't enough to get in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Anyone can hold a job and claim to be a writer, but Martin Meenan has a better claim that most people. Everybody's Gone appears to have scooped an award at the Chicago film festival (unfortunately I can't fully verify this), Baldi (radio) was a major series on radio 4 that ran for five years (although Meenan only contributed three episodes over three years) and a Google search suggests he's written other plays that appeared on Radio 4's Afternoon Play. Not hugely impressive, but I'd say he scrapes it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources (and 'Find' hits seem to be mainly for an unrelated Martin Meenan, and offer no insight into this one), and no indication that he's done anything relevant to WP:CREATIVE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you think the Ghits are probably of an unrelated Martin Meenan. The vast majority relate to a writer of radio drama. It's not unusual for writers to write for more than one medium (in this case possibly short film and radio), and perfectly normal for radio drama writers - even writers with a series of successful works under their belt - to have day jobs. I know that that notability has to be verified, but neither do I think we should by default assume any evidence of notability is probably of someone else. Happy to consider any other evidence either way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm fairly sure he's not a Massachusetts politician (which is who the two news hits & one of the book hits are about -- I don't generally look to closely at web-hits, as they're too-frequently unreliable). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this article from The Times is about a writer, as is this article in The Guardian. Whether that's enough is up for debate, but those sources are as reliable as you can get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would dispute your characterisation of either piece as an "article" -- they are both simply a newspaper's 'radio picks of the day' (with, in each case the Meenan radio play being only one of two picks). The first only mentions Meenan in passing, though does give a short (and enthusiastic) review of the radio play. The second again only mentions Meenan in passing, but only gives a short, three sentence, thumbnail of the radio play. "Significant coverage" this ain't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No, this isn't the politician Marty MeeHan, who was a congressman from my state for over a decade. That being said, I agree with Hrafn, and am trying not to get increasingly testy with the tendency of Keep proponents at AfD to presume that the GNG (which clearly and explicitly states that sources must describe the subject "in significant detail") kicks over for any casual mention of the subject's name. Look: a 5000-page review of a play by the most prominent literary critic alive and published on the front page of the New York Times, describing it as the greatest work ever penned by mortal man, does not support the notability of the author if it doesn't discuss the author in significant detail. Period. If it doesn't, the reliability of the sources do not matter. The length at which it discusses the derivative work does not matter. Allegations that he may have won some kind of award don't matter. The duration of a show for which he wrote a couple of eps doesn't matter. Without sources which discuss Meenan - not his works - in significant detail, an article on him cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only thing I could find to attest to his playwriting abilities was this, which mentions him only trivially. And without some sort of national award or other recognition for his grammar school teaching, that also doesn't do anything to show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MGM Movie Legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability has nothing to do with "not contain[ing] advertising," and other things (or having to delete them) are less relevant than you might think. Being helpful is also irrelevant. --NYKevin @879, i.e. 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I'm not going to repeat the above comment at every film collection listed nearby for which identical "Keep" !votes have been made. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply. --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability has nothing to do with "not contain[ing] advertising," and other things (or having to delete them) are less relevant than you might think. Being helpful is also irrelevant. --NYKevin @879, i.e. 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the MGM home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There does seem to be some third party coverage of this collection,[43] including reviews by The New York Times,[44] Chicago Tribune[45] and Chicago Sun-Times[46] among others. Seems enough to source a respectable article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no articulation of notability, and not every repackaging of notable works is itself notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong chatter 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unconvincing notability, article is completely unreferenced. References given above aren't convincing. SnottyWong chatter 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a culturally notable collection like Criterion and not a technical innovation like Superbit, this is just a label slapped on a DVD product line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Columbia Western Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator isn't talking about the page's compliance with WP:ADVERT or WP:NPOV, he's claiming that the subject itself is non-notable since it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). The case is different in the examples you listed. For example, Midnite Movies cites two sources, both of which are reliable and independent of the subject. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Columbia home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree on this one. Can't find any significant third party coverage to indicate this particular collection is notable. Fails WP:PRODUCT. No prejudice to merging if any of the information here would be useful in another article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same reasoning as with MGM Movie Legends, but with the added problem that this apparently never got off the ground, being used only for 5 movies and a box set. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Devdas (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not as per WP:N and WP:NF- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK #2.1, 2.2. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herman Phaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no notability claim in the first paragraph, nor is it sourced at all. Existing sources are weak;
- 1: in memoriam by a trade journal
- 2: ditto
- 3: trivial mention of subject, different scientist article
- 4: old academic paper by subject
- 5: article in business journal about college yeast collection, not subject
- 6: University site about again the collection and subject, but subject was employee there.
This gentleman was obviously a great contributor to his field, yet simply not notable enough for a world-wide encyclopedia. I do not see this article passing any aspect of WP:PROF, and that is indeed the measure we must use. Even general notability is weak, with coverage being in strictly trade publications. Oh, and creator (who is practically the only contributor) removed my notability tag. Turqoise127 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regretably. Subject simply does not pass the relevant WP:PROF guideline. Thanks.Turqoise127 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) refactored comment as nominator is presumed to have contributed a "delete" opinion unless the contrary is indicated. Bongomatic 03:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refactor your own comments only, unless you plan to patrol all AfD's and strike out nominator's votes. This is common; first is nom, then nom's opinion. Presumtions are not wise.Turqoise127 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin the preceding opinion is a duplication of the opinion expressed in the nomination. Bongomatic 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refactor your own comments only, unless you plan to patrol all AfD's and strike out nominator's votes. This is common; first is nom, then nom's opinion. Presumtions are not wise.Turqoise127 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Make that a speedy keep: this is a bad-faith nomination targeted specifically at the work of User:Smartse. But even if it weren't, this is a ridiculous nomination. The subject had two obituaries in professional, academic journals (not one trade journal--peer-reviewed, academic articles). Do you have any idea how rare that is? Anyone in academia realizes that. The subject was obviously one of the foremost scholars in the area of yeast research, and a quick Google Scholar search confirms that some basic requirements are met: his 5 Yeasts Associated with Plants, Insects and Soil is cited 101 times. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. Otherwise, keep. Subject received two long obituaries in scientific journals (not "trade journals"), which is sufficient for GNG. Citations to journal articles (possibly under-counted due to period of scholarly activity) are quite high, as a Google scholar search would have determined. Generally, given the period of activity of the subject, significant FUTON bias can be inferred. Bongomatic 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I am citing the GNG and the h-index as sufficient reasons to keep the article, and suggesting FUTON bias as the likely reason there isn't substantially more material available online referencing the subject. Also, I have notified DGG of this discussion, as he has given a great deal of thought on the notability of academics. Bongomatic 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crying to DGG is actually CANVASSING.Turqoise127 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CANVAS, soliciting the opinion of editors in deletion deletion discussions is appropriate where the solicitation is limited in number (one is limited ), neutral (see the message ), nonpartisan (DGG's reputation as unbiased is well-known— you have requested his views in other situations ), and open (I advertised it here ). Where's the canvassing?
- Referring to another editor's contributions as "crying" is uncivil and borders on the personal attack. Bongomatic 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would editors please comment on content rather than conduct. The bad faith conspiracy theory is far fetched and out of line. I was simply going through SmartSE's contributions and I keep running into articles I find marginal at best...including this one. If FUTON bias is the best we can come up with...Turqoise127 04:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please comment on my content, and if you can't, consider withdrawing. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, here is to your content. Two obituaries in journals mean nothing. Yeast as a subject is of such limited interest that of course someone who devotes thair life to it will be mourned by the other two individuals who also deal with yeast. I do not think it is rare, and I am not in academia. The high number of citations? "Microbiology is a field with very high citation density" per DGG. woof.Turqoise127 17:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. You can see that commenting on specific motivations of the nominator is codified in Wikipedia procedures. Bongomatic 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it may be codified, but it remains very bad practice to do this. I do not think this a bad faith nomination--I merely think the nominator has not understood WP:PROF, or examined the way previous AfDs of academics are discussed. So far I see only two nominations of articles predominantly written by SmartSE, so this comes a good deal short of harassment. I came here to comment on notability, but on seeing the discussion above I must first give a caution about conduct.
- See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. You can see that commenting on specific motivations of the nominator is codified in Wikipedia procedures. Bongomatic 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as far as notability goes, he fulfills WP:PROF easily as a specialist in his subject. Discovering and describing new species has generally been considered notable if it was only a few, and he has a good many. Having a species named after one is also often considered notability , and he had a higher level taxon named in memorial to him, which is necessarily rarer. But to simplify this, a festschift or memorial symposium is regarded here--and in the academic world--as unquestionable notability. I really suggest the nom withdraw this AfD, as the best solution. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: appears to meet WP:PROF. Having a symposium named in your memory certainly is indicative of stature in your field. Sources appear addequate, if not stellar. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Let me add to all of the above observations his research statistics from WoS – they're impressive, especially considering that much of his work is probably not in WoS (at least the version that I have access to) because of its age: >100 peer-reviewed papers with citation counts 251, 153, 151, 112, 103, ... (h-index > 20, total citations > 2000). I say speedy keep here both because of the conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1 and because past contention among several of the panelists here is liable to derail this discussion into further bickering. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- microbiology is a field with very high citation density.Turqoise127 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct on that point. But >2000 citations is unusually high even in that field. Coupled with all the other documentation that has been presented here, I'm quite certain that this article will close as a "keep". You're welcome to campaign further, of course. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- microbiology is a field with very high citation density.Turqoise127 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW keep. The "trade journal" is the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology and so forth. He was also the editor of a few other "trade journals", like Journal of Bacteriology, which is enough by WP:PROF #8. This smacks of bad faith nom from someone who has done this before after a sour grapes issue with a biography he wrote that got deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Girlfriends (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable magazine Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hard to search because of the somewhat generic title, but "Girlfriends magazine" yields 71 hits at Google News[47] including a variety of articles in other media citing this publication. It was noted, among other things, for a feature on best places for lesbians to live (Milwaukee!)[48], and an early interview with
LynneMary Cheney[49][50]. Seems to have been a significant publication for lesbian readership for at least some period of time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC) corrected a glaring error--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - well-known, long-time, notable niche magazine. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep most print magazines with a national circulation tend to be notable, and this one was apparently published for 13 years and did receive some coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not a great deal of coverage, and all of it appears to be mentions-in-passing, lacking any depth. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some references to the article and expanded it a bit. While it was definitely a niche magazine, its articles, lists, and information were used in numerous other publications and there are enough of them that talk about and describe the magazine directly that it passes the notability line. This can be seen from the 1,150 results on Google Books for it. SilverserenC 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per improvements to article show its worth keeping.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ripley Hampers (edit | talk | 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 local retail outlet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep apparently has a nationwide business, and has been established for 176 years. notable as an historic company, though it needs better documentation and considerable editing to remove some background material which could be viewed as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and due to the fact that the user is attempting to improve the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm sorry, but this article doesn't cut it. The sources provided have nothing to do with the business (one is a death notice for of the alleged founder, another is a family history of an alleged cofounder, and another is about Ripley Castle). None of them mention Ripley Hampers. The sources provide no verification of anything in the article, and I came up a total blank searching at Google Books and Google News. Without sources the article fails inclusion here, no matter how old the company is. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basic internet research does not support the article's historic claims, which remain unverified. --PinkBull 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a WP:SPS and a century-old, tangential, obituary (that makes no mention of the article-topic), and no news/books find-hits, do not add up to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'd sure love to hear DGG's evidence for his assertion that this is a "nationwide business." What, the company's own claims? That it has a website? That it'll ship its products elsewhere? Heck, my hometown meat market will do that much [51]; that's not notable. What elements of the GNG does this outfit fulfill? What policy or guideline gives notability passes to a company just because it's been around for 176 years? Ravenswing 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phineas and Ferb (season 2). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Invasion of the Ferb Snatchers (edit | talk | 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 and episode is not anything special JDDJS (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to series or season article. Jclemens-public (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly what I want. It would be season article, but I do't know if it's first or second. JDDJS (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Template:Phineas and Ferb it's Season 2, it's listed there. Someoneanother 06:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Phineas and Ferb (season 2) to allow reinstatment if someone finds sources. Someoneanother 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of African supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- List of South American supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- References: Fringe-theory noticeboard, WikiProject discussion
- Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
- Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
- The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
- Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, decent article and is relatively important. It is referenced (although more sources are needed) and is part of a series of articles. Mmmmm... cheese, Talk to the hand, or my user talk page...
- Which one of the two articles do you mean? What are your sources for the idea that "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is important? Did you notice that all of the references point to the same group and not to multiple reliable sources? Did you notice that everything in both articles appears in other articles on this topic? Thank you. JJB 04:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Most importantly, reliance on GRG list, which is not a reliable source, WP:NOR, and bias against unverified Africans and South Americans David in DC (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a standard almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - better a list than individual articles in most of these cases.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Milo, that is a false dilemma, we're not asking about list vs. bios, we're asking about list vs. no list. All the listed items appear in other articles in WP. Would you mind nominating the redundant bios for deletion please? JJB 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and for failing notability and verifiability. Lacks reliable sources needed to verify claims. Still, I agree that a list is better than individual articles. Sources other than GRG are needed. There is a very long track record in the world of spurious claims of longevity, the more so when birth records and other documentation the individual is really that old are lacking. Edison (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Edison did not notice Milowent's false dilemma, I should repeat that all entries in both list articles appear in other lists in WP, usually repeatedly, so even if "a list is better" it's not a deletion argument. While Capovilla should not be deleted by current observed notability standards, the two other bios linked from these articles (Julia Sinédia-Cazour and Daniel Guzman-Garcia) might be considered for deletion based on the implications of the last two commenters. Noting here for future reference. JJB 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete due to the article having very little information, and is not able to find the oldest in the continent per year. A lot of cases are exaggerated by many years in this country. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be redundant and the arguments about sourcing/accuracy are compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- General Records (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any notability to this record label. They were the label for Skogie, but that band alone isn't enough to give this label a spot on Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ArchiveConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This software doesn't appear notable. There are no references to no primary sources and the external links aren't all directly relevant to the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No attempt to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY has been made, IMHO might even qualify for CSD. Ipsign (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for raising these questions. Let me address them by revising the page. TReidLewis (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 07:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Miles (charter broker) (edit | talk | 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 tour operator. Only sources on the internet are listings in booking engines, which surely is not enough to pass WP:CORP (for which significant coverage in reliable third-party sources is required). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Filth (edit | talk | 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 one is tricky, and is possibly eligible for speedy deletion because the artist does not have his own article. As someone who is familiar with the situation, I can state that the identity of the artist Howling Willie Cunt is unknown but is rumored to be an alter ego of the notable Ginger (musician). In any case, Howling Willie Cunt has not received his own article and the name is currently redirecting to Ginger (musician), which might not even be accurate. So for that reason, this album article should be deleted because there is no artist article (see criteria for speedy deletion #A9). Plus there is a problem with notability as the album has only been reviewed once that I can find (here). I brought the whole thing here for more debate in case anyone knows enough about this artist in order to make the article viable. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find independent coverage that indicates the album was particularly notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 right now but if sources don't appear soon the next listing will undoubtedly go delete Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Humanity (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New journal, only 1 issue just now published. Has not yet had time to become notable. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:NJournals and WP:GNG even less. Article creation premature. I originally prodded this article, but the prod was removed because for some reason I forgot to enter a prodreason... And as a second prod is not possible, here we are. Crusio (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The publication is put out by a major academic press, backed by an impressive editorial collective and board (feel free to check the included link), has an established web presence, and the second issue is already underway. This nomination for deletion is unwarranted and spurious. Spannungsfeld (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article stands. First issue published in October 2010 - no matter who publishes it, it could be a total flop. "This nomination for deletion is unwarranted and spurious."? No, it isn't. It's quite warranted as the article is unreferenced and gives no claim to any notability beyond the publisher and editor being blue-linked. As to 'spurious', I quote the definition in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spurious: "not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit." This nomination is here, it follows the rules of Wikipedia and cannot be defined as spurious. Your dictionary might be worded differently. Referring once more to the article - there could be notability. We need more than a solitary link to the subject's website. Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS. In my opinion, the article should have been deleted back in June, as no issue had then been published - according to the current state of the article - WP:CRYSTAL. I am quite prepared to change my !vote if evidence is produced that this publication is more than just a flash in the pan issue with no future. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS "an impressive editorial collective and board (feel free to check the included link)" - I have. The website doesn't mention the board. Nor does it appear to mention the editor's name, unless there's a hidden corner I've missed. No-one seems to have opened any discussion in the blog section, either. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NeutralI am sympathetic to the idea that its "too soon" for notability to be established. But I do think this journal has several points in its favour. First, it is true that this is a new journal from a prestigous publisher and it does have an impressive editorial board (see here - it is rather confusingly named "masthead" their site). Second, it has already been included within atleast one academic journal index Project MUSE which suggests it is already gaining some weight. That being said, it has not had time to gained significant citations or demonstrated influence in its own right, even though it seems likely that it will shortly do so. Therefore I can understand why it might not be deemed notable at present.Ajbpearce (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lesson in semantics—I'll spare all involved generous counsel in regard to the optative mood—but I was aiming for the latter half of "Lacking authenticity or *validity* in essence or origin" as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, since the application of the notability criterion would strike me as more warranted, for example, were somebody to trumpet his or her basement philosophy zine as an academic journal. There's no pan-flashery to speak of here, I assure you. That being said, your stringency deserves respect, even though it would, the role of academic discourse in modern society being what it is, effectively serve to restrict the appearance of academic journals on Wikipedia to those at least one or two years in age. Stringent, then, to the point of injury, as notability accretes more slowly here than elsewhere, which is to say not as quickly as in more frenetic, more media-saturated cultural domains of wiki-able noteworthiness, if you will, where the "flash-in-the-pan" metaphor would be apt. Spannungsfeld (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to steal 'pan-flashery'... I'm well aware that academic publications can be harder to reference than fashion mags (although, believe me, even they can be troublesome). And that too often here on Wikipedia politeness in the form of an 'unreferenced' tag gets absolutely no response - whereas a bit of rudeness does. There must be one (at least) independent reference out there. See what you can do - I'm (almost) always willing to change my !vote when bribed with references. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/10/26/humanity/ Spannungsfeld (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:RS (I usually type that in a threatening tone...) - blogs are only really any good if the blogger has an article on Wikipedia (that isn't being considered for deletion...). You could try listing the board and indicating (briefly) what they are notable for, or saying who the contributors are (ditto) - if the mag can't be found, accumulated notability of participants might help. Not saying 'will'. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The blog is run in conjunction with the SSRC (Social Science Research Council). Spannungsfeld (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The core editorial collective can be found here, while the full editorial board is listed here, or at least once the link is functioning again. I'm not able to list the accomplishments of every single person involved, sorry. Spannungsfeld (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is pretty good consensus among regulars at the Wikiproject Academic Journals that the identity of editorial board members and their accomplishments or lack thereof is not something that should be listed in an article on a journal (violates WP:NOTADIRECTORY and does not say much if anything about notability of a journal. (Because even mediocre journals will get some notable people on their boards). And, yes, this implies that it is difficult for a newly-established journal to satisfy our notability criteria. Which is as it should be: even major publishers establish new journals that sometimes fail after 1 or 2 years. It may be less frequent than with "minor" publishers, but it happens. So before a journal has some reliable independent sources, or is included in really major selective databases, there is not enough basis for an article here. --Crusio (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. please let me know if you want this userfied anywhere Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gladiatrix (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per WP:Notability (books), unreferenced, no significant coverage of book online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would I look for this sort of thing? Can a wiki article on a book cite the book itself? Any practical advice would be gratefully received.Sammy_r (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any WP:Reliable sources online or in print would be useful. If you'd like help scanning and uploading a printed review, I'd be happy to assist. Top Jim (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking through various wikis on novels, there aare any number of other articles in identical states. Should I just leave it as a stub?Sammy_r (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, and let's improve the article in this discussion as best we can. Top Jim (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking through various wikis on novels, there aare any number of other articles in identical states. Should I just leave it as a stub?Sammy_r (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great - help appreciated. Printed eveidence is being rattled together as we speak. In the meantime, would it add any weight to cite the publisher's website rather than the author's. The information exists in both. Thanks. Sammy_r (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those sites would be considered WP:Reliable sources: please try to find some from WP:Secondary sources. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great - help appreciated. Printed eveidence is being rattled together as we speak. In the meantime, would it add any weight to cite the publisher's website rather than the author's. The information exists in both. Thanks. Sammy_r (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion on this as a source, please (http://januarymagazine.com/2009/04/new-this-month-gladiatrix-by-russell.html). January magazine is an established, web-only (I think) book magazine. Independant of the author or publisher. Sammy_r (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs aren't considered to be WP:Reliable sources, as they're Self-published sources. Top Jim (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you try this one:
- http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2008/8/1/lifebookshelf/1508756&sec=lifebookshelf,
- Sammy_r (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- or this one
- http://www.booktrade.info/index.php/showarticle/13221
- Sammy_r (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one is a press release, but the first one is a bona-fide review in a mainstream tabloid newspaper: I'll add the first one now.
- By the way, this discussion about improving the article really belongs on the article's talk page: any objections to me moving this conversation to Talk:Gladiatrix (novel)? Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections whatsoever, and thanks for the advice. Sammy_r (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One source isn't enough, and I haven't found any others. It's verifiable but not notable, so there should be some mention of it on Wikipedia, but not in the form of its own article. I'll go with redirect to List of fantasy novels (A-H) until such time as there's a second independent review we can use as a source.—S Marshall T/C 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability may be forthcoming if the trilogy is completed and takes off, but at the moment it doesn't appear to be notable. I disagree with the redirect as as far as I can tell this isn't a fantasy novel but instead historical fiction, and besides we try to avoid redlinks/nolinks in lists anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you guys are a tricky bunch to get stuff past . . . you may have to help me out some more. Firslty, unquestionably it's a historical novel - no fantasy involved. There's a further independant book review at: http://www.unrv.com/book-review/gladiatrix.php. Sammy_r (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Over the last couple of days I've tried to have an objective consideration of the situation. Admittedly this is difficult accepting that I'm the original author of the article, so must post that fact here as a 'vested interest'. The argument seems to hinge around Notability (in a nutshell, is this book important enough to rate an entry on Wikipedia.) Reading the (quite complex) guidelines on Notability with this book particularly in mind, two things become apparent. The first is that they do not lend themselves well to this particular article, and the second is that they are quite subjective. On balance, and as impartial as I can be, I think this article is most definately borderline, but just worthy of the benefit of the doubt, (given that it can only become more notable on release of the rest of the trilogy, and it would be a pain to rewrite.) So, my proposal is that remains as is until 1st December, and if no further constructive input is received by 1st December, the article remains in situ, but with the following at the top.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "2010 November 17" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Novemebr 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
and this discussion moved to its discussion page. Sammy_r (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and userfy until more sources become available, which is not unlikely. Sandstein 07:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Watsonia (journal). since the argument is that this is notable as essentially a coninuation of Watsonia (journal) then we clearly do not need twio articles per FORK so the redirect arguments are the most valid Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New Journal of Botany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Journal that does not yet exist, not a single article published yet. Impossible to say whether this will become notable: violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere: does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Article creation premature. Prod was removed with argument "Deletion notice removed because external references added and more details about the journal to show it does exist". Crusio (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you can delete it if you like. I thought it would be useful for anyone who previously received Watsonia and wanted to know what was happening. The article isn't less helpful than, say, the one on the Journal of Botany. Would you suggest that I create the page again when the first volume comes out? Scalloway (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, articles should only be created if journals are notable. That will take a few years. Meanwhile, if this really is a clear successor to Watsonia, then I don't see much harm in a (short) remark in the article on that journal about a successor journal being created. Looks like that article needs updating/expanding anyway.--Crusio (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've done that. Go on then, delete it. Scalloway (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not so easy, I am not an admin so I cannot do that. When the AfD is over, an admin will delete it. --Crusio (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep for me, for the sole reason of being the official successor to the Watsonia. Contrary to Crusio's opinion, I would suggest to have the article around for now and resubmit should it turn out not to become a notable journal. Already today, we would at least have to have a redirect at this place, but as the issn and the launch date are known it would be a waste of work to delete, and soon thereafter recreate the article. --Pgallert (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you need to read WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It's the other way around: we only create an article if a subject is shown to be notable, not delete one if it turns out not to become notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. Normally I pick myself what I want to read, but now that you lured me into it: Which point of that policy specifically applies to the article discussed? It is verifiable (general passage), not about an event (point 1), not a systematic pattern or predictable name (point 2), and not original research (point 3). The last point equally does not apply. The core requirement per WP:CRYSTAL, if I interpret that right, is "it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and that's what I was suggesting as being obvious. --Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, with reference to WP:NOTCRYSTAL or without, statement "we only create an article if a subject is shown to be notable, not delete one if it turns out not to become notable" still stands, for example, via WP:GNG. If you/whoever else can demonstrate notability of the subject right now - good (IMHO it is not demonstrated as of now), if not - you'll need to wait until it can be demonstrated. Ipsign (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and create redirect to
WatsoniaWatsonia (journal) for the time being). Ipsign (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - * Delete (and create redirect to Watsonia for the time being). If and when it can demonstrate notability, no objections to recreating the article. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Watsonia (journal) (not Watsonia). Plausible search term. No reason to delete. If journal becomes notable, then the history is fully available for anyone to recreate the article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's notable, as the continuation of a previous notable journal. When titles change this much, we should do a new article. At this stage in planning, it's not crystal. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that in any case, there should be only one article about this journal; if it is Watsonia (journal) redirected to New Journal of Botany or vice versa, I don't really care, but as this is one single entity with two different names, there should be one single article (at least to avoid duplication) - and second one should be a redirect. Ipsign (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could live with a redirect to Watsonia and this being mentioned in that article. Although I value DGG's opinion in these matters highly, I don't think we should create separate articles. I know librarians keep such journals different, but I rather suspect that this had some practical reasons, to do with the physical (printed) format: many libraries would place journals in alphabetical order on their shelves (not in storage perhaps, but certainly the shelves accessible to the users). As it is, it is difficult enough to write a substantial article about a scientific journal and if a journal is a clear successor to another one, I'd merge them under the newest name and redirect the old one to the newer one. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and put a redirect to it on Watsonia (journal). The article already explains it's a forthcoming publication to replace another, and that is useful information. LemonMonday Talk 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's lots of "useful information" that doesn't get into WP. Phone directories, for example. And lots of info that is not "useful" gets into WP. What counts is notability and that does not equal usefulness. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank-you for that lesson. In that case it's notable. LemonMonday Talk 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chet Ramey (edit | talk | 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:A7 Most software products have maintainers and it's not unusual that they have to update the documentation. That's not the same as creating a notable software product or other significant achievement and should not be enough to assert importance. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bash in 1993 is probably different from bash in 2010. TEDickey (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, probably. But how much of that was Ramey's work versus contributions from the entire open source community? And how much can be documented? Ramey's own email says that pretty nearly all the major features were already there in Fox's first release. It should be more than just bug fixes. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The program size has grown by a factor of 20 (just looked). Your link points to flash content (text would be an improvement). TEDickey (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have no control over Scribd.com. I was referring to the sentence where Ramey says, "The bash that was released for beta testing was already a substantial, sophisticated product,complete with job control and command line editing." (Beta was released in June 1988.) Re: code size (I assume you mean LOC?), that could mean anything until we can document what it means. Bash has been ported everywhere and there have been lots of hands working on it. All software grows under those circumstances. Msnicki (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bash release history goes back to 1.14.7. Ramey started handling release beginning in 1.12/1.13 timeframe. Okay, maybe I missed something, but to my eyes, it all looks very incremental. I didn't see any new stuff rivaling the significance of, say job control or command line editing. And even if there had been something, I think we'd still need to document that that was Ramey's individual contribution. Otherwise, it'd be setting the bar so low that we'd need a page for nearly every programmer on the planet. Msnicki (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your quote from Ramey is not the same as "early all the major features". Release announcements would be the place to look for the highlights, and the change-log for his role. Saying that all of the work done was the "community" without even reading the change-log isn't plausible. TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than 80% of the NEWS file describes features that Brian Fox was uninvolved with, given your assertions above. TEDickey (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please AGF. I am not trying to trick anyone. Msnicki (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - but do some reading. It seems you've got an idea which hasn't been validated. TEDickey (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read through the scribd link; still no agreement, since Ramey's saying that he's been the maintainer since Fox's last release early in 1992, and the interview from 2002 says the same thing ("maintainer" isn't a synonym for "flunkie-of-the-community). For reference, the 1.13 LSM entry here lists Ramey as "author", doesn't mention Fox TEDickey (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A copy of 1.13 is here TEDickey (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well, what do you think of this definition of a maintainer? Except for the (imho) questionable assertion at the end that it's only possible to be knowledgeable about the design and implementation of a program if one is a primary developer, the rest of the page describes a role that sounds more like a program manager. It cites the hacker perspective that "there is no requirement that the maintainer actually be a developer or contributor to the project" and the conventional perspective that "a maintainer is essentially noncreative, someone who collects other's work, makes minor fixes and presents the result to others." All I'm saying is that, absent other information that has not been presented, Ramey's role as maintainer is not enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramey does assert in 2002 that he's been the primary developer and maintainer since Fox left in 1993. So that agrees with the link you just quoted (unless you find some source that points out that his contributions across 20 years are dwarfed by Fox's release of bash 1.12) TEDickey (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing sources on the page, as well as the sources which appear via the links on this page are adequate for WP:Notability. TEDickey (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well, what do you think of this definition of a maintainer? Except for the (imho) questionable assertion at the end that it's only possible to be knowledgeable about the design and implementation of a program if one is a primary developer, the rest of the page describes a role that sounds more like a program manager. It cites the hacker perspective that "there is no requirement that the maintainer actually be a developer or contributor to the project" and the conventional perspective that "a maintainer is essentially noncreative, someone who collects other's work, makes minor fixes and presents the result to others." All I'm saying is that, absent other information that has not been presented, Ramey's role as maintainer is not enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please AGF. I am not trying to trick anyone. Msnicki (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The program size has grown by a factor of 20 (just looked). Your link points to flash content (text would be an improvement). TEDickey (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, probably. But how much of that was Ramey's work versus contributions from the entire open source community? And how much can be documented? Ramey's own email says that pretty nearly all the major features were already there in Fox's first release. It should be more than just bug fixes. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can we please get this discussion on track? The relevant issue is whether Ramey has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not whether or not he has been the main maintainer of something that ninety-nine point a few nines per cent of our target readership has never heard of nor cared about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramey has been the subject of two interviews. But both appear to be publishing just whatever he told them. One was published only to the web and is by a former FSF vice president and is not particularly independent. The other was published in Computerworld but does not appear to have been fact-checked, as evidenced by the uncritical reporting of the dates when bash was released and when Fox relinquished his role as maintainer that are off by 3 years and appear to have been copied from WP (before I corrected them and added citations.) Neither one clearly addresses the additional criteria for creative professionals, especially, criterion 3. Msnicki (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a reliable source supporting your comment about a 3-year error. By the way, "Pesky Rabbit" seems to lack professional ethics. TEDickey (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bash 4.1, for example, contains an AUTHORS file. It lists Fox 214 times, and Ramey 400 times. It's fairly apparent that Ramey is the principal developer of bash across its entire history. TEDickey (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing the comment about "creative professionals, especially, criterion 3", there's a lot of evidence that Ramey satisfies this part (more than Fox). TEDickey (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more to it than simply counting the number of edits and assuming that with that many of them, there must be something in there somewhere that satisfies the criteria. We can't just assume notability; we need verifiable, reliable citations. Fox unquestionably created Bash, starting with a clean sheet of paper and going all the way through to a first release, indisputably satisfying the criteria as a creative profession. We do not have that kind of evidence for Ramey. Maybe you can fix that. What I've asked repeatedly and you've never answered is if there's any documentation to show that Ramey did more than bug fixes and minor enhancements, independent of the number of individual edits. If you can document the achievement, I'd be delighted to retract my nomination for deletion.
- It's totally possible that Ramey has done more than enough to be notable but there's no way to prove it (or alternately, that it could be done but that you don't want to do the work.) Okay, that could seem unfair. But otoh, there are probably lots of very accomplished people about whom we never have articles for the very same reason. Consider Jimmy Wales's essay or the comments in WP:POSITION. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds as if you're saying that you have no way to determine if Chet Ramey is recording things accurately, and that you're implying he's a liar. Do better than that. TEDickey (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly not my intention to question anyone's honesty or good faith and I'm hopeful you'll extend the same courtesy to me. On reflection, I think I chose my words poorly in my nomination; it probably does seem like I'm questioning Ramey's accomplishments and I can see how that could get us off on the wrong foot. For that, I apologize. This is the first time I've done one of these. Hopefully, I'll be better next time at stating my reasons more clearly purely in terms of the guidelines here on WP regarding sources and verifiability. Respectfully, Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should provide (as you have not) an explanation of how it is that he doesn't meet the criterion 3 for creative people, given that he and Brian Fox are noted widely as co-developers. Merely saying that you don't know indicates that you're discounting any of the instances which google is showing us TEDickey (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 62 hits in "scholar", 71 in "books", and 59,000 in "google". Besides the books by, or acknowledgments in, there are several references to co-developer (which perhaps may mean more to you than "maintainer"). He's also active in standards discussions, e.g., this. By the way, according to your complaints, we should open an AFD for Brian Fox. TEDickey (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly not my intention to question anyone's honesty or good faith and I'm hopeful you'll extend the same courtesy to me. On reflection, I think I chose my words poorly in my nomination; it probably does seem like I'm questioning Ramey's accomplishments and I can see how that could get us off on the wrong foot. For that, I apologize. This is the first time I've done one of these. Hopefully, I'll be better next time at stating my reasons more clearly purely in terms of the guidelines here on WP regarding sources and verifiability. Respectfully, Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds as if you're saying that you have no way to determine if Chet Ramey is recording things accurately, and that you're implying he's a liar. Do better than that. TEDickey (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramey has been the subject of two interviews. But both appear to be publishing just whatever he told them. One was published only to the web and is by a former FSF vice president and is not particularly independent. The other was published in Computerworld but does not appear to have been fact-checked, as evidenced by the uncritical reporting of the dates when bash was released and when Fox relinquished his role as maintainer that are off by 3 years and appear to have been copied from WP (before I corrected them and added citations.) Neither one clearly addresses the additional criteria for creative professionals, especially, criterion 3. Msnicki (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Interpreting the elinks as sources (they really should be converted to citations), only one of them contributes to notability, the computerworld.com.au appearance. That's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (as nominator). (Summarizing from above.) There's only one independent citation and even it is weaker than it should be. It's a verbatim interview of Ramey, not an article about him, the subject is bash, not him, and the reporter seems to have uncritically copied some dates from WP in her intro. (WP:GNG or WP:BIO) Also, the sources offered fail to document for us the additional criteria for creative professionals, which I interpret to mean, for a software professional, a substantial contribution as an original author, at minimum, of an identifiable and notable feature. (WP:AUTH) Msnicki (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability established by several books citing Ramey as the bash maintainer, as well as by books written by Ramey. etc. TEDickey (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conspicuous by its absence there is books about Ramey. Which sources are you saying are about this person, upon which an encyclopaedia biography about the person can be verifiably based, again? Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, they don't have to be devoted to Ramey as a topic to contribute toward notability, but they do have to do more than mention his name in connection with bash. Books by him are primary sources and irrelevant to notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conspicuous by its absence there is books about Ramey. Which sources are you saying are about this person, upon which an encyclopaedia biography about the person can be verifiably based, again? Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - inadequate secondary sources to establish notability. It is a valid search term, so a redirect should be created to Bash_(Unix_shell)#History. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this idea. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Notability is not, of course, inherited, and the GNG, of course, requires that any sources intended to bolster notability discuss the subject in "significant detail." Since "being a software maintainer" is nowhere found in policy or guideline as a qualifier for presumptive notability, we can safely ignore the first half of this discussion. The raw number of Google hits with Ramey's name is irrelevant. Do any of them discuss him in significant detail? Ravenswing 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- County Road 850 (Lee County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article on a non-notable road. The page's creator contested the PROD saying that it is notable for serving an area of 900,000+ residents and a university. Neither of these facts explain why this road is notable. The article sat for 2 months without any editing until the contest PROD. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that most of these in the category could all be in a single article called "County roads in Lee County, Florida" (which is the category name), or something of that nature. Back in 2006, someone created some articles for County Road 869 (Lee County, Florida) and for #865, and a couple of years later, someone else followed that example, so that's what the creator of this article has had to go by. In '06, there was still that tendency to want to make a new article for every individual item, rather than to refer to things collectively-- roads, TV episodes, earthquakes, airplane incidents, etc., kind of the Ray Stevens approach of "Everything is notable.... in its own way...". In many cases, it's not necessary, and this is one of them. Mandsford 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the author. If you want to delete that is fine but then there are a few hundred other roads that should go with it. Someone needs to define "notable." Notable because of its history, car accidents, scenery, proximity to important locations, etc??? Give me a definition of notable to work with. We have lots of county (and state for that matter) articles and from what I have researched I have yet to come to a conclusive definition of "notable." jswfl09 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual working definition with respect to roads has been: "What makes this stretch of pavement special?" State highways at least have the imprimatur of the state separating them from the rest of the roads in the area for inclusion in the rest of the state highway system. That implies a greater level of importance. As for the other factors, history, scenery all contribute. Just being next to an important location doesn't confer notability on the roadway though. As for the other roads, let's take them all a few at a time, rather than swamp the PROD/AfD processess with them. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Jswfl09, you're falling into a common fallacy on Wikipedia of presuming that "notability" can be defined by yardsticks of relative importance. The fundamental notability guideline (WP:GNG) is this: "If 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." That's the only broad definition of notability that exists. Any other notability guideline doesn't, in fact, set up alternative criteria; they work from the premise that a subject which meets the guideline can be presumed to pass the GNG. The usual premise with respect to roads is that while state highways are likely to pass the GNG, county roads aren't and so aren't presumed to be notable. The only way around that is by passing the GNG; be a subject ever so subjectively insignificant, if it's been written about in significant detail in multiple reliable sources, it passes WP:V. Ravenswing 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or listify as Mansford suggested. I'd be happy to see it expanded into a properly sourced article and vote keep... but I don't believe that it may happen. And there's nothing like "serving an area of 900.000+ residents" (look at the map - where did they come from? Did all Ft. Myers residents and their inlaws rush onto a far-away country road?). Arguments like this do more harm than good. East of Borschov 00:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a first choice, redirect to List of county roads in Lee County, Florida per precedent for other county roads. But that's a redlink, so we can't redirect there unless the page is created before this AfD is up. Therefore, as a second choice, delete per East of Borschov. I note that the population of the entire county where this road is located is only about 600,000, and I don't think every single person in the county has occasion to use this road, so the "900,000" claim is just mistaken. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If someone wants to make a list of county roads that's fine, but other stuff exists is only a reason to delete this one and move on to all the others too. We have a specific criteria for roads (or did... I'm not sure the current status of that policy wrangling) and every paved road is not it. It's useful to remember that every additional page brings additional maintenance work, patrolling work, ripe sources for vandalism that goes unnoticed and unchecked, and risk making (if it isn't already) Wikipedia simply an almanac, which, by policy (a widespread known one), we are not. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inter2Geo (edit | talk | 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. Appears to be project/software with no evidence of notability from WP:RS. Apparent sponsorship by institutions does not directly convey notability, nor does being one of scores of projects funded by eContentplus; there still needs to be significant third-party coverage showing that this is notable per WP:GNG, which appears to be lacking. Most sources (i.e., found using Google Scholar) appear to be cursory mentions, etc., and/or are otherwise traceable back to the creators of the project. Unless significant WP:RS can be uncovered, this doesn't appear to be a notable, encyclopedic project. Kinu t/c 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This project is gathering all European key players in a major field of mathematics education. Some references to articles published in major journals and conferences in the subject, MKM, CERME, ICTMT are added. These are major conferences in the field of math education and interactive geometry is a major issue in this field. Inter2Geo is the biggest thing that has happened in Interactive Geometry for a very long time. Please ask anybody knowledgeable in math education and you'll see. Thanks for letting us express our view, we missed the deadline.Christian.Mercat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated, there need to be third-party references, and that most of the papers, presentations, etc., are traceable back to the creators of the project (i.e., the references section cites three such papers by Paul Libbrecht, who is clearly involved in the project; the same link shows that the reference to Kortenkamp is clearly a primary source as well, and a search shows the same for the other authors, including yourself based on your username). Likewise, based on the inline citations, the references only seem to be used to show what the project is; they don't appear to say why it's notable. To say something is "the biggest thing" and obviously notable is an argument that doesn't hold much water; this is an encyclopedia and there needs to be third-party sourcing to support such an assertion. --Kinu t/c 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Kinu, we just had our last review meeting at the European Union in Luxembourg. I know there are tons of EU funded projects, but this one is really gathering ALL the key players in Europe around that subject, which is a hot topic in math education. There is simply no way you can find an external source because we were very inclusive and those experts who didn't join us are not many, it is as simple as that. I agree with the "big is not enough" objection, but the fact that the papers related to the project were accepted in top notch conferences and journals is a way of getting third party opinions, because external reviewers decided they were worthy of interest for the whole community. Thanks for your work on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Mercat (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated, there need to be third-party references, and that most of the papers, presentations, etc., are traceable back to the creators of the project (i.e., the references section cites three such papers by Paul Libbrecht, who is clearly involved in the project; the same link shows that the reference to Kortenkamp is clearly a primary source as well, and a search shows the same for the other authors, including yourself based on your username). Likewise, based on the inline citations, the references only seem to be used to show what the project is; they don't appear to say why it's notable. To say something is "the biggest thing" and obviously notable is an argument that doesn't hold much water; this is an encyclopedia and there needs to be third-party sourcing to support such an assertion. --Kinu t/c 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a search in scholar for Inter2geo and found many articles by the project itself, of course, but also lots of articles from others in the mathematics education research community. It looks like the project is important for others. It is quite natural that many references of a project are in the project's publications by the project partners, isn't it? --193.197.80.3 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — 193.197.80.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Then please give a pointer to these sources for all to see. And yes, it makes sense that there will be content out there that is primary source... the same could be said for anything. But that's not enough to create an article in an encyclopedia. The notability guideline states there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Kinu t/c 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59][dead link], [60], [61], [62], etc. etc. -- I just copied the links from the scholar search as I wrote above. If you need the full references, please click on "search scholar".
- Yes, and if one actually looks at and scrutinizes the sources, most of them briefly mention what it is without any real depth, and worse yet some mention the project a whole one time in one sentence or a footnote of the article. That does not constitute significant coverage. --Kinu t/c 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59][dead link], [60], [61], [62], etc. etc. -- I just copied the links from the scholar search as I wrote above. If you need the full references, please click on "search scholar".
- Then please give a pointer to these sources for all to see. And yes, it makes sense that there will be content out there that is primary source... the same could be said for anything. But that's not enough to create an article in an encyclopedia. The notability guideline states there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Kinu t/c 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a search in scholar for Inter2geo and found many articles by the project itself, of course, but also lots of articles from others in the mathematics education research community. It looks like the project is important for others. It is quite natural that many references of a project are in the project's publications by the project partners, isn't it? --193.197.80.3 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — 193.197.80.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Keep European wide research project, with many primary and secondary sources. Clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll ask again, where are the secondary sources? At least responding to the extensive discussion above about the inability to find any such sources would be more helpful then a WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Kinu t/c 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its a research project undertaken by a consortium of notable universities. Its unlikely to have a large project footprint outside of it own group until finding's are published, and only then will it be written up, but even then, by a few specialist journals. But it's still a critical project, and WP is not good at keeping encyclopedic articles of this type. The problem with establishing notability through sources in this instance is the problem of system's of thought and action which exist in their own ecosystem, and are critically important in that ecosystem, but may not necessarily be that well known or appreciated outside it. In Wikipedia's case the policies regarding establishment of sources, are fundamentally broken when applied to these sort's of articles, because they are designed for establishing notability in well connected system's of thought. And that means only getting the low hanging fruit. There are many many system of thought, software systems are one, which are well understood and clearly notable, but WP ignores them. Now the low hanging fruit is all gone. That's the reason this should be kept. It is clearly notable, even if only several hundred folk are currently associated with it. It's a critically important, well understood European research project, and it's encyclopedic. scope_creep (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: all cited sources appear to have been published by Inter2Geo participants (and so are primary sources). 'Find' searches does not give any indication of secondary coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and cannot sustain an article without reliable, independent sources or based on original research. One of Wikipedia's fundamental premises is that it has articles on that of which the world has taken notice, not on things of which certain parties would like the world to take notice. Of course Wikipedia accepts notable scholarly journals as reliable sources, and should this project be written up in them by uninvolved observers, an article on it can be sustained. Should any of the Keep proponents wish to overturn Wikipedia's policies, I recommend going to the talk pages of those policies and attempt to sway consensus to their POV. In the meantime, the conclusion to draw on an article on a project that some people think is important (but which otherwise violates one or more inclusion guidelines) is not having to change the guidelines to fit the article in. It's that an article on the subject can't be sustained. Ravenswing 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander F. Tsvirkun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Associate professor. I don't see his published works on google. The books he was supposed to have authored, he apparently didn't. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That his published works (whose original titles are not in English) do not appear on Google says something about Google, not Tsvirkun. But try searching for Alexander Tsvirkun on Google and you might get somewhere, for example to a review of Russian-American Dialogue on Cultural Relations 1776-1914 on H-Net which quotes Tsvirkun at some length. Seems to me that being a professor (in the European, not US sense) is notable and being quoted and cited by other academics adds to that notability. Emeraude (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One cite does not make for notability. Can you find more? We usually require hundreds. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we don't "usually require hundreds". Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Sometimes we require thousands for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- "Sometimes" doesn't over-trump "usually"!! Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Sometimes we require thousands for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: no third party sources (in article, or obvious from 'find'), no particular claim to fame articulated, no reason to believe he meets WP:PROF. A single extensive quote, does not an article make. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not well-cited enough. Join the crowd. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected to List of municipalities in Goiás. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of municipalities in Goiás by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is another article List of municipalities in Goiás with all the information displayed in this one and it's more complete. Caiaffa (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.