Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 11
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 10:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cartoon Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only 2 sources, I can't find any more sources related to the article. JJ98 (Talk) 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 23:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Clearly notable Cartoon Network series. Eauhomme (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Doh5678 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandusky (automobile company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Perhaps this is notable. Perhaps. If it is, there needs to be some real sourcing provided, and I am unable to find any. Brochures, sales flyers, and ads just don't cut the mustard. Courcelles 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's pretty much not even a strong assertion of importance here, let alone any evidence of notability. If it exists, it needs to be actually put forth and added to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Keep per most recent round of edits made by Cullen. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep A Google books search under the company name and also "Sandusky runabout" shows significant coverage of this short-lived auto manufacturer active over 100 years ago. The content is encyclopedic, and I consider a company that actually manufactured cars, even if only for two years, to be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I echo Courcelles' concern. If Cullen328 has found these sources, xe might to well to actually provide them. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)keep due to the sources provided by Cullen, as opposed to Warden's holier-than-thou "use the search links at the top! What do you mean this isn't clearly discernible from "sources are so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem?" Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The topic is clearly notable. Sources seem so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem. Warden (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Warden - if you have sources, show them. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the search engine links provided conveniently at the head of the discussion. Editors should use these to inform themselves about the topic under discussion. Some tweaking of the search string may be required when the article title is qualified with a disambiguation clause, as in this case. If you have not taken such action, please say so, so that your opinion may be discounted accordingly. Warden (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I believe that AfD nominators should make a good faith effort to look for reliable sources before nominating an article. Earlier today, I said how I found such sources but didn't have time then to write them up. Now I do and here are sufficient sources, I believe, to establish notability: The Antique automobile, Volume 49, published by the Antique Automobile Club of America, wrote in 1985 that the Sandusky Automobile Company was founded by James J. Hinde who "had been a successful paper manufacturer who entered the automobile business with the belief that a small, reasonably priced car could capture a mass market." It seems that this concept influenced Henry Ford. Northwest Ohio Quarterly, publication of the Lucas County/Maumee Valley Historical Society, ran a 12 page profile of the company in 1980. This article stated that "the Sandusky Automobile Company may be far more significant because of the passing interest of Henry Ford than for the number of cars they built and sold. At the time Ford was not yet a manufacturing magnate. He was a successful engineer turned inventor, who had given up his profession to enter the automotive field." Corporate America: a historical bibliography summarized this article by saying that it "traces the history of the Sandusky Automobile Company, focusing on the conceptual contributions made by Sandusky president James J. Hinde to the production strategy of Henry Ford." A Sandusky car was described in detail in Chilton's Automobile trade journal in 1903. Another detailed description was published in The Horseless age: the automobile trade magazine in 1903. The Sandusky Courier F was described in Automobiles of the world, published by Simon and Schuster in 1977. Chilton's Automotive Industries, Volume 10 wrote that the company "Has three light cars and a chassis, posessing points of novelty and merit" in 1903. The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1805-1942, published in 1996, described the Sandusky Courier. The Motor way described the Sandusky Runabout in 1903.Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may believe whatever you want about WP:BEFORE, and when you succeed in having it stuck in as a mandatory prerequisite to nominations, you might actually be right. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen. Echo the same good faith sentiment. One of the Afd's today is because the nom could "only find 2 sources" for a current notable American TV series. Eauhomme (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this AfD was nowhere near so ludicrous, so please don't insist it is. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources have been found, definitely a notable chapter and company in the history of the automobile. First Light (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that some sources are available (great work, Cullen!), but I'm going to go ahead and point out that unless someone can and does actually use them in the article to show notability, the problem that caused the article to be AfD'd isn't actually, you know, fixed. The mere presentation of them on the AfD doesn't remedy the fact that the article in its current state shows no notability (even if the notability is "having been a car company way early in the history of car production", the article doesn't even say that). I'd be happy to switch my vote to keep if someone can actually integrate the sources into the article in such a way that the article then asserts notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG doesn't require that an article is well-referenced in order to be kept at AfD, only that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This topic/article clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and therefore should clearly (and will almost surely) be kept. The fact that those references aren't being used in the article isn't an issue for AfD, but rather for a template such as {{Template:Refimprove}}. First Light (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple more references: [1] and [2]. First Light (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment ill advised nom, since there are a hundred just like this; the "show me the refs" taunt, does tend to get egg on face. maybe we have enough people here for a project to improve early auto articles? as opposed to arguing. Slowking4 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't speak for Courcelles, but I hope you're not referring to me when you claim people were "taunting". I'm simply asking that people who actually (seem to) know something about this car (as opposed to me, who can't really make heads or tails of how to process Cullen, etc's links into actual useful article prose, since I don't know cars, new or historical) add their sources to the article so that the notability is clear. If the article's notability is established by sourcing the article, I will consider that a win for Wikipedia, not a source of "egg on one's face". If keep !voters here continue to list sources but refuse to use them in the article, I will be disappointed at what would appear to be cutting off the nose of the 'pedia to spite AfD voters. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat something I said above, the references don't have to be added to the article to show notability. It only has to be shown that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". That has been amply demonstrated. Some of those sources actually have been added if you look, to the article, by the Keep voters—though anyone can add references, even those who continue to vote to Delete an article that "has received significant coverage....". And let us assume good faith about those who have supplied sources here without adding them all to the article. They are helping to save a notable subject from deletion, thus improving Wikipedia, and adding to the sum of all human knowledge. They should be applauded for their efforts. First Light (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've expanded the article a bit and added some sources. I readily admit that the article still needs more work, but all editors should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. We don't have to make this article perfect right now, and there is no perfect article, but we ought to preserve encyclopedic content and references. Perhaps a young Sandusky historian will come along, search out the full sources in a local library or historical society, and expand this article into one we can all be proud of. If we delete this article now, that chance will be significantly reduced. Let's keep it and work on it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perfect, Cullen! That's exactly what I was hoping someone could pull off for this article; the importance of the company is now clear in the article text. Switched my vote above to keep. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can see no reason to delete. It has been verified and is notable as one of the pioneering manufacturers of the automobile. Greenmaven (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails WP:POLITICIAN, the notability criteria for politicians. The article was deleted in 2008 for the same reason and it doesn't seem like much has changed. There is also a redirect page at Richard William Aguirre. – Zntrip 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has never been elected, and no other persuasive claim of notability is made. Musical work is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete. The article has been changed to biography of living person WP:BLP and all of the foot notes support it. It is no longer marked as a WP:POLITICIAN, it is now WP:BLP Wikimikesd (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Wikimikesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't DeleteWP:BLP the article is being worked on to fit all the "Biography of a living Person" requirements. Wikimikesd (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first paragraphs of the article discuss his political candidacies. Accordingly, our notability guidelines for politicians should guide this unless there is a convincing claim for notability in an area other than politics. For example, Ross Perot was a notable businessman as well as an unsuccessful presidential candidate. How, on the other hand, is this person notable? Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As even the SPA pushing this article implies, the subject certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Unfortunately for the SPA's premise that removing the political angle suddenly makes the subject notable, there's no other criteria under which he succeeds of notability either. Fails WP:BIO and the GNG. Ravenswing 06:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt under both versions of his name, Richard Aguirre and Richard William Aguirre. This guy again? This is actually his FOURTH AfD nomination. An article about him (as Richard Aguirre) was AfD'ed in August 2008. Articles about him (as Richard William Aguirre) were also AfD'ed, twice, in July 2009 and in May 2010. Enough is enough. He was non-notable in 2010 (where he got 4% of the vote in the primary election) and he is non-notable now. Most of the references are not Reliable Sources (blogs etc.) or do not provide substantial coverage. For example, the Union-Tribune link is just a blogger commenting that he has seen Aguirre's campaign signs. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closing as speedy; all the hallmarks of a hoax/something made up one day). Neutralitytalk 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional Government of the Republic of Cantonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hoax article about a nonexistent "symbolic" "secret" government by "Cantonese supremacists" (?) Fails the General notability guideline by a long shot; has zero coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. PROD was contested by creator. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Even if the creator of the article could produce a website, there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Quigley (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Also the original "primary" sources put into the article by the creator do not mention the existence of the "Republic of Cantonia" at all, being about unrelated stories of protests and riots. see here for the sourcesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either a hoax or completely non-verifiable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep:I search "Republic of Cantonia" on Google, and found multiple sites, one of those sites is the official website of Republic of Cantonia. I believe that the organization is operating undercover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuzu1001 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing one would find from googling "Republic of Cantonia", are multiple internet forums and a facebook page- not WP:RS.google results for "republic of cantonia", from the main site google.com ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep:There are more information in Latinized Cantonese and Chinese than English, please carefully consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuzu1001 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete: Take it to the Fairy Tale Wiki on Wikia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fiat justitia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather poor claim to notability: this phrase is painted at the bottom of a judge's portrait, and it's the motto of a couple of organisations. No significant coverage. Most of the Google Books results seem to be using the phrase as an epigraph rather than discussing it directly ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this specific phrase has a technical legal meaning: I've added a reference. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it does have a meaning, though my Latin knowledge was far too rudimentary to determine it ;) However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the only point about this phrase that can be cited is that it has a meaning, then it probably doesn't meet the SIGCOV criterion... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 21:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not (yet) commenting on the notability but of course the phrase has a meaning. However my point was that in the legal context the phrase is jussive and its pronouncement expresses or encodes a specific action, similar to La reine s'avisera. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The prase I was looking for was performative utterance. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous references to this in the context of a writ of error. It may also be an abbreviated form of fiat justitia ruat caelum. We should assist readers in search of these relevant topics and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm still genuinely struggling to find coverage of this topic. Are you able to identify any? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 08:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to List of Latin phrases (F). Neutralitytalk 04:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've expanded the entry after recourse to a further source (as a rule of thumb an entry in the encyclopedic Oxford Companion to Law is likely to be a sure sign of notability). It relates to an important topic which Wikipedia now covers wholly inadequately, that is the development of the means by which official mistakes or actions could be challenged in the courts. Writ of error now leads to Appeal where it does not seem to be mentioned, but it is historically a very notable legal device. I'd be happy to see fiat justitia merged if there were an article which dealt with the appeal mechanism in its historical context, but I don't see one. --AJHingston (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Fiat justitia ruat caelum. This phrase is an abbreviation of that one and I do not see the need to dilute content over two articles. Reyk YO! 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't an abbreviation. The words stand on their own and had a specific legal significance and purpose. The fact that they appear in other phrases is irrelevant (most words do). --AJHingston (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The RAFPD usage alone justifies this having its own article. James470 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:INHERITED then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's actually a very notable "performative utterance" with a far more venerable history than has been touched on so far in the discussion here or in the article in its current form (meaning no criticism to any contributors to date). After the Magna Carta, the King responded to petitions of right (and sometimes to those of grace and favor) with "Fiat justitia." The Vetus Codex (a/k/a, The Black Book of the Tower), a transcription of 14th century petitions to Edward I, many answered thus, appears to have been consulted by members of the Long Parliament and may well have influenced the Commons' drafting of the Petition of Right to Charles I, who responded to the Bill of Attainder against his minister, Strafford, by begging the House of Lords to help him convince the Commons to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than to execute Strafford, but conceded, "If, however, nothing less than his life can satisfy my people, then must I say, Fiat justitia!", a rather famous event in English Constitutional history. The Charles Sumner address that's cited in the Fiat justitia ruat caelum article itself cites some of the distinct history of Fiat justitia, but Sumner lacked the legal histories of Pollard and Maitland that were published later in the 19th century and the early 20th century, as well as access to The Egerton Papers. With respect to Fiat justitia as the historical response to a Writ of Error, Pollard explained in The Evolution of Parliament that the greatest hardships experienced by parties before the medieval English courts were far less often the errors courts might commit than their interminable delays in resolving cases, a violation of one of the most significant rights confirmed by the Magna Carta. Parties who found themselves in such straights could and often did petition medieval Parliaments to move such cases forward by issuing the order, Fiat justitia durante parliamento ("Let there be justice during Parliament"). There are quite a lot of sources available on this -- including some available in Google Books -- but a well done article will require a fair amount of work and a reasonable amount of familiarity with the subject. In any case, FWIW, I could not agree with AJHingston and the others urging this to be kept any more emphatically.Ravinpa (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobby Gonzalez (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable child actor, with no source but the IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An article lacking the inclusion of easily available sources is always a concern, but not always a sound reason to delete. He has sourcable notability for 4 years and 45 episodes of a notable series... the problem for this individual meriting a seperate article is simply that ENT requires multiple productions, not just one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple notable roles. Tassedethe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:TOOSOON as reasonable search term to The Brothers Garcia as the one notable series for which this individual has sourcability. While nice that this youngster had a significant recurring role over four years and in all 45 episodes of that show... per WP:ENT, ONE series, no matter how many seasons or years, is not considered "multiple" productions. And though his work in that series can be easily verified, and the coverage of his role approaches meeting WP:GNG,[3] that coverage becomes a BLP-one-four-year-long-event. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (G7) by Mufka. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Donica Covey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer of suspect notability - possibly autobiographical/self-promotion. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Google news search brings up no returns. Many of the titles appear to be either self-published or published through e-book outlets. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was going to nominate this at some point if the creator didn't come up with something. There's no evidence of notability in the article, and a google search didn't reveal anything credible. There are lots of social networking-type entries referring to her as "best selling" and even "award winning", but I can't find any reliable sources to back these claims up.--BelovedFreak 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now author-blanked.--BelovedFreak 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Biersack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod for BLP with no sources was contested without anyone having added a source. Noformation Talk 20:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think I may have been justified in restoring the prod, but I have read before that a page should only be prod'd once and I'm not sure if there's an exception for BLP violations. Noformation Talk 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ProdBLP is a "sticky" prod that can be replaced if it is removed without sources being added. But there are plenty of other reasons to delete this entry, this person is not notable, there has never been a good claim of individual notability in any of the versions of this entry. The original version Andy Six has served on and off as a redirect to this person's band, but it gets persistently un-redirected, despite a lack of both good refs and individual notability. So delete or at least redirect + protect. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also delete (or protect) the duplicate entries Andy Six and Andy Sixx which are currently both redirects. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information. Maybe protecting all the redirects would be a good idea. If this person ever does become more notable then perhaps someone can request to remove protection, but right now it seems that these titles are more trouble than they are worth. Noformation Talk 00:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also delete (or protect) the duplicate entries Andy Six and Andy Sixx which are currently both redirects. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Move to Wiktionary. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fan fiction terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Largely unsourced, un-encylopedic writing (especially in the lead), and the majority of terms defined totally fails notability. Notable terms have their own articles, as indicated by the lead. Goes directly against WP:DICTIONARY. No indication that issues raised in previous deletion debates have been attended to (and in all honsety I'm amazed it survived them). U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wiktionary 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or transwiki: Not only have the "issues" cited by the Keep voters in the previous AfD not been tackled in the last year and a half, I question what was the end result they had in mind? An indiscriminate, unsourced list of jargon dicdefs - many of which are unsourceable neologisms - be it ever so nicely spruced up and sourced out of the blue, does not belong on Wikipedia. Period. It belongs on Wikitionary. It always did. Ravenswing 06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or move As per above. I fail to see how this passes the very first sentence of WP:Dictionary Bstbll (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to Wiktionary where this stuff belongs. It doesn't belong here. Reyk YO! 07:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki most of the text, but keep this article as a list of links to such Wiktionary topics, because these do represent a cohesive set of definitions. Of course, some of these still need sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - this was just kept three months ago. I don't see consensus changing much less jelling anytime soon. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)My bad. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check your dates again. That keep was well over a year ago, not three months.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And that being said, as far as consensus changing? Err ... look at this discussion. Other than your "procedural keep," there is in fact unanimous consensus that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wiktionary Can't see this going beyond Dictionary definitions. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is precedent that glossaries are allowed. Which doesn't mean that we have to keep listcruft. Matchups 11:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary - As an avid reader and writer of fan fiction, I can testify that this article is a extremely useful and reasonably accurate resource. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, for reasons already mentioned above. Moreover, two previous deletion nominations have failed to motivate editors to bring the article up to standard. One editor even boasted in a previous AfD that "I am, off the top of my head, aware of three scholarly treatments of fanfiction published in academic presses... Well over half of these terms could readily be sourced to those three books alone... To say that this cannot be sourced requires the willful ignoring of so many sources as to be comical," yet in the over a year since that AfD was opened, he failed to produce even one new source for the article. Since not even the threat of deletion can prompt people to get this to resemble a proper Wikipedia article, moving it elsewhere is the logical course.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move content to Wiktionary and leave a soft redirect: I will admit that I do not have much experience over at Wiktionary, but there already is a page there titled "Transwiki:List of fan fiction terms." Therefore, I would recommend merging any content from the list here on Wikipedia that is not yet incorporated into the Wiktionary page with it, then removing the content from Wikipedia and leaving a soft redirect to Wiktionary in its place. I believe the definitions belong somewhere, but Wikipedia itself appears not the best venue. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really any significant, third party sources, thus propably non-notable per WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4 if it applies, otherwise delete as he does not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, CSD#G4 doesn't apply here, but this player still fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. —BETTIA— talk 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. The "superweapons" within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Additionally, "superweapon" is a subjective term and it is difficult to determine whether any individual technology should belong on this list. Anthem 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator has now been blocked by MuZemike as a sock of Caritas, see [4].
- delete as a violation of WP:NOT section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" subsection 1. This is entirely in-universe information, more suited to a fanwiki than an encyclopedia. There are no secondary sources at all, and no indication of any actual importance to anything outside the fictional universe. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates not an indiscriminate collection of information and fails notability. No independent and reliable sources provided. Edison (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep - no evidence of WP:BEFORE on part of nominator, and pending the result of the DRV for another Gundam Seed fictional items list. --Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE is not policy. WP:BURDEN is, however. Reyk YO! 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The editing policy, specifically WP:HANDLE, was apparently not followed by the nominator. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE is not policy. WP:BURDEN is, however. Reyk YO! 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Redirects are cheep and editors can salvage any usable content in the future. Based on previous AfDs, its obvious that Anthem didn't attempt WP:BEFORE, particularly point 5. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged. —Farix (t | c) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the name of this article is a completely implausible search term. Please assume good faith. --Anthem 07:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:V as no references are found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: What manner of procedure does Malkinann believe ought to have been done instead? (Let's leave aside the strong possibility that "Leave the article alone" would be the desired answer.) This is plainly in-universe information, extremely unlikely to have any out-of-universe reliable sourcing, and certainly lacking sourcing which discusses this particular subject in the "significant detail" required. Whatever result a DRV on another article has does not serve as an injunction on us coming to a decision on this one ... the more so in that the DRV was not proposed on the merits of the article - a decision DRV can't really make - but on whether the AfD was properly closed. Ravenswing 06:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BEFORE: "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged". Those three parts of WP:BEFORE are of the most concern to me in this AFD. As the AFD I referred to was on a similar topic, and the sources presented there were disregarded (apparently without anyone voting to delete reading the sources), I regard the DRV as being pertinent to this AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do. It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE.
Let's take the first sentence of your specific concern. For it to be at all valid, you would have to expect that substantive changes have been made in the article, with earlier versions having merits the current one lacks. A casual skip through the revision history shows, in fact, that the article has been largely unchanged throughout its six year history (and surprisingly so given the number of edits), with the biggest change being the removal of images.
Let's take the second sentence. The nom says outright that "no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources" exist. No such sources are proffered in the article. No such sources have ever been proffered in the article. You do not, yourself, claim that any such sources exist, or have come up with any, and of course, you know that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain such material to provide them.
The last part? I see no reason to assume the nom didn't consider it ... and reject it. I would have done so myself. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do. It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. A redirect is superfluous because it is an implausible search term. I note that the rudeness to the nominator in some of the comments above is troubling. Neutralitytalk 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[5] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest letting this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Demonstrably the strong consensus is for the non-notability of this subject. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At a deletion review of a very closely related article [[6]] of a previous AfD on this article, many good references were presented. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable--in fact, if they were, they would normally be justified as separate articles. It's generally appropriate to keep lists like this from cluttering up the article, and their existence provides a good way for quickly redeleting any article on an individual weapon. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources that were presented there turned up to be promotional and "produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", thus they can't be used to assess notability on Gundam-related topics, including this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So ... hold on. You're advocating that because "many good references" were supplied in another article - references that you don't attempt to claim have anything to do with this article - this one should automatically be found notable? That's your argument? Seriously? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 01:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to WP:GNG, the threshold for inclusion of a stand-alone article/list is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", we can easily see that's not the case for this article since it doesn't even have a single source. The topic is thus both non-notable and unverifiable. Besides, the article in itself consists only in the in-universe descriptions of plot elements from a fictional work, thus violating WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF.
Note: that the nominator is a sockpuppet doesn't magically solve these very serious content issues, which is why, in my opinion, his blocking shouldn't be used as an argument here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. Human enhancements within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as a violation of WP:NOT section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" subsection 1. This is entirely in-universe information, more suited to a fanwiki than an encyclopedia. There are no secondary sources at all, and no indication of any actual importance to anything outside the fictional universe. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks independent and reliable sourcing, so fails WP:N. Also violates WP:NOT since it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Written in an "in universe style." Edison (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep - no evidence of WP:BEFORE on part of nominator, and pending the result of the DRV for another Gundam Seed fictional items list. --Malkinann (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Redirects are cheep and editors can salvage any usable content in the future. Based on previous AfDs, its obvious that Anthem didn't attempt WP:BEFORE, particularly point 5. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged. —Farix (t | c) 01:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do follow WP:BEFORE. The operative word in that quote is "useful", and I can't imagine anyone typing "List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements" into the search bar. --Anthem 07:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The weapon names I can see as being possible redirects but not a whole list, Delete per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: What manner of procedure does Malkinann believe ought to have been done instead? (Let's leave aside the strong possibility that "Leave the article alone" would be the desired answer.) This is plainly in-universe information, extremely unlikely to have any out-of-universe reliable sourcing, and certainly lacking sourcing which discusses this particular subject in the "significant detail" required. Whatever result a DRV on another article has does not serve as an injunction on us coming to a decision on this one ... the more so in that the DRV was not proposed on the merits of the article - a decision DRV can't really make - but on whether the AfD was properly closed. (might as well cut and paste ...) Ravenswing 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BEFORE: "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged". Those three parts of WP:BEFORE are of the most concern to me in this AFD. As the AFD I referred to was on a similar topic, and the sources presented there were disregarded (apparently without anyone voting to delete reading the sources), I regard the DRV as being pertinent to this AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article was deleted because there was a consensus that those sources were terrible. --Anthem 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Are you sure? That's why that AFD is now at DRV. --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus should be on this article, are there any reliable sources someone can find that can cover the content of the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one, Otona no Gundam got some mention of this, mainstream and analytical as required by deletionists. I cannot think of any other secondary sources right now, so I am also leaning towards a merge to main article, with source(s) stating the story have a background of conflict between natural human and designer babies. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus should be on this article, are there any reliable sources someone can find that can cover the content of the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do. It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE.
Let's take the first sentence of your specific concern. For it to be at all valid, you would have to expect that substantive changes have been made in the article, with earlier versions having merits the current one lacks. A casual skip through the revision history shows, in fact, that the article has been largely unchanged throughout its six year history (and surprisingly so given the number of edits), with the biggest change being the removal of images. (Indeed, the vast majority of the edits seem to be made by fans of the series disagreeing with one another's interpretations.)
Let's take the second sentence. The nom says outright that "no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources" exist. No such sources are proffered in the article. No such sources have ever been proffered in the article. You do not, yourself, claim that any such sources exist, or have come up with any, and of course, you know that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain such material to provide them.
The last part? I see no reason to assume the nom didn't consider it ... and reject it. I would have done so myself. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? That's why that AFD is now at DRV. --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Not a plausible search term. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[7] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nonetheless, almost every editor responding in good faith has advocated the deletion of the article. Do you consider this AfD "disruptive," and if so, what makes it so? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the main Gundam SEED article. This really isn't given much attention in the show itself except as background information and thus it's general noteability to the wider world is questionable at best. Jtrainor (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again what reader is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The search term with the wording is unlikely. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Freegold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability demonstrated . All sources which use the word Freegold are from a single blogger. All other refs make no mention of Freegold but talk about related monetary issues. Looks like a particular blogger neologism and original research Velella Velella Talk 19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete an absolute mess of original research, terrible writing and non-notable concepts. I edited out the author's attempts to talk to other editors in the main body of the text itself, but left the "lack of sources" section intact because I'm not sure exactly what it was referring to. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I completely agree that the references cited do not validate the concept of freegold at all. Tashif (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the author; The concept freegold is quite hard to understand, as explained in the article. Meaning the references are - to most people - found difficult to digest and understand, let alone if they are superficially scanned. Example: the works of Another, Foa and Fofoa combined (see article) are 10 years worth of high level macro economic and geopolitical writing, to fully explain freegold. That all may leave the impression the references are single sourced or found unverifiable. Another example to illustrate my point: who can actually read the balance sheet of one of the world's most important central banks? Everyone can read the numbers, but how many people can interpret the numbers, let alone reason what that means in a monetary sense in various economical conditions? On the discussion I do appreciate arguments to be specific. Rd2c (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not OR exactly, because the theory does exist outside Wikipedia, but only as the postings of anonymous bloggers, placing their own work on the web. We go by the sources, not the intrinsic merit of the theories, and these postings are a classic example of unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why would you delete it ?! The anonymous blogger was Ferdinand Lips, he passed away, and that is why he stopped writing. F.L. could not use his initials because he had too much influence in the creation of the Euro. If you want source : add the book : Gold Wars. (Gold Wars. The Battle Against Sound Money. As Seen From A Swiss Perspective) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.108.84 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added ref, thanks. Rd2c (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Elie Moises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, simply being non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I appreciate all editors' comments, and while I do agree that guidelines are only guidelines, I don't think that YouTube hits/Google hits help. Algorithmic search results, while useful, rarely prove notability; see here. m.o.p 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a declined G4. Sources and content have improved over the last two years, but I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. I was unable to locate significant, substantial coverage meeting the WP:GNG and would like the community to look over what sourcing is available in case I missed something. Dlohcierekim 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep − The subject seems notable given the fact that his area of music is not main stream. He has several releases with Armada Music, which is well known trance label based in the Netherlands. A quick search on Youtube brings up many hits. I'm confident that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good start. But do we have reliable sources giving significant coverage. Can we be sure of Armada meeting WP:Music? Dlohcierekim 13:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only necessary to meet one criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. Having released a record on a major label is enough to suggest notability. I get more than 3 million hits when I google "Armada music".
- Delete - no non-trivial, independent coverage has been presented; what is there are things like this or like this, which are meaningless in terms of sourcing for articles. That he's released a single with Armada is thus far irrelevant (see WP:GHITS for why the claimed importance of that label remains undemonstrated), and in any case, WP:MUSICBIO requires having released "two or more" albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels, and even then, the subject "may be" (not "is") notable. Mr. Pit has a long way to go before he reaches even that threshold. - Biruitorul Talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't his record label independent? He's clearly influential in his area, e.g. take a look here. Also, he seems to have released four records with the label, not just one or two. Searching for him on Youtube brings up many hits including live recordings from large American dance events. This isn't some teen rock band playing out of their mum's garage. He's an international act. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the releases mentioned in the article are signed to some of the most notable Trance Music labels. Here is a source from the independent record label Spinnin Records showing an upcoming release by the subject. In addition, you could also check the DJ Mag review of one of the subject's track. Wkpdinfo (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I ignored it the first time you mentioned it, but it bears repeating now that this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", and so Youtube searches have nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you want to argue that a corporate biography from his publisher constitutes evidence he passes one WP:MUSICBIO criterion, which would thus imply he may be notable, fine, but let's leave the Youtube searches out of the discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but they do. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. Apply the rule of common sense. The Youtube videos give evidence of his activities. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", so a Youtube search can never indicate notability or lack thereof. It's your right to dismiss WP:RS, but you're in a distinct minority in doing so, and consensus is against you. (You want to try citing one of those videos at WP:FAC and see if the article gets promoted?) Also, WP:V happens to be a policy, one that stresses at length how we should avoid "sources" of the nature you're touting. Indeed, you haven't even tried to point to a particular video as evidence of notability, but have merely made airy references to "Youtube searches". I'm surprised anyone should think that would have any contextual relevance in this discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop passing judgements about me and my motives. I am not dismissing WP:RS. I am suggesting that we suppliant it with common sense. You refuse to apply the rule of common sense and instead hide behind the guidelines. A classic case of WP:LAWYER. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop giving me orders, for a change, and stop seeing things that aren't there. Either we are a project based on reliable, published sources, or we admit whatever spamlinks and cruft Fly by Night may consider it's "common sense" to do so, and tarnish those who wish to uphold a higher standard as "lawyering", "hiding behind the guidelines" and "passing judgements". I choose the former. - Biruitorul Talk 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh the sweet irony. You order me to stop giving you orders. Sir, yes Sir. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop giving me orders, for a change, and stop seeing things that aren't there. Either we are a project based on reliable, published sources, or we admit whatever spamlinks and cruft Fly by Night may consider it's "common sense" to do so, and tarnish those who wish to uphold a higher standard as "lawyering", "hiding behind the guidelines" and "passing judgements". I choose the former. - Biruitorul Talk 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop passing judgements about me and my motives. I am not dismissing WP:RS. I am suggesting that we suppliant it with common sense. You refuse to apply the rule of common sense and instead hide behind the guidelines. A classic case of WP:LAWYER. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", so a Youtube search can never indicate notability or lack thereof. It's your right to dismiss WP:RS, but you're in a distinct minority in doing so, and consensus is against you. (You want to try citing one of those videos at WP:FAC and see if the article gets promoted?) Also, WP:V happens to be a policy, one that stresses at length how we should avoid "sources" of the nature you're touting. Indeed, you haven't even tried to point to a particular video as evidence of notability, but have merely made airy references to "Youtube searches". I'm surprised anyone should think that would have any contextual relevance in this discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but they do. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. Apply the rule of common sense. The Youtube videos give evidence of his activities. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't his record label independent? He's clearly influential in his area, e.g. take a look here. Also, he seems to have released four records with the label, not just one or two. Searching for him on Youtube brings up many hits including live recordings from large American dance events. This isn't some teen rock band playing out of their mum's garage. He's an international act. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep − All Mr. Pit Coldharbour Recordings releases are still under Armada Music whose sublabel it is. I'm also confident subject meets WP:MUSICBIO having work appeareances on notable compilation albums in his area of music, I also found these links Wkpdinfo (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)— Wkpdinfo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dlohcierekim 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlohcierekim, that's a bit harsh. The account was only registered three days ago. Almost all new accounts do exactly that. New editors edit articles in subjects they know the most about before broadening their horizons. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe they're just here to self-promote, with no intention of actually contributing anything else to the project? - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wondering if your point of view is neutral due to the fact you contributed significant on the deletion of the first version of this article. As mentioned in the debating article, the subject's works are featured on notable album compilations, which are separate featured as distinct Wikipedia articles, his work is reviewed by (at least) a notable electronic music magazine, those arguments should be enough for subject to meet WP:MUSICBIO, still according to that, failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Besides that, Google returns over 1.8 milion hits for Mr. Pit. As long as for this example, the reference is valid, the same website source should be considered notable for the subject of this article. Nevertheless, thinking about the article is self-promotion is not a neutral thinking but a strong reason to believe that is negativism. Wkpdinfo (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe they're just here to self-promote, with no intention of actually contributing anything else to the project? - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article's only response to previous comments on lack of independent sources: spamlinks and cruft. No, these o not show notability, just persistence, and a disregard for the spirit of our WP:RS policies. Not to mention the letter of our WP:MUSIC requirements. Dahn (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I was able to add two citations to the article but they do little more than verify his existence. PROD declined by someone who thought it deserved more review. Hut 8.5 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have added 8 citations from reliable sources; I don't understand why they have not been updated to the page when I search for it - have to look at revisions to see the now fully sourced page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.102.162 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the citations you've provided don't constitute significant third-party coverage, but the reference from The Times is a lot more substantial, so I'm withdrawing this nomination. Hut 8.5 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maxwelltown Thistle FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Amateur association football club that does not meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG or WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, team has not competed at a high enough level to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete team hasn't competed at a high enough level to be considered notable.Zanoni (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. A couple of external links as references, but still no significant coverage found. No career history in fully professional leagues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jannes Vansteenkiste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks significant third party coverage, career doesn't include playing in a professional league, WP:NFOOTBALL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Van Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, simply non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALLZanoni (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as non-notable footballer. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimmy De Jonghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Meunier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALLZanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fries Deschilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Elfar Freyr Helgason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully por league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Icelandic top league which is not fully pro and therefore does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom, per above, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as simply non-notable footballer. Seemingly no career history in fully professional leagues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Art of War 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Routine sports coverage. Event involved some notable fighters, but was held by a non-notable (now defunct) promotion. Page contents already appear on the AOW page, so merging is not necessary if promotion page is retained. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete This article just reports the results of a an event and mere results are not notable. Non notable event from a defunct and lower echelon promotion. Jakejr (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article just reports the results of a an event and mere results are not notable. It is a event from a defunct organization with little in the way of content, other than posting the results. It doesn't meet basic criteria to be notable, and the one source for the article is the organizations website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.202 (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010–11 Bishop's Stortford F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather funny one, all the info basically copied from the article 2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season, also it was agreed that clubs below hte Conference National are deemed not notable enough for a season article. LiamTaylor 15:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the nonsense which was copy & pasted from the Arsenal article has been removed now, leaving pretty much nothing of worth. This article fails WP:GNG, and also goes against consensus at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Bishop's Stortford do not play at a high enough level to merit season articles. Not to mention the articles is completely unreferenced and has almost no content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Goes against consensus WP:FOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marina Mandarin Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent non-notable building, no assertions or proof of notability in article. Per WP:GNG there is apparently no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" since the single cited reference is to the building's entry in the Emporis database. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I have already mentioned in the edit history: "A building of this size and height can easily be the tallest in smaller cities. Hardly a non-notable building, and the article is not a business-directory in any way." The building was featured as one of the structures of the multi-block complex called Marina Square in a major exhibition and a corresponding book[8] on significant Singaporean architecture by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. To call this long-standing landmark a "non-notable building" is completely ludicrous, for even if you are going to insist it mainly appears in thousands of travel-related sites (as it rightfully should anyway), no one can possibly ignore this massive high-rise structure when visiting Marina Bay, Singapore! Pictures speak a thousand words, so look at the first picture in this doc to get an idea of its physical prominence[9]. I am not sure how someone who do not even know which side Singaporeans drive on[10] could insist on coming to the conclusion that this is an "apparent non-notable building"?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No need to question the nominator's knowledgeability (it was an innocent mistake). A simple Google image search will tell you the building is not a little compound in the middle of nowhere. I found some coverage of it here (will add that to the article later). There are numerous articles in Wikipedia far less deserving of being here than a pretty prominent building in the middle of a pretty important city. Why pick this fight? - Yk3 talk · contrib 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like it easily meets WP:GNG and so on. I added a couple sources to the article, it has a potential for much more though. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Tunnicliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD; this is a non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 14:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – PeeJay 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. Those arguing it's inevitable he will be, please see this and consider what would happen if he had a silly accident tomorrow that ended his chances of ever playing professional sport. As soon as he plays 1 second of notable football, he's notable. Until then... he's not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shubham chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been nuked before... let's discuss this: real? hoax? notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax copied by a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shubham7872891640) from Ray_William_Johnson. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dušan Kenić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Dietrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - there are not reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this fictional character. There are certainly sources that mention the character and that establish the existence of the character but existence is not notability. Article amounts to a description of the character's appearance in the television series, a glorified plot description in violation of WP:PLOT. PROD removed with no explanation and link to an obituary for the actor who played the character added, but the obituary is of course about the actor and not the character. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A straightforward Google Books search shows that this character has been referenced by multiple independent sources--sometimes just in an encyclopedia, other times commenting more extensively on the character. The GNG is met, the article needs to be improved to incorporate such sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage independent of the actor who played the character. --Anthem 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)- Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [11]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - GNG is met.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article only provides one reference to a primary source, an interview with the actor that portrayed the character, Steve Landesberg, but doesn't show that the rest of content was no extracted with original research by synthesis. Furthermore, a search engine test does not show evidence that the fictional character is covered in reliable third-party sources. All that shows up are unreliable sources or trivial mentions in tertiary sources, but there is no evidence that secondary sources make analytic or evaluative claims for the fictional character, so there is no objective evidence of notability. With no evidence of presumed notability and since the article falls into what Wikipedia is not because it doesn't provide reception and significance for the fictional character, I don't see a good reason to keep the article around. Jfgslo (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Teeboy Kamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Not notable, fails WP:NSOCCER, has not played at a fully professional or senior international level. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable footballer. Keb25 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails WP:NSOCCER. LibStar (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable youth footballer per WP:NSPORT. No indication he meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - he's also a minor, so a fairly high standard of notability is needed to justify an article, and that clearly isn't the case (at the moment at least). Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A rather obvious case, clear fail at WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonio Pastorino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NTENNIS. Has not played in a Challenger, forget won one, or been in an ATP World Tour match. SellymeTalk 04:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Meets no wikipedia tennis guideline for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - His match record shows no indication of him meeting any of the criteria for WP:NTENNIS. News coverage consists of match results and no significant coverage about him that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When I searched online for anything mentioning him, nothing panned out. He doesn't even have a formal official website. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WITHDRAWN. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Portuguese contemporary art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable concept, no reliable independent references. Contested prod, seems to be a promotion for a particular gallery. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-notable concept?" Did you follow WP:BEFORE, or just base this AFD off of the current state of the article? We should seriously doubt there is no notable contemporary art, notable contemporary art institutions, or notable contemporary artists in any European or First World nation. Some sources found from a quick English search: [12], [13], [14]. And I doubt there are no newspapers or magazines in Portugal reporting on its art. See also pt:Arte contemporânea em Portugal; though unsourced at present, we should have someone try to translate that for en: at least as a starting point for developing a sourced article. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve There is a clear place for an article on contemporary art in Portugal. A Google search turns up 2 catalogue books on the topic: "Contemporary art from Portugal: 5.December 2002 - 14 March 2003" (ISBN 9291813354), "Contemporary art from Portugal: works from the collection of the Luso-American Development Foundation, Embassy of Portugal--Chancery : Washington D.C., July to December 2007" (ISBN 9728654251). This article was created yesterday morning by a new user; there's an opportunity to assist towards a decent article rather than delete. AllyD (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Absurd, arguably racist nomination. Clearly a basic part of wikipedia's coverage of Portuguese art. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Georgi Stefanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, and is completely unreferenced. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, non-notable player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Having never played in a fully pro league, and without significant coverage, he fails both WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, clearly non-notable footballer per WP:NFOOTBALL. Not really any reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete several sources now but none which are reliable sources. The team he plays for PFC Botev Plovdiv, is below what is required in Bulgaria to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Minister of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is mostly original synthesis. As the article points out, there is no prime minister of the US, and the title has been occasionally used satirically, or incorrectly by foreigners. While there are several references showing individuals being referred to or referring to themselves by this title, there is no significant coverage of the title itself in reliable sources, leading to the overall concept of this article failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 11:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - how did this survive previous deletion debates? There is no Prime Minister of the United States and the occasional usage or misusage of the terms a handful of times over the course of more than two centuries of American history doesn't warrant inclusion. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is full of original research, synthesis and unreferenced claims. The one inline reference (that Obama was once called the Prime Minister by a foreign newspaper, is broken as are some of the external links. The occasional joking reference to Dick Cheney or some other functionary as a "Prime Minister" does not justify an encyclopedia article about a nonexistent office. Fails notability and verifiability. Edison (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is a ton of work that remains to be done in the field of US history on Wikipedia. Clearly this page is the product of a talented content creator. This is an original essay, though, and that's a nunt-uh... Nobody is going to be searching this phrase anyway, it's a non-starter. So, kudos for the effort and here's hoping the creator dusts themselves off and goes on to great things at Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20-Mule-Team Delete: Well ... this survived the VfD in 2003 because the process, at the time, was crap, and all manner of turgid rationales were given equal time in what was, then, nothing more than a head count.
It survived the AfD in 2008 because the closing nom dropped the ball, IMHO, and gave such stellar rationales such as "article has some structure and content, example has hundreds of google hits. There are far more unnotable topics around at WP," "Most countries in the world have a prime minister," "The material is interesting," "Office obviously doesn't exist but term is notable" equal weight with the obvious retorts that this is a non-existent office for which not a single damn source is proffered, reliable or otherwise.
Of course, no sources exist which might discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and and the article is chockful of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX violations ... if it avoids WP:BULLSHIT outright, which I don't believe it does. Keeping this once was a matter of blindness. Keeping it twice was a travesty. Keeping it again would be insanity. Ravenswing 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't need an article for an ironic turn of phrase. In this case, even worse, the turn of phrase is not particularly common, nor is the article sourced. If someone wanted to do OR on it, then an outlet outside Wiki would be better.TCO (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although there is some interesting information here I agree its mostly original research and subjective analysis. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as it only serves to confuse. We don't have President of Canada, President of the United Kingdom, President of Australia etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: Appears to be a mashup of largely unrelated facts. However, it probably should be redirected to something Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Occasional mentions of the term as a sort of neologism does not a Wikipedia article make. First Light (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [15]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the overabundance of keep !votes, I've had to carefully read this AfD several times and review each editor. Many editors have arrived here due to a "Call for help". Reading the keeps, it appears many use the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, or WP:CRYSTALBALL type rationale. The sources provided by the keeps contain blogs, forums, primary sources, or minor self-published Amiga "news" sites. The delete rationale has been supported by policy. The article fails WP:GNG. Specifically, there are no reliable sources that are independant of the subject. I would like to remind editors not to try to WP:CANVASS support from off-wiki and to support their rationale with policy. v/r - TP 23:13, 18 June 2011 (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}} . |
- Natami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:N. It has two references to Natami's vendor, which cannot evidence notability as they are not independent of the subject and its creator. The further reading section has a link to a personal website, which is does not meet WP:RS. Google Web returns 373 results for "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum; and limiting the results to English, there are 299. Most of the results appear to be irrelevant (they are Wikipedia mirrors or about something else) and the relevant results do not meet WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references. I just added info about the MX boards + a reference, I might add more references later on. --Marko75 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference added is a forum discussion. It is not a reliable source per WP:RS and therefore is not evidence of notability. Rilak (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok fair enough regarding that ref. I've now added the quote with Dave Haynie mentioned below, I might add yet more if good refs emerges. --Marko75 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Natami mainboard, in its various guises has been an integral part, not only of the Amiga scene, but also in the general retro computing landscape. Anyone reading through the internet about the Amiga and home brew retro computers will certainly come across the name 'Natami', and the Wikipedia page will ensure correct, factual information is offered when the reader searches for it. I have reviewed the article before editing this page, and I find no fault with it, as at today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.70.189 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amiga fansites and other venues already have information about the Natami. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the standard for inclusion is whether the topic is encyclopedic and whether it is notable or not. Arguing that the article should be kept so that people can find information about it is not an argument against the reason the article is here at AfD, which is Natami's lack of WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While there might not be that much references, since product is not done yet, and community talking about natami is small, it definetily is notable enough. Many Amigans have said in Forums that this is only new Amiga they are intrested in. Also Dave Haynie (one of the original Commodore techie guys behind some of the original Amigas) have also said that from current new amigas (Pegasos, X1000, Sam, Natami), Natami is only one having true Amiga spirit in it, and in his opinion is most interesting of them all (later edit: [16]). There are lots of talk among Amigans on Amiga forums about Natami, also Amiga Future (print Amiga magazine) have had several times space for Natami news and stuff. Although notable only for a small group (at max 10s of thousands), it definetily is notable. --Bugala (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that the subject has little coverage because it is not yet available is questionable given the fact the article is quite detailed. That means the information is out there, but remains unnoticed by reliable publications, suggesting the lack of notability. Regarding what Amiga fans are saying in forums, it is irrelevant to the question of notability, since it is not coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. What David Haynie is alleged to have said about Natami is irrelevant, unless it can be verified. The coverage in Amiga Future could evidence notability, but unless the necessary details are provided so that other editors can assess the coverage, the statement that there is coverage is just an assertion. Rilak (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here is some of the coverage from Amiga Future [17]. The project has also had extensive news and article coverage on Amiga sites and webmags such as PPA.pl, Amiga-Impact, Obligement, Safir, Amiga.org, Amigaworld and several other sites. I can dig up further links if you require it. I would judge the notability of the Natami as equal to several other FPGA console or home computer clones having Wikipedia articles, such as FireBee/Atari Coldfire Project [18], Minimig [19] or 1chipMSX [20]. See also the main Wikipedia category page for these types of projects: [21]. Most of of your criticism (sole sources are primary sources or forum posts/blog posts) also apply to many of these pages, but I do not think that is reason enough for marking them for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliability of Amiga Future is questionable. Who publishes it? Why does it appear to not have an ISSN? Why does it not appear in the catalogs of major libraries? Regarding notability, it is determined by the amount of coverage a subject receives in reliable and independent secondary sources. It is irrelevant whether you consider it to be notable. The fact that there are articles on Wikipedia at present that are similar to Natami is also irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're grasping at straws. The website has an impressum as required by German law. This is accessible on every page of the site in the sidebar. Here it is: [22]. It lists the company and tax identification numbers of the publisher, as well as the people involved in the creation of the magazine. It is not in the catalogs of major libraries because it is a small specialist computer magazine - I've known a ton of niche magazines that are definitive for their niches that are still not carried by the vast majority of major libraries. An ISSN is no indication of reliability, but in this case an indication of the niche nature of it - an ISSN would not confer them any advantages. You keep moving the goalposts, and seem curiously passionate about getting rid of this article. Anyway, here is another link for you to complain about: [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to be rude. I was requesting additional information about the magazine for the benefit of everyone in this discussion; information that could support the claim that Amiga Future is a reliable source just as easily as it could support the claim that it is not. Surely you don't think that just because it is a magazine that it therefore must meet WP:RS? I am being through and I think that it's relevant to the discussion.
- Now, you say that having an ISSN is no indication of reliability. You're right. But you mistakenly assume that I thought so. An ISSN infers no such thing; every junk magazine has an ISSN, or at least so in my region. I also observe that plenty of other magazines from all over the world have ISSNs. So if the very worst of magazines have an ISSN, and one does not, is it not reasonable to question its reliability?
- Regarding the book in the ACM Digital Library, it is most interesting. ACM DL says the full title is: Amiga: History of the Amiga, Amiga models and variants, AmigaOS 4, Emulation on the Amiga, Amiga software, Amiga games, Aminet, AROS Research Operating ... Hold-And-Modify, Minimig, MorphOS, Natami.[24] What is unusual about it? It's a bit long for a book title is it not? Let's look a bit deeper. Its ISBNs are 6130264240 and 9786130264246. Now what do we get when we search Google Books for these ISBNs? This is what we get. Notice that it says that the book is published by VDM Publishing House Ltd.? What is VDM Publishing? It is a vanity press. It has no editorial review, no peer review, and worse, it is a republisher of Wikipedia content. The question is now, is the said book in question just copied Wikipedia articles? Let's look at the evidence: Look at the previous link, it has a description of what that book is about. Now look at [25], the last revision of the Amiga article of 2009, which is the year the book in question was published. Notice any similarities between the lede the article and the book's description? It's just like Wikipedia isn't it? Let's look at what the alleged authors have also written: "Frederic+P+Miller" "Agnes+F+Vandome" "John+McBrewster". These authors have written about a diverse range of subjects, no? A bit suspicious is it not? Could it be that they are not real authors, but creations of VDM Publishing? The answer is yes, and this fact is well known amongst Wikipedians: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#VDM_Publishing_House. Now the question is, will you portray this as Natami hate? Rilak (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're grasping at straws. The website has an impressum as required by German law. This is accessible on every page of the site in the sidebar. Here it is: [22]. It lists the company and tax identification numbers of the publisher, as well as the people involved in the creation of the magazine. It is not in the catalogs of major libraries because it is a small specialist computer magazine - I've known a ton of niche magazines that are definitive for their niches that are still not carried by the vast majority of major libraries. An ISSN is no indication of reliability, but in this case an indication of the niche nature of it - an ISSN would not confer them any advantages. You keep moving the goalposts, and seem curiously passionate about getting rid of this article. Anyway, here is another link for you to complain about: [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think just anything would qualify. I got a bit exasperated because between this and your other comments, it seemed to me that you were trying very hard to find reasons to delete, and the link to the impressum is in the sidebar of the pages previously linked to. As a long time reader of Amiga Future, it is also annoying to see it's reliability questioned, as while it most definitively is a small niche magazine it's consistently seemed fair and balanced within its subject area to me (though I'm not expecting you to take my word for it).
- If the very worst magazines have ISSN's, how does it follows that the lack of one makes it reasonable to question reliability? A quick search shows that's all that is needed in Germany is to fill in a form. Given that this seems to give some illusion of reliability with people like you, despite the fact that you claim that you don't see it as an indicator of reliability, would it not be more reasonable to assume that all the unreliable, questionable magazines would be extra concerned about obtaining one?
- No, I won't because that detective work is perfectly reasonable, and good catch. If all your objections were based on stuff like this, I don't think anyone would have any problems with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you consider Deutsche Nationalbibliothek as "major library" [26] :-) --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the German National Library is a major library. Admittedly, my initial searches failed to find it. Thanks for pointing that out. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you consider Deutsche Nationalbibliothek as "major library" [26] :-) --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable, it's one of millions of electronics projects that hasn't even been completed. Wikipedia is not a place for Amiga (or any other kind of) evangelism. Koft (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It isn't even in manufacture and has demonstrated no notability. Velella Velella Talk 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While the article does need some work the subject I think it's notable. Zac67 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not establish notability per WP:ILIKEIT. Rilak (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep its available to developers now and consumers by the end of the year of 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.41.169 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The availability of the product is irrelevant to its notability. Notability is solely dependent of the amount of coverage a subject has received in independent, reliable secondary sources per WP:N. An unreleased product can be notable and a released product not notable. It could be argued that if a product is likely to become notable when released, since more information will be available, then the benefit of the doubt should be given, but this is not the case since the article is already detailed. The information is all out there, but no publication has deemed it worthy of covering. Rilak (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's not complete, but it's approximately as far along as the X1000, which nobody seems to be contesting the notability of. Wikipedia might not be "a place for Amiga evangelism," but this article is not at all evangelistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodorejohn (talk • contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that nobody is contesting the notability of the X1000, a similar product, is irrelevant to this discussion. The notability of Natami (or the lack of) exists independently of the X1000. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's notable enough to have been mentioned in micro mart magazine several times in the past year alone. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only this year, but as far back as Micro Mart issue 31 March 26th 2008. Micro Mart as a major UK computer mag having regular coverage of the project is a strong argument for this article being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Micro Mart has been covering the project regularly (in its print edition, in articles rather than adverts and/or online by its editorial staff rather than its readers) and the coverage has been providing substantive information about Natami (and doing more than simply reproducing Natami press releases), then that may well establish notability - if at least some of the information that Micro Mart has been providing is added to the article and sourced back to Micro Mart. I'm not in a position to do this as I don't have copies of Micro Mart - anyone who does, please edit the article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've not seen such a complete and well thought out fan based extension to the hardware of any computing platform before Natami. Sure, mini versions of some retro machines have been made (The C64 in a joystick for example) and FPGA based remakes, but to extend the hardware in the way the Natami team is doing, that's truly remarkable and beyond a doubt is notable. To do so for the love of it is a demonstration of the sheer devotion the Amiga platform inspires too, notable in the context of the social impact computing platforms can have upon individuals, or is sociology and psychology not covered by wikipedia. A notable enough product for sure, I'm quite frankly shocked that anyone would see it otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.188.201 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of a product, how remarkable it is, and what its fans think of it are not criteria for meeting WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's a hobby project outside the scope of Wikipedia. That being said, I'm going to buy one when and if they are available.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.58.235 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Natami is interesting project in both historical and technological sense - it aims to recreate and improve hardware concepts of one of the most popular computers of the 80s/90s. None of the presented arguments are strong enough to justify deletion.--Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the issue is WP:N, it is WP:ITSINTERESTING that is not strong enough to justify inclusion. Rilak (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right point. However I can offer other reason for keep. Progress of the Natami project is monitored in global scale: eg. news sites in the Czech Republic [27] [28], Germany [29], Hungary [30], Poland [31] and of course international sites [32], I can also cite magazine Amiga Future (n. 73, May 2011) [33] --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at these sites, it is questionable as to whether they are reliable sources or not. What is a "news site"? Is it any site that offers news? If it is, then yes, these are news sites, just like unreliable self-published sources such as blogs. But if "news site" means Ars Technica, CNet News, or the site of a newspaper or a news magazine, then these sites are not news sites. Regarding amigaportal.cz, the "About This Site" page claims that the site was created by fans. Regarding powerpc.lukysoft.cz, it's an AmigaOS user group. Regarding amiga-news.de, it appears to says nothing about itself. Regarding retrocomputer.tux.hu, it looks like a blog. Regarding ppa.pl, its "About Us" page claims that it is a portal serving Amiga users, and that it publishes what appears to be a fanzine (since its staff does not appear to publish it professionally; as in paid as a job). Regarding amigaworld.net, [34] says it is a community portal. None of these sites look like reliable sources. Amiga Future is the only actual magazine, but its reliability is still unknown. Rilak (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the pile-on from two individuals below attacking and attempting to divert attention away from my own comments about Amiga Future, it is a published magazine with an editorial staff, which makes it a clear reliable source. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at these sites, it is questionable as to whether they are reliable sources or not. What is a "news site"? Is it any site that offers news? If it is, then yes, these are news sites, just like unreliable self-published sources such as blogs. But if "news site" means Ars Technica, CNet News, or the site of a newspaper or a news magazine, then these sites are not news sites. Regarding amigaportal.cz, the "About This Site" page claims that the site was created by fans. Regarding powerpc.lukysoft.cz, it's an AmigaOS user group. Regarding amiga-news.de, it appears to says nothing about itself. Regarding retrocomputer.tux.hu, it looks like a blog. Regarding ppa.pl, its "About Us" page claims that it is a portal serving Amiga users, and that it publishes what appears to be a fanzine (since its staff does not appear to publish it professionally; as in paid as a job). Regarding amigaworld.net, [34] says it is a community portal. None of these sites look like reliable sources. Amiga Future is the only actual magazine, but its reliability is still unknown. Rilak (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right point. However I can offer other reason for keep. Progress of the Natami project is monitored in global scale: eg. news sites in the Czech Republic [27] [28], Germany [29], Hungary [30], Poland [31] and of course international sites [32], I can also cite magazine Amiga Future (n. 73, May 2011) [33] --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Retried on google search: "natami" gives 102000 results, "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum lists 15700 results, limited to English still 5980. Quite notable for me. The Natami Project itself is one of the first projects trying to enhance the Amiga hardwarewise. One might argue whether Amiga itself is still notable, but since it is, Natami should be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why there are so many results is that the first page of results always shows an inflated number of results. To get the true number, the easiest way is to set Google to return 100 results per page, redo the search, and click on page ten. Note this omits duplicates. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Tag me as SPA. The fact that I don't have a wikipedia account shouldn't autmatically qualify me as SPA. I made a lot of contributions in the past, and will do so in the future, without registration. For this very AfD debate I just questioned the numbers from the the topic starter and posted the results [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you coming here on an anon IP address, for which no other edits have ever been recorded, is precisely the definition of SPA ... the more so in that in our experience, the odds that an anon IP just happens to stumble across an AfD discussion as its very first edit are astonishingly low. That being said, someone heretofore familiar with Wikipedia - however anonymously - would know that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not count as "notable", for the sake of retaining articles, mere Google hits. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Despite the tidal wave of SPAs (which, of course, are coming here because people are urging them on an Amiga bulletin board in multiple topics to do so [36] [37]), this AfD can only be decided on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That a handful of remaining Amiga fanboys are excited about this is all very well and good, but in order to sustain a Wikipedia article, this must be covered in "significant detail" in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Could the fanboys cite any articles in mainstream media, newspapers, print magazines or coverage on TV or radio news programs? I wouldn't hold my breath. There is only one Google News hit in English [38], a blog post which gives this project a passing mention alone. Ravenswing 07:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "fanboys" already mentioned regular coverage in Micro Mart Magazine, a popular UK computer magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Odd, then, that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart Magazine's website turns up zero hits. [39] For a magazine which is described as the only one in the UK still reporting on the Amiga, that's rather a startling result, don't you think? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you're really so badly versed in how magazines operate to automatically assume that every product mentioned or described in print in a magazine will automatically show up on their web site, maybe you ought to stay out of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Topic is discussed on every major Amiga website, and a web search [40] gives thousands of results even after filtering away those Amiga websites; topic is clearly notable. Various coverage: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Leffmann (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are reasons why blogs don't generally count as reliable sources. As I asked before, can you cite any articles on the subject in mainstream media, newspapers, print magazines or coverage on TV or radio news programs? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 17:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is an excellent way for Wikipedia to become a total dinosaur, when you try to ignore primary sources and interviews with the people involved in a project in an environment where more and more information is going online-only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Micro Mart Magazine. I should point out that magazines do not give out the entire content on their website. That is why you haven't gotten a hit searching it. If you really, really want to see proof, contact Sven Harvey, the writer of the Amiga Mart column. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige. 82.42.35.60 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I would not count on Micro Mart column. It covers every possible (and impossible) event in Amiga land. Could you please provide issue and page number and maybe some quote from his Micro Mart Magazine column? Or is it just hearsay? Xorxos (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Amiga#Amiga hardware clones. At the very least, the article needs tons of cleanup. All the "specs" must be removed, since they are cut-n-paste from the vendor, and thus either advertising or copyright violations. Probably worth one or two sentences in the main article to summarize. That is, worth mentioning, but not with an entire stand-alone article if not independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." What is your source for this statement? If you've ever done this sort of design work you would know that this is not true at all. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FPGA clones are relatively easy compared to full custom design. Rilak (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, only if we are talking about a CPU implementation. An entire board design isn't a FPGA-based CPU. Again, what is your source? This interview makes it pretty clear that a lot of developer time has gone into this project. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's not just a CPU. But it is the CPU that is the most complex part of a design. And so what if lots of time went into it? What has the amount of effort got to do with anything? Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia? Rilak (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? Based on your statements so far, you've clearly not done this sort of design work.
"What has the amount of effort got to do with anything?" The amount of effort is being discussed here because you attempted to downplay the amount of development time which has apparently gone into this particular project.
"Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia?" Oh you should know better than to try to put words in my mouth in an attempt to discredit me... The amount of interest people outside of Wikipedia seem to have in this project is important. It shows that this project is important to the larger Amiga community and is worth covering in a halfway decent fashion here on Wikipedia. I suspect we will eventually begin to see coverage given to this project in computer books (the publication process is very slow) such as what happened with a particular Commodore 64 reimplementation. On a related note, can you name another computer platform as old as the Amiga which still has the large userbase that the Amiga has? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? Based on your statements so far, you've clearly not done this sort of design work.
- I know it's not just a CPU. But it is the CPU that is the most complex part of a design. And so what if lots of time went into it? What has the amount of effort got to do with anything? Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia? Rilak (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, only if we are talking about a CPU implementation. An entire board design isn't a FPGA-based CPU. Again, what is your source? This interview makes it pretty clear that a lot of developer time has gone into this project. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FPGA clones are relatively easy compared to full custom design. Rilak (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." What is your source for this statement? If you've ever done this sort of design work you would know that this is not true at all. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami (none of which are relevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), I see what you did. You've taken my statement completely out of context and misconstrued it into "Rilak has something against the Natami". This is what I said: "A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not."[47] Does the first sentence say that a merge is not appropriate? No, it says that it might not be appropriate. Regarding the second sentence, "home computer" != Natami. Regarding the third sentence, "Amiga clone" != Natami. Also in the third sentence, I asked whether every clone deserved a mention in Wikipedia, and I expressed my opinion that not every clone does, which does mean that Natami is necessarily one of those clones. So essentially, I was pushing for more consideration into the appropriateness of merging in the face of the often-stated, but sometimes poorly considered merge option. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami [...]" Sorry, but no, I'm not currently that interested in this subject, so your accusations are misplaced. Quite frankly, I'm actually much more interested in why you seem to dislike this subject so much. I find your view that NatAmi (apparently, the article is misnamed) is undue weight and should not have any sort of coverage here on Wikipedia at all quite curious. Your view seems to be quite flawed given the apparent popularity of this project within the Amiga community.
As for your view of "It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." ...you still keep dodging and refusing provide a source for your statement. This leads to the natural conclusion that you simply made it up.
Egads mate, put on some clothes! --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami [...]" Sorry, but no, I'm not currently that interested in this subject, so your accusations are misplaced. Quite frankly, I'm actually much more interested in why you seem to dislike this subject so much. I find your view that NatAmi (apparently, the article is misnamed) is undue weight and should not have any sort of coverage here on Wikipedia at all quite curious. Your view seems to be quite flawed given the apparent popularity of this project within the Amiga community.
- From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami (none of which are relevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), I see what you did. You've taken my statement completely out of context and misconstrued it into "Rilak has something against the Natami". This is what I said: "A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not."[47] Does the first sentence say that a merge is not appropriate? No, it says that it might not be appropriate. Regarding the second sentence, "home computer" != Natami. Regarding the third sentence, "Amiga clone" != Natami. Also in the third sentence, I asked whether every clone deserved a mention in Wikipedia, and I expressed my opinion that not every clone does, which does mean that Natami is necessarily one of those clones. So essentially, I was pushing for more consideration into the appropriateness of merging in the face of the often-stated, but sometimes poorly considered merge option. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Yes, the Amiga is a notable article, and one can argue that by extension so is NatAmi. However, there is too little verifiable information outside the project for the NatAmi article to stand on it´s own. However, like it´s been pointed out it´s important info both from a "post-Amiga" point of view, and retro scene/homebrew point of view. Deleting this article will seem both random and strangely motivated in that light. Arnljot76 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amiga is notable, Natami is an Amiga clone, therefore Natami is notable? No, absolutely not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rilak (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Amiga. Otherwise not notable and should be deleted. Yworo (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for sources mentioned above, this post by Dave Haynie is reliable and may be quoted in the article (just as we do with other experts in their field). This review with one of the developers is also reliable for facts about NatAmi.
The issue here isn't that we don't have any reliable sources for the purposes of verifiability. The sole issue seems to be that NatAmi has not yet been covered in Amiga-related books which are indexed by Google Books (which tends to lead to FUTON bias). That said, given the Amiga community's interest in NatAmi, it certainly deserves some form of decent coverage here on Wikipedia, be it a standalone article or merged as part of Amiga#Amiga hardware clones (or elsewhere).
The main question which comes to mind for me at least (and should be the question others ask as well), is how would the deletion of verifiable information which is integral to our coverage of Amiga help improve Wikipedia? In this specific case, I would be tempted to cite our ignore all rules policy in response to the notability guideline argument because it is apparent that NatAmi is important to the coverage of Amiga and will eventually be covered in published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In reviewing this review in Amiga Future ([48] [49]) linked above, it looks like Wikipedia's notability guideline isn't a barrier either. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:RS lately? No forum post is ever reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry. The expert exception only applies to sites published and maintained by the expert, such as their own blog. Material in forums and blogs which do not belong to the expert are still not considered reliable. Yworo (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usenet posts, forum posts, emails from email lists, etc from experts in their field may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia (WP:SPS). You already know this because we've done this with quotes from Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, and many many others. Regardless, this review in Amiga Future mentioned above is reliable [50] (despite the novel use of phpBB for content aggregation). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, they have to be self-published, i.e. the expert must be the publisher as well as the author of the content. That's implicit in the concept of "self-published sources". As for Linus Torvalds, etc., I have never ever used email, forums, or any other such unreliable sources, though perhaps you have. Nearly everything important can be found in reliable sources. I disagree with the use of such sources on Linux and related articles. Any use of such sources should be replaced with reliable sources. However, choosing ones battles is an important concept and I simply haven't chosen to pursue correcting this issue on articles for which the subject is obviously notable. This subject, on the other hand, simply does not have enough mainstream reliable sources to establish notability. One interview in Amiga Future is IMO not adequate to meet even the general notability guideline. "Multiple sources are generally expected." Yworo (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misquoting WP:SPS, Tothwolf. "[S]self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Such sources are only acceptable under the condition Yworo cites, and the "experts" must themselves be the subject of multiple, third-party reliable sources. That being said, unless you're suggesting that these particular bloggers qualify - and if so, kindly supply the evidence that they do - this is nothing but a smokescreen. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usenet posts, forum posts, emails from email lists, etc from experts in their field may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia (WP:SPS). You already know this because we've done this with quotes from Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, and many many others. Regardless, this review in Amiga Future mentioned above is reliable [50] (despite the novel use of phpBB for content aggregation). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:RS lately? No forum post is ever reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry. The expert exception only applies to sites published and maintained by the expert, such as their own blog. Material in forums and blogs which do not belong to the expert are still not considered reliable. Yworo (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : For me the very first line of the article says a lot "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard" in that until it actually gets released it is unlikely to get the significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. WP is an encyclopaedia, it is not a forum for collating fancruft. I see no bar to re-creation once it has gone on sale and it has received significant coverage. Mtking (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As a long time Amiga & PC user, I believe the entry regarding the Natami here is the most concise there is, despite the existence of Amiga forums. I often refer to this page for new information regarding the project. Therefore I nominate to keep it. --Middleman_77 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Rilak (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A clone of such a important computer console should be worth saving, but I have to admit to finding it hard to find usable material, will nominate for rescue and keep looking. VERTott 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VERTott 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unremarkable, non-notable hobby project, supported only by a primary source and a user forum. Standard WP:NOTADVERTISING. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention: Enhanced Article I enhanced the article about Natami. I wikifikied more the article by adding an infobox, and better improving the article itself by creating an History section and a Philosophy section, inscribing natami in the vaste phenomenon of homebbrew computing. Also I improved notability as I found an article about it on Obligement that is a very reliable Amiga indipendent site which has an high reputation for being indipendent and objective into Amiga Community. Again I found a major visibility article, an intersting discussion into Appunti Digitali very well known italian technology, computing science discussion and blog maintained by engineers and computer scientists. Appunti Digitali (read the full discussion about Natami at this link).
About those who consider Natami an hobby project. Yes! it is an hobby project, just as like Altair 8800 and Apple I. I added in the articles references to modern homebrew computing systems and inscribing Natami in the modern phenomenon of homebrew computing: See also Minimig that was born from an hobby project and then hit the market thanks to italian hardware developer ACube who produces also Sam440ep PowerPC motherboad on which runs AmigaOS (Minimig link at Acube). See also C-One, created as homebrew by Jeri Ellsworth which then also hit the market. See also Arduino multipurpose microcontroller, see also Pandora Open Source gamebox console. these all (included Natami) are a demonstration that the phenomenon of hobby computing is still alive and vital, and deserve an attention by Wikipedia as it is very interesting topic and capable of further growth of relevance and interest...
Because remember: Don't underestimate modern hobby projects computing. It is hobby projects computing that historically created the market of microcomputers and then lead the series of phenomena in computer market in the '80 (new processors, new architectures, new hardware and software houses, etc., etc., etc.,) that started the rampage in home computing. Computers spreaded first amongst amateurs thanks to hobby projects, and then computers was made available to anyone on this planet. It is also thanks to hobby projects and homebrew computers that was realized the techonological and social revolution that bring nowadays the presence of computers in almost any home in the nations of first and second world. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Raffa, you're not helping here. Instead you made it worse with your useless rant (Yet you made it at least look a bit better) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.119.50 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well 87.79.119.50. I apologize. It is due to my poor english. As a native italian speaker, my statements could seem redundant, as I try to better explain some concepts. Unfortunately I got no sense of brevity. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits that are claimed to conclusively invalidate the premise of the nomination mostly consists of what looks like original research, personal reflection, and advocacy which just makes the article worse. The only parts of those edits relevant to this discussion is the addition of two references, http://obligement.free.fr/articles/natami_nouvel_amiga_classic.php and http://www.appuntidigitali.it/9907/native-amiga-natami-il-vero-erede-dellamiga/. The former is a webzine, and the claim that it is a reliable source is questionable since it does not appear to be produced by a paid professional staff and published by a media company, but voluntarily by fans: http://obligement.free.fr/apropos.php. The latter is a blog. The fact that it is allegedly written by computer engineers and scientists is irrelevant. The WP:SPS section of WP:V makes it pretty clear that blogs are acceptable sources only in exceptional circumstances. The state of being a computer engineer or scientist does not make one an established authority on computer engineering or science, which is the reason why there are junior positions and senior positions in employment. Additionally, have the authors of the blog written about Amiga in reliable sources? It does not appear they have. Rilak (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any verifiable content to the Amiga article's hardware clones section. Total lack of reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring of WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments above, they are not in any way good arguments for inclusion. The "Obligement" source is the closest thing we have to a passable source but I can't find any evidence on the site that it would pass muster as a reliable source, per the relevant guidelines. Micro Mart might suffice as a reliable source if anyone could produce the alleged coverage and if it is significant, independent, etc. I note that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart's website produces zero results, although I do know that that does not necessarily mean that they have never featured this product in print. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured in print here, see above. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitplane Magazine Italia @ Tothwolf, This is very interesting as Amigafuture is a well known printed Amiga Magazine, edited in Germany in English language. I will add this reference in the article about Natami. Must check if also Bitplane magazine Italia had some articles about the motherboard. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appunti Digitali @Rilak: the fact that Appunti Digitali site is orgaized as a collective blog, in which various people contribute to the articles. is a precise editor publishing style choice, not a diminishing, as it is organized with the style of an open professional social site. Professional work of Mr. Cesare di Mauro, (who wrote the article about Natami on Appunti Digitali) as a skilled software developer and Amiga expert was even quoted by Ars Technica that is a well known site on the web. P.S.: He is not only a software developer, and actually works in mobile telephony software development, but he got also a degree in Computer Science at University of Catania, Italy. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How skilled the blog's contributors are, and whatever the alleged reason is for the blog being a blog, is irrelevant as far as policies and guidelines are concerned. Regarding the Ars Technica article, it is misleading to describing it as quoting Cesare di Mauro when it is actually describing some of his work as a typical example of Amiga game development practices. A more important question is how does this satisfy the requirement that in order for a SPS to be deemed reliable, the author of the source must have published? It does not. Rilak (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A magazine called Amiga Future has been mentioned a couple of times as an example of a reliable source. It is argued that the magazine is a reliable source because it is well-known in the Amiga community and because it is published in print (and online). According to the magazine's impressum, it is published by APC & TCP.[51] Looking up this company on Google has led me to http://www.apc-tcp.de/. It is difficult to determine what this company is (I was unable to find any clear statement as to what the company is). From [52], [53], and [54], it appears it was founded as a Amiga club, becoming a publisher in Amiga games software, a manufacturer of Amiga accessories, and then the publisher of Amiga Future. As a result, APC & TCP is not the typical kind of company that I would expect to be the publisher of literature deemed to be reliable sources. WP:RS does not state whether publications published in these circumstances are examples of a typical reliable source or not. In my view, the claim that Amiga Future is a reliable source is questionable, a view that I have held since its first mention in this AfD. Rilak (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What could be more acceptable source than international magazine with years of tradition, now even printed in two language editions?--Pavlor (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an international magazine (being available internationally, not in region-specific editions is what I presume is meant), having been published for many years, and being available in multiple languages are not necessarily indicators that it is suitable for indicating notability. I don't think this somehow means that the concerns about the publisher are irrelevant. Rilak (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability of a Newspaper @Rilak; So then, from your statement you seem to say that any newspaper or magazine that is owned by a finance tycoon or by a consortium of shareholders, or (in Amiga Future example), a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller is partisan or higly unreliable. Ridicolous.
- Examples in real world stated that only in some rare cases newspapers owned by some private are factious. The vaste majority have indipendent point of view from their owners and shareholders.
- If you doubt of Amiga Future, then you have two opportunities. 1) Conduct a mini-survey by reading the articles they published online, to check if yous spot any partisan point of view about Amiga, Amiga products and manufactures, or if they are constructive critics about Amiga in their articles and reviews. 2) If you want, you can also buy an entire annual publishing (11 issues) and conduct an investigation all by yourself by browsing the entire magazines and realize what is Amiga Future editorial line of action. As an Amiga owner since 1989 I check almost all Amiga magazines ever existed and I found almost always genuine indipendent positions about Amiga manufacturers and software houses, and critic point of view about products they reviewed, and mainly in german and english amiga computing magazines. Infacts they have a great reputation of being very objective. Be free to check by yourself any online PDF collections of Amiga Magazines. Sincerely, --151.30.120.221 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that my comment touched upon the ownership of Amiga Future or that Amiga Future is, in your words, "...a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller..." Now that you mention it, it is interesting to consider whether a magazine sponsored by a computer reseller meets the five criteria of WP:N, especially the fourth criteria:
Rilak (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.
- So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore??? Indipendency of sources is simple to verify. As I adviced you, just click the mouse and read the articles of Amiga Future present online, and decide by yourself and upon your personal judgement if they meet the indipendency criteria or not. Testing reliability of historic sources is a scientific method, exclude the sources by making innuendo and spreading FUD about their indipendence or insinuating these sources are not reliabile is not a scientific method! Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that my comment touched upon the ownership of Amiga Future or that Amiga Future is, in your words, "...a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller..." Now that you mention it, it is interesting to consider whether a magazine sponsored by a computer reseller meets the five criteria of WP:N, especially the fourth criteria:
- I do not understand the initial part of your comment. You said,
"So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore???"
- I do not understand the initial part of your comment. You said,
- What testimonies "of the past" am I alleged to have ignored? What are these testimonies to? Judging from the subject of this AfD and the comment you are replying to, I guess it has to be either Natami or Amiga Future. But then you alleged that I have ignored these testimonies since they can only be found in computer magazines of the 1980s sponsored by Atari, Apple, and Commodore. (What has Atari and Apple have to do with this AfD?!) It therefore cannot be testimonies to Natami or Amiga Future since no sources presented in this AfD are from the 1980s, and since both Natami and Amiga Future are not of the 1980s. Regarding Natami, it appears development began in the late 1990s. Regarding Amiga Future, according to the German National Library, it was first published in 1998. So what testimonies are you referring to? What is their relevance to this AfD if they are separated from Natami by at least a decade?
- Regarding the rest of your comment, I find your repeated "advising" me to be moot. When you stated (I believe the IP is you since you refer to the edit by it as yours) that Amiga Future is published by a computer reseller (presumably APC & TCP, since you were responding to my "examination" of it), you effectively stated that Amiga Future is not independent from the Amiga platform since its publisher has a business in selling Amiga accessories/hardware/games. See WP:INDEPENDENT.
- Lastly, ignoring your unexplained views that my criticism of the magazine is "innuendo" and "FUD"; your view that it is also "unscientific" baffles. How is the scientific method relevant? Perhaps you meant source evaluation. Rilak (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A print magazine dedicated to Amiga topics gives it ample coverage. The magazine owners aren't trying to promote a product that they sell, but instead reviewing something of interest to its readers, the Amiga community. Those who seem knowledgeable about this subject, seem to believe the article is notable. Dream Focus 12:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think rejecting the Amiga Future source as one that is "not independent" is a bit of a shaky argument. The independent requirement, in my opinion, is designed to reject sources that are primary. In this case, if Amiga Future were literally published -- or the article written -- by the makers of Natami, that would be a clear problem. But the fact that it's devoted to the Amiga platform, and that it's publisher is in the business of selling Amiga materials, does not make it a clear cut case of not being independent. Certainly, the publishers of Amiga Future might stand to have some financial gain in the resurgence of the Amiga platform, but it seems to me to be a sufficiently indirect connection that it's not much of a valid concern. They're not selling Natami. It's certainly not a primary source.
As such, I think Amiga Future should be accepted as a potentially reliable source, and its coverage of Natami is certainly significant. That said, I continue to fall on the side of deletion. In lieu of additional coverage from a pub like the frequently mentioned Micro Mart, I don't see evidence of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Given that Amiga Future is not a slam dunk reliable source -- and I think one could argue that it is so limited in scope as to be similar to local coverage of a local government official, or similar -- I'd really like to see additional sourcing to be convinced that this article clears WP:GNG. Perhaps my "delete" vote could be qualified as "weak," in this case, but it remains delete, despite my not being convinced that Amiga Future is a non-independent source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: appears to be no sources (either in the article or discernible from Google News or Books) from outside the Amiga enthusiast community, so no indication of notability. Even ignoring this point, the article is poorly sourced and dominated by a WP:INDISCRIMINATEly detailed 'Specifications' section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be delete. A few !votes supported a merge to No. 186 Squadron RAF but by the original merge !voter's own admission, it is original research whether or not in the original roster and I don't see any other rationale why the subject is notably connected to the unit and any merger would simply be WP:TRIVIA. v/r - TP 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Flt. Lt. Jeff Clarson D.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a strange one. It's fairly clear that it's been written as part of a family history ("...he now rests in peace...") but an IP which presumably denotes the article's creator has asserted that the DFC award confers notability. So essentially the question we need to decide is (and I've searched for previous discussions and found none) whether or not the DFC fulfils the criterion at WP:ANYBIO. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 08:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. Subject also appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely to be not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: there are no citations to reliable sources so this information is not verifiable (although this confirms the award). Beyond that, per WP:SOLDIER, the DFC is not considered to confer notability by itself within the Military history project. As such, the subject needs to be able to establish notability through being listed in multiple reliable sources (i.e. "significant coverage" per the WP:GNG). I have not been able to find such coverage (I found this, this and this, which basically amount to passing mentions), and as such while I'm sure that this man deserves respect, unfortunately it does not seem that he is notable in terms of warranting a biographical article on Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unreferenced, lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - AustralianRupert's research seems to indicate we're not likely to establish sufficient notability for an article here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Over twenty thousand DFCs were handed out in WWII. The award certainly does not confer notability in of itself, even were the subject proven to have won it. Ravenswing 07:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't WIN medals, they are awarded, usually without the recipients knowledge.Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point being? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the usual terminology in Britain (and at least formerly in the Commonwealth) is indeed "won". "He won the DFC" is very, very common, both within and without the forces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't WIN medals, they are awarded, usually without the recipients knowledge.Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all the above reasons. But there is no reason why the author can't write a List of DFC recipients or something similar. The DFC was not given out willy-nilly but on its own does not confer notability.Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge a DFC the citation is vague(no disrespect to him) "...has completed numerous operations against the enemy, in the course of which he has invariably displayed the utmost fortitude courage and devotion to duty." His service record is online it shows 650 hours as a pilot in Lancaster bombers thats fair achievement of itself. Reading thru the service record there is nothing I can quote that indicates involvement in something out of the ordinary for pilots in bomber command, therefore place to suggest a merger to except the No. 186 Squadron RAF where he would have been in the orignal roster(original research on my part) when it was reformed under bomber command but he left 3 months before it was disbanded again. given the squadron article is a stub and its short history a Pilot from it recieving a DFC/flying 650 hours may be worthy of coverage. Gnangarra 12:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to No. 186 Squadron RAF. Clearly not notable to have a biography article, but Gnangarra makes a good case for a merge. Unfortunately, the article is unreferenced and you can't merge unreferenced content per WP:V. Therefore, as redirects are cheap, I think it's the best option. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to No. 186 Squadron RAF, I'd agree with Gnangarra's proposal totally if it weren't for the fact that this content is completely unsourced. Definitely include a brief mention of Clarson based on the source that he found in the target article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- George W Auch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references in third party reliable sources to verify the claims of notability. Google archive search brings back nothing. CutOffTies (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources found by the news and book searches linked above would appear to demonstrate notability of the company, if not of its founder, and most of the article content is about the company anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename-after-rewrite per Phil Bridger. I'm not finding anything about the person except that he founded the company...notability isn't inherited that way. However, the article as it stands is nearly {{db-spam}} for the company...hopeless PR-speak and other fluff. Unless someone does rewrite it to be neutral and cited rather than sounding like their webpage of self-promotion, I can only support deletion. DMacks (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the later changes, I'm weak delete. He certainly would merit a mention in his company's page, maybe even a few sentences about his earlier construction business that led to this company's formation (speaks a bit to company history/genesis). I don't know anything about Detroit politics to judge his notability on those counts, but WP:POLITICIAN doesn't suggest notability for alderman or school-board positions by default. If he was citedly involved in some notable action as part of that, then I would say almost that alone would be enough to keep (and moreover due to corp founding). Per MelanieN and Eluchil404 though, it's sadly hard to find that. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that the version I originally AFD's was more about the individual - [55] --CutOffTies (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've rewritten George W Auch completely to be about the person, rather than the company (which should properly be at George W. Auch Company). Previous commenters may wish to see if the change in focus and addition of references changes their !vote or not. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As such, George W. Auch the person is minorly notable, but notable nonetheless. In addition to founding a long-established company (which I think should count for something, if not everything), he was School Board President of the Detroit schools for two years; holding a mid-major elected office in a major city should pass the notability threshold. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second comment: This AFD should really be in the biography category, but I can't figure out how to tag it as such. :( A little help? Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I figured it out - look at this diff. --CutOffTies (talk)
- Weak delete I give him the benefit of the doubt because his era is not well documented online, and because the company he founded is still in existence after 100 years. However, Google Books finds only passing mentions, or mentions of his company; you'd think there would be more about him, if he had been truly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd like to say keep because based on his achievements he was likely at least marginally notable by Wikipedia standards. But untill and unless reliable sources can be found that discuss the subject in enough detail to support an article I have to go with delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I find Andrew Jameson's argument persuasive. Criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN holds that "Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." It would be hard to claim that the president of the school board does not at least qualify as a "member of the main citywide government." There's at least one contemporaneous hit on Google News confirming that Auch was the president of the school board [56]. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 07:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The person is of marginal notability, but is a legitimate historical person of interest. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - simply doesn't meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Future Steel Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
References are not credible and do not prove notability of the company. All references are press releases, articles that have been sponsored by the company or the company's own website and promotional in nature. Zm69051 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on improving with article creator I am the AfD proposer, and, after discussing this with the article's creator, I'm not yet ready to place a !vote on this. I'd request userfy if consensus in a suitable time leads towards deletion (unless the article is obviously never going to be articlespace worthy). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, let me present my side of the story for your consideration.
- 1. As discussed before, Future Steel Buildings is a very visible company within the First Nations Community. They have helped us contribute to lots of our social infrastructure in the past three decades. We would like to recognize their efforts through the Wikipedia platform.
- Unfortunately, our current publication system is not as polished as our westernized neighbours. We do not have digitalized versions of our newsletters and reports. At the moment, we are only able to access a limited number of our online publication, as well as a variety of reports sourced by other companies. However, we are making the effort to improve the strength of our references over time.
- 2. A major obstacle in our way is that many First Nations communities are nto as open and forthcoming with sharing electronic information to a public network. It will take some time for us to track down the writers and editors, where we will ask for their permission to publish their work. In the meantime, I believe the current references are sufficient enough to support the rest of my article (as many other users, editors and admins agreed).
- 3. I also believe Zm69051's multiple attempts to delete this article (at least five times today, even after a warning from an admin) is an attack on the First Nations community as a whole. It is reflective on the continual marginalization of our people in the past.
- This is the logic presented: Just because the First Nations people do not have a digitalized publication system, our work and references are not considered significant enough to be posted on Wikipedia. We are not able to get our sources posted online right away (even though they exist), so we are not allowed to express ourselves on Wikipedia. At best, our thoughts are pushed back into the shadows of my user profile page, just because our technology is not permissable in an online space.
- I respectfully ask you all to consider keeping this article, with the sincere promise that we will be improving the references over time. Thank you. Just give us some time (and respect)! Saracates (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- My concern has absolutely nothing to do with the First Nations people. I am in no way attacking them or trying to prevent them from being in the public eye. My concern does have to do with the fact that you are blurring the lines between two separate business entities and that there are factual errors in your article. Your first sentence is incorrect. According to the article you cited, Aitoro is the director of Future Steel and has been selling prefabricated structures since 1978. That is drastically different than saying he founded Future Steel Buildings in 1978 like you said. Zm69051 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (and thank you): Hi Zm69051. I understand that since leaving this comment, you have suggested and implemented some changes to the Future Steel Buildings article. This is very good! That's what I want to achieve in the end - instead of taking a combative stance at deleting the article, we Wikipedians should collaborate together to improve the quality of the article. We will discuss over the legitimacy of the founding year in the Future Steel's article discussion page, but I'm sure that we can work together to improve the quality of the article with better resources over time. With your research skills and my passion about the topic, I'm positive this article will be fixed to meet Wikipedia's high standard of quality. Thank you for your help! Saracates (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- My concern has absolutely nothing to do with the First Nations people. I am in no way attacking them or trying to prevent them from being in the public eye. My concern does have to do with the fact that you are blurring the lines between two separate business entities and that there are factual errors in your article. Your first sentence is incorrect. According to the article you cited, Aitoro is the director of Future Steel and has been selling prefabricated structures since 1978. That is drastically different than saying he founded Future Steel Buildings in 1978 like you said. Zm69051 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to prove that a company worked with the Canadian Army, but it is impossible for a company to lie about that on their site, I know personal that Future Steel Buildings did some steel buildings for Vancouver 2010 but I could not find a press release about that .. I recommend that a Canadian editor preferably from Ontario to give an opinion on this article. A company that did some work for Olympics and Canada forces worth a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisam74us (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — Wisam74us (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply: Of course, personal recollections about what a company may or may not do are invalid on Wikipedia. It's also quite possible for companies to lie about their record on their websites. Heck, it's easier for companies to lie on their websites than in any other venue. Ravenswing 17:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quite aside from that it's extremely condescending to imply that Canadian First Nations people neither use books, newspapers or reliable newssources, there is a strange school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline.
Moreover, it is quite possible to advocate the deletion of an article on its merits, without requiring a grudge against First Nations or needing to be an editor from Ontario. There is nothing in policy or guideline, either, giving a free pass to companies that have allegedly done work for the military; no doubt thousands of companies do, from giant multinationals to the local meat market supplying the PX.
But that being said, this is not some outfit operating out of a Quonset hut north-of-60. This is a company headquartered, according to its article, in a city of 250,000 people in metro Toronto. Such a company, were it genuinely notable, would have ample opportunity to be the subject of reliable sources. As it happens, there are zero Google News hits, an ominous sign. Fails WP:CORP. No prejudice against userfication. Ravenswing 17:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: With all due respect, I never indicated that the First Nations people do not "use books, newspapers, or reliable newsources". In fact, as I work closely within the First Nations community, this is a topic very sensitive to me. (I'm also not sure why you think I'm being condescending, especially since I come from a First Nations background and have first-hand experience of what it's like in the reserves, but I apologize if you're offended. I understand that tone can often be misinterpreted over the Internet.)
- Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that our sources have not been documented and recorded in an online electronic space, and the process of transferring them will take time. In the meantime, the current article is informative and credible enough to stand on its own, especially when there is a conscientious effort to improve this article over time.
- The argument that Future Steel Buildings is located within a metro city of 250,000, and should therefore have abundant references, is based on fallible logic. I stress my background within the First Nations community, because we are not often a prominent group within the majority. Therefore, any notability within our community is often not recognized through a simple search on Google, but this should in no way diminish the contributions that Future Steel have made upon the First Nations communities.
- "Zero" Google hits (which is untrue by the way, as the available online sources are already included in the existing article) does not mean that a company is unremarkable. There are resources within the First Nations community that have not yet been recorded on Google, but they are being marginalized in this article because they cannot be easily found online. Secondary sources should not be ignored just because they are not readily available on the Internet, especially when there is an immediately effort to digitalize these resources. Instead of deleting the article, there should be a communal and collaborative attempt to improve the article with credible sources, which is already underway.Saracates (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Comment: I did not say zero Google hits. I said zero Google News hits, a completely different animal. That being said, there is no requirement that references be electronic. WP:IRS discusses the requirements in detail, but suffice it to say that reliable sources can also be books from major publishers, magazine articles and newspaper articles that are verifiable, discuss the subject in "significant detail" and are "... third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If such sources exist - and I reiterate that a company headquartered in a large city is in a position for such sources to exist independent of First Nations, were it genuinely notable - then an article can be sustained. If they do not exist, then it cannot. Ravenswing 05:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Hi Ravenswing. I agree with your assessment that this article, in its current state, needs more verifiable sources at an online and (more likely) offline capacity. In the discussion held this past week, a majority of the editors agree that the top priority is to collect more verifiable resources for this article.
- "Zero" Google hits (which is untrue by the way, as the available online sources are already included in the existing article) does not mean that a company is unremarkable. There are resources within the First Nations community that have not yet been recorded on Google, but they are being marginalized in this article because they cannot be easily found online. Secondary sources should not be ignored just because they are not readily available on the Internet, especially when there is an immediately effort to digitalize these resources. Instead of deleting the article, there should be a communal and collaborative attempt to improve the article with credible sources, which is already underway.Saracates (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- However, please understand that collecting the research material - especially from non-electronic sources - is a timely process. It cannot be done overnight, especially since I am currently a one-woman research party. Yet, just barely 3 days (on June 1st) after I posted this article, I was asked to either provide verifiable resources right away (which I have, in the current article, to some degree) or risk having my work deleted (which is happening right now). If you noted some hints of hostility in my previous messages, that was only because I felt threatened by this rather unreasonable time limit.
- One of the best features about Wikipedia is that it is an open-source research platform, so that anybody can contribute to the topic if they have the expertise. I'm strongly advocating to keep this article in its current state, because its visibility on Wikipedia is attracting many resourceful researchers who can collaborate together to retrieve these verifiable resources. Just 3 days after this article was posted, there has already been a lot of user-generated discussion and improvements for the Future Steel article. Now imagine how much more we can add to the quality and the resources of this article given a longer time period. Yet, the progress will be halted to a stop if the article is deleted right away.
- I am asking for more time for the proper research to be done. I am asking for more time to collect verifiable resources for the article. Most importantly, I am asking for more time so that other Wikipedian and online users can help, research, and collaborate together to make this article meet the highest of quality standards. Please take this into my consideration. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- AfDs typically run for a week. Ravenswing 06:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure this won't be a unanimous opinion, but I believe the threat of deletion discourages the level of high quality contributions. Here are my 3 reasons why:
- AfDs typically run for a week. Ravenswing 06:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am asking for more time for the proper research to be done. I am asking for more time to collect verifiable resources for the article. Most importantly, I am asking for more time so that other Wikipedian and online users can help, research, and collaborate together to make this article meet the highest of quality standards. Please take this into my consideration. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- (1) It cuts down the incentive to contribute to an at-risk article. People are less likely to research about a topic if they feel like their efforts won't be substantiated in the final result anyway. If there's only a 50/50 chance of the article being sustained, then a researcher with the proper expertise will only have a 50/50 confidence in the article. Why not spend this time and effort to work on another article that definitely won't be deleted? Yet, this is counterproductive to our cause, because collaboration (especially among those knowledgeable) is a crucial element to our success.
- (2) The risk of deletion prioritizes quantity over quality. Under a deadline, there will be a haste to collect resources without taking the proper time to verify them, especially pertaining a less readily available topic. This might lead to factual errors due to hastily collected resources, which will ultimately harm the legitimacy of this article.
- (3) Collecting research in an offline capacity is much more time-consuming than doing them through an online channel. Even within a week, there are only 5 business days where most organizations are available for contact. Even research institutions have shorter operational hours during the summer season. In addition, a lot of people take this time of year to travel and go away on vacation. This cuts down on the availability of contacts and researchers significantly. Most damaging of all, the one-week notice is given over a Friday/Saturday period, the least active time of the week, so there are already a lot of obstacles from the start.
- One week is not a very long time to do quality research, especially pertaining a less readily available topic. For these reasons stated above, I strongly believe that the article should be kept in its current state, to allow for the proper time and research to be done so that it will achieve the quality standards as requested. Saracates (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- If it gets deleted, you can request it to be userfied so that you can finish working on it to bring it up to standards... then you can request it to be reviewed and (hopefully) moved back to mainspace/article space. I'll help you with that if it gets to that point and you can't find someone to userfy it for you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Robert, thank you for all your help thus far. If possible, I would prefer not to move the page to a less visible online space. As helpful as you have been, some of the research (especially pertaining this particular topic) is best done through a more open and more visible channel, where a variety of people with specialized expertise (re:location, experience, etc.) can contribute to the article. Collaboration among a diverse number of users - especially among researchers - is the key to success for this article. It's nice to know that userfying the page is an option, but I feel like that is a rather compromised solution, which might not be the most beneficial to the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Unfortunately, Saracates, that's not a consideration on the table. It is not Wikipedia's policy to keep challenged articles indefinetly in mainspace pending "research." That being said, you are making this out to be a much more difficult deal than it should be. Either (for instance) substantive newspaper articles about this company exist or they do not. Either books have been written which discuss this company or they haven't. At AfD, we have years of experience in uncovering such sources, and it does not take a great deal of time or heroic efforts to do so. To quote WP:V, one of the encyclopedia's core content policies, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Such sources are a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement, and if they are absent, the article just does not qualify for Wikipedia, no matter how much time and effort goes into "research" or other cleanup. If the article is not ready yet for mainspace, it belongs either in your user space or on your own computer until such time as such sources exist. Ravenswing 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Hi Ravenswing. There are substantive magazine & newsletter articles published about the Future Steel Buildings company. In fact, I am currently locating a secondary version of an article written in the October 2009 issue of First Nations Drum. I have already contacted the publisher of the First Nations Drum via e-mail earlier this morning (and I highly encourage everyone to contact the First Nations Drum staff as well), about securing a reliable digital/online version of their p.21 article about Future Steel's involvement with the First Nations.
- Tomorrow, I am going down to multiple public libraries and school institutions to secure a physical copy of the magazine. After some research, I already know that the University of Toronto library has this periodical, within the 2006-2010 years, in their collection; however, not every monthly issue is available. Come Monday morning, I will be phoning a First Nations Drum editor to secure additional publication information regarding this article resource.
- While First Nations Drum is a reliable and notable magazine that has been circulating since 1999, and its significance is especially marked among the First Nations community, the problem with smaller party publications is that these resources are often not widely distributed. Many newspapers do not have the funds to make their articles available online (due to digitalization costs and copyright issues), nor are they able to make their periodicals widely circulated in mainstream channels. This is my difficulty in collecting resources for Future Steel company - not because they don't exist - but because they don't exist in readily accessible channels.
- Nonetheless, I understand your concerns, so I have laid out the above research plan to secure this resource (among many others). If I am able to produce this resource and verify it on Wikipedia by the end of this week (preferably longer, but this is as long as the deadline persists), can I count on your agreement that Future Steel is (1) a notable company, (2) has verifiable offline resources that affirm its notability, (3) researchers like myself need a longer period of time to retrieve these resources and improve the Wikipedia article , and finally (4) this Future Steel article should be left in its current capacity? Saracates (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Follow-Up: I contacted the University of Toronto Mississauga, and placed a request for a physical copy of the October 2009 issue of First Nations Drum magazine, where I'll be able to verify the above article as a secondary resource. It'll arrive by the end of the week. In the meantime, I have done further online research on Future Steel Buildings through several academic research channels, and found an additional online resource that can be used for verification. Apparently, Future Steel Buildings was engaged in an academic research study with the University of Waterloo in 2001. With the help of a research librarian, I was able to access the full article and found it relevant to Future Steel Buildings. I have since edited the current article to include this new reference, thus strengthening the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- From looking at the abstract for the article, it does not make sense as a reference for the sentence you have it attached to. It does not say anything about Future Steel Buildings being a manufacturer. In fact, the only association it seems to have with Future is that one of engineers who worked on the study (Ping Guo) works for Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. which is the factory located in Brampton, not the sales facility in Markham that the rest of your article refers to. Zm69051 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree. Only users with research licenses are able to access the full research study (it is quite errorenous to make assumptions about a reference just based on its abstract!), but the article notes that Future Steel provided the diagrams for steel manufacturing (Fig.2) and architectural buildings (Fig 3) in relation to their actual industrial practices, which suggests "Future Steel Buildings manufactures prefabricated architectural structures primarily made out of steel". I have quoted excrepts from the research study, in section 2 - "Material":
- From looking at the abstract for the article, it does not make sense as a reference for the sentence you have it attached to. It does not say anything about Future Steel Buildings being a manufacturer. In fact, the only association it seems to have with Future is that one of engineers who worked on the study (Ping Guo) works for Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. which is the factory located in Brampton, not the sales facility in Markham that the rest of your article refers to. Zm69051 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-Up: I contacted the University of Toronto Mississauga, and placed a request for a physical copy of the October 2009 issue of First Nations Drum magazine, where I'll be able to verify the above article as a secondary resource. It'll arrive by the end of the week. In the meantime, I have done further online research on Future Steel Buildings through several academic research channels, and found an additional online resource that can be used for verification. Apparently, Future Steel Buildings was engaged in an academic research study with the University of Waterloo in 2001. With the help of a research librarian, I was able to access the full article and found it relevant to Future Steel Buildings. I have since edited the current article to include this new reference, thus strengthening the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- (1) "The sheet steel was produced conforming to ASTM Standards A792/A792M [13], SS Grade 33(230) with a specified minimum yield strength of 230 MPa. The panels were formed from two different thicknesses of sheet-steel, 0.76 and 1.21 mm, respectively, which satisfied the minimum thickness requirement of CSA S136-94 [3. Canadian Standards Association. S136-94, Cold formed steel structural members, 1994.3]. The specimens of full-, corner- and flange-sections as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig.3 were supplied by Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. The dimensions of each specimen were measured before testing."
- (2) This is included in the acknowledgment section: "The project presented herein was co-funded by the National Research Council of Canada and Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. Special thanks to Mr H. Min for his assistance in conducting experimental tests."
- Also, the Brampton manufacturing divison and the Markham sales division are both operated under Future Steel Buildings Int. Corp as a whole entity. Any research pertaining to "Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp" refers to the company listed in the current Wikipedia article. This above reference, as well as all current references, are relevant to the Future Steel Buildings Int. Corp.
- On a similar note, I have done further research and added another reference from a secondary source to improve the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Reply: When all you post is the abstract, that is the only thing I have to base my conclusions off of. I can't seem to find an answer, but it doesn't seem as though an abstract should count as a source when you're citing information found in the full study. Can anyone else find an answer to that?
- As fas as Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. and Future Steel Sales being the same entity, you are wrong. According to the BBB, Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp and Future Steel Sales have two different names, phone numbers, addressses and contact information (not to mention, drastically different ratings).
- Your new secondary source is titled "Buyer's Guide to Hangars, Doors and More." Now to me that seems to be highly promotional. Looking at the article it is nothing more than a listing of companies; there's nothing notable about that. You also use it to cite a sentence about farming, loggers, fisherman and miners, all of which have nothing to do with a hangar that the "Buyer's Guide" is promoting. Are there any other sources out there that aren't found on Future Steel's News & Articles page? Zm69051 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Zm69051, many companies opt for different titles to distinguish between their subdivisions. Take Microsoft for example - they have Microsoft Enterprise, Microsoft Canada, which are operated in different locations with different contact information - but these companies are still recognized under the brand name of Microsoft. Future Steel Buildings and Future Steel Sales are both identified under the "Future Steel" entity as a whole.
- My new reference is to provide an additional secondary reference to affirm that Future Steel Buildings have manufactured Quonset structures. Your perception that the article seems "promotional" is arguable and highly questionable. This article is found in the Planes and Pilot magazine - a legitimate and notable secondary publication source - that describes Future Steel in its natural industrial context. I see nothing wrong with this reliable reference.
- Many of the sources (8 out of the 11) are found on websites outside of Future Steel's page. This is an overwhelming majority, while there is an effort to replace the remaining three sources. It is evident that your initial argument - that the sources are not "credible - is fallible upon the current review of the article. Saracates (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Saracates, we seem to be at an impass on the promotional nature of your article and the accuracy of several facts within your article. I think it is time to let other editors state their opinion. Zm69051 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added our discussion to the Notability Noticeboard as an attempt to get more opinions on the article. Zm69051 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I understand. I agree that more opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- I have added our discussion to the Notability Noticeboard as an attempt to get more opinions on the article. Zm69051 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saracates, we seem to be at an impass on the promotional nature of your article and the accuracy of several facts within your article. I think it is time to let other editors state their opinion. Zm69051 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Based on the comments (and editing) here and on the condensed version of the article, the article has established basic notability from the research that was conducted by multiple Wikipedia editors since the AfD proposal on May 20th, 2011. Markp615 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD proposal was on June 2nd, 2011 not May 20th. There have also only been minor edits to the article that have yet to prove the notability of Future Steel.Zm69051 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rule #1: Spammers lie. Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: By the way, I am casting my "official" vote to keep this article, even though my stance has been very evident (and vocal) throughout this discussion. I believe that the article can be improved upon, given the ongoing research to strengthen the article's resources among myself and other Wikipedia collaborators. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
- Delete as per WP:N, and as per the discussions on this AfD. - SudoGhost™ 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, based on my web searches, I find multiple mentions of the subject, but none that one would say are significant coverage per WP:GNG. There are multiple news hits for the company as well, but the majority appear to be advertisements, or do not significantly talk about the subject of this article. IMHO, the company which the article is about does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sure it's a great company, but it doesn't meet the required threshold of notability. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The most significant sources here appear to be Advantage Magazine [57] and Venture North America [58]. The First Nations Drum piece that is cited in the story appears to be a full-page advertisement rather than a real independent feature, so I don't consider it reliable. However, the other two are in-depth features in what appear to be reliable sources. The article should have more references for some of the claims, but it passes WP:GNG as it is, and I'm impressed by the author's apparent willingness to find more sources. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do we know, for the sake of argument, upon what basis either Advantage Magazine or Venture North America - neither of which have Wikipedia articles themselves - are considered reliable sources? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 07:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The articles in First Nation Drums and Advantage (pp 28-29) cited by Tim Pierce are accompanied by big paid ads on the same page. I have to consider whether the ad placement was conducive to getting favorable coverage. The independence and reliability of the references must be questioned. That leaves one apparently independent and reliable source, which is skimpy with respect to notability. Edison (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kooley C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This had been here as an unsourced BLP since 2005 until I just added a source - the only coverage appears to be from the local newspaper. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to justify an article. Michig (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he's supposedly a hip-hop pioneer, sources would be easily available. But thus far, I'm not finding any that are very good. Blueboy96 18:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per suspicion of sole promotional reasons. I didn't get any hits on Yahoo or Google except for a Facebook page and music download websites. What surprises me is that the article has been existant since 2005. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sierra McCormick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. One source is IMDb, while the other is the Disney Channel. Lacking independence and reliability, neither can be used to establish notability. Subject lacks significant roles in television and films. Credits primarily encompass minor supporting roles. Article previously salted after six separate recreation/deletions. Was inadvertently created again during a move request. Cind.amuse 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just happen to have seen an episode of '5th grader' - she's notable, in my view. Jusdafax 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepNeutral It's borderline, but I think an argument could be made that she meets WP:ENT. The guideline says that an entertainer may be considered significant if she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She's certainly had a significant role in Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?. So that's one. If I'm reading the relevant pages correctly, she also played the daughter of the main character (which I gather was a series regular role) in the series Romantically Challenged, which I'm not familiar with personally, but it was apparently deemed notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. The same goes for upcoming series A.N.T. Farm, in which she's one of the series regulars. She also had a role in the movie Ramona and Beezus, but since her role doesn't seem to be mentioned in most reviews (and I haven't seen the movie) I'm not sure how significant it was—still, even without that, that's at least three notable series in which she definitely had significant roles, which, again, seems to make her qualify as notable under WP:ENT—again, it may be borderline, but I think there's enough to justify her inclusion. ----Smeazel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. The role on 5th Grader was nominal or peripheral, rather than significant. Foxworthy's contribution over a course of three or so years would be considered significant, but certainly not one of the group of students in a supporting role. Romantically Challenged aired four times, before being cancelled. It is not clear whether or not McCormick appeared in any of the aired episodes, and even if she had, the role is not significant. The role in Ramona and Beezus was not significant either. At this point, we have a potential significant role in a forthcoming series. This does not establish notability, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. While she may have a career ahead of her, notability according to WP guidelines has not yet been established. Cind.amuse 08:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw on its page that Romantically Challenged aired only four times before being cancelled, but I don't see how that's relevant; it still apparently was a notable enough program for a Wikipedia page, and how many times the program aired has no bearing on the significance of her character within it. You say "the role is not significant"; on what are you basing that? The main character is described in the show as a "single mother"; I'd assume, if that's a defining trait of the character, then the character's daughter is likely to be a significant part of the show. (At least, I assume she's the main character's daughter, based on the fact that the characters have the same last names.) Still... on second thought, I can't find any sources stating that it is, and the burden of proof lies on the person trying to establish notability, so, OK, until and unless someone finds a source showing that the daughter is an important character, I'll accept that it isn't. That still leaves two shows, though, counting Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, and I'm not convinced her role in that was a "nominal or peripheral role". According to the IMDb, she was in 22 out of 55 episodes, and based on her appearance on the show was invited onto Entertainment Tonight and the Ellen DeGeneres show (along with the rest of the class, yes, but still).
Hm. Still, I've never really seen that show, and I suppose I'm just guessing about how notable the students in it are. I'm not sufficiently convinced she's not notable to !vote Delete, but I guess I'm unsure enough I may as well withdraw my weak keep vote. If you're right and the students' roles in that program aren't significant, then I agree that one forthcoming series isn't enough to establish notability. (In the interests of full disclosure, I guess it's possible I was more inclined to !vote Keep in this particular AfD than I otherwise would have been because I've recently !voted a lot of Deletes and Merge/Redirects, and maybe didn't want to feel like I was turning into a deletionist...) Anyway, !vote withdrawn; I don't know enough about the shows in question to judge whether her parts in them are notable or not (though even if they are, it would still be only a borderline keep anyway). I'll leave the matter to people more familiar with the shows to judge. ----Smeazel (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I agree that whether or not a show has been cancelled has no bearing on notability. What is essential is that the significance of the subject's role cannot be established accordingly, as verified through reliable, independent sources. Sorry if my earlier message somehow implied differently, I was just trying to provide an understanding of the show. Cind.amuse 10:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw on its page that Romantically Challenged aired only four times before being cancelled, but I don't see how that's relevant; it still apparently was a notable enough program for a Wikipedia page, and how many times the program aired has no bearing on the significance of her character within it. You say "the role is not significant"; on what are you basing that? The main character is described in the show as a "single mother"; I'd assume, if that's a defining trait of the character, then the character's daughter is likely to be a significant part of the show. (At least, I assume she's the main character's daughter, based on the fact that the characters have the same last names.) Still... on second thought, I can't find any sources stating that it is, and the burden of proof lies on the person trying to establish notability, so, OK, until and unless someone finds a source showing that the daughter is an important character, I'll accept that it isn't. That still leaves two shows, though, counting Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, and I'm not convinced her role in that was a "nominal or peripheral role". According to the IMDb, she was in 22 out of 55 episodes, and based on her appearance on the show was invited onto Entertainment Tonight and the Ellen DeGeneres show (along with the rest of the class, yes, but still).
- Comment. The role on 5th Grader was nominal or peripheral, rather than significant. Foxworthy's contribution over a course of three or so years would be considered significant, but certainly not one of the group of students in a supporting role. Romantically Challenged aired four times, before being cancelled. It is not clear whether or not McCormick appeared in any of the aired episodes, and even if she had, the role is not significant. The role in Ramona and Beezus was not significant either. At this point, we have a potential significant role in a forthcoming series. This does not establish notability, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. While she may have a career ahead of her, notability according to WP guidelines has not yet been established. Cind.amuse 08:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. On a side note, this has been created NUMEROUS times, each time it has been deleted; if she was notable, she would not be deleted, and if she was, each time it was deleted wouldn't be for the same reason. Having being on "5th Grader" and other roles does not make a person notable.Curb Chain (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because the article has been created and deleted numerous times, makes the person non-notable? Maybe the past drafts of article were not done well which is why they were deleted in first place. I'm sure if the article was Wikified and properly referenced it wouldn't even be up for AFD at the moment. The actress has already co-starred in few notable films and has a regular role on a Disney Channel series (A.N.T. Farm), so even if this article were to be deleted because of this AFD, It will only be matter of time before it is re-created again due to her exposure on the aforementioned series. So I requesting that this article be Kept so it can be worked on. QuasyBoy 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To User:Curb Chain: I see no links to any other AFDs for this individual. So how can you state "NUMEROUS"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reviewing the log reveals that this has been created and deleted six separate times, resulting in a good salting. This recent creation inadvertently bypassed the salt when created as Sierra mccormick, followed by a move request. Whoever made the move apparently did so unaware of the salt or deliberately disregarded the previous admin action. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So the earlier articles may have been WP:TOOSOON? This is not at all surprising for any young actor... and is not a concern with this current version, no matter how the earlier ones were written. Unles they quit the business, an actor's career moves forward, month by month, year by year, and they do more and more projects. And while some earlier version of this article may have failed at some earlier time for some unknown reason (could you link the old AFDs?) , there does come a time when TOO SOON becomes just SOON ENOUGH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The six previously deleted articles were no different from this one and were all created since December 2010 and salted in February 2011. Nothing has changed since then. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What has changed, as for any actor, is the individual completing more work in additional notable projects. Unless an actor dies or quits the business, their career does not sit still. So it is exceeding unlikely that an article showing recent projects would be the same as one created in 6 months ago when such information was unavailable.. just as A.N.T. Farm was "upcoming" when this discussion began as is now airing (yet another rle to meet ENT). Careers do not sit still. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your assertion is not based in fact or logic. Careers do sit still and/or become stagnant. This happens in every labor market, occupation, and industry. (Especially in today's economy.) Careers in the entertainment industry are especially not immune to stagnation. Outside of death and retirement, an individual may audition for months and even years on end, without a role coming to fruition. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes no leap of logic to conclude that if an actor dies or retires, their active career ends. And while yes, there are other causes for a slowdown in an actor's career, this entire sidebar resulted from your assertion that "nothing has changed" in this actor's career, and my response that careers do not sit still. So let me modify... claim it has as you might, THIS actor's career has not sat still, so yes things HAVE changed in the last six months. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nothing has changed from the previous article deletion that would now support or establish notability. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am not an admin, I cannot see the histories or judge the quality or content of any earlier version. To better serve the project, I judge the current version and without a bias based upon earlier ones. However, and despite your personal opinion that "nothing has changed" in this youngster's career, is that in addition to whatever productions she participated six months ago, A.N.T. Farm is now being aired and her film Spooky Buddies is in post-production. To deny that her career is advancing or that the current article can be imnproved through regular editing makes little sense. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nothing has changed from the previous article deletion that would now support or establish notability. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes no leap of logic to conclude that if an actor dies or retires, their active career ends. And while yes, there are other causes for a slowdown in an actor's career, this entire sidebar resulted from your assertion that "nothing has changed" in this actor's career, and my response that careers do not sit still. So let me modify... claim it has as you might, THIS actor's career has not sat still, so yes things HAVE changed in the last six months. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your assertion is not based in fact or logic. Careers do sit still and/or become stagnant. This happens in every labor market, occupation, and industry. (Especially in today's economy.) Careers in the entertainment industry are especially not immune to stagnation. Outside of death and retirement, an individual may audition for months and even years on end, without a role coming to fruition. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What has changed, as for any actor, is the individual completing more work in additional notable projects. Unless an actor dies or quits the business, their career does not sit still. So it is exceeding unlikely that an article showing recent projects would be the same as one created in 6 months ago when such information was unavailable.. just as A.N.T. Farm was "upcoming" when this discussion began as is now airing (yet another rle to meet ENT). Careers do not sit still. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The six previously deleted articles were no different from this one and were all created since December 2010 and salted in February 2011. Nothing has changed since then. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So the earlier articles may have been WP:TOOSOON? This is not at all surprising for any young actor... and is not a concern with this current version, no matter how the earlier ones were written. Unles they quit the business, an actor's career moves forward, month by month, year by year, and they do more and more projects. And while some earlier version of this article may have failed at some earlier time for some unknown reason (could you link the old AFDs?) , there does come a time when TOO SOON becomes just SOON ENOUGH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reviewing the log reveals that this has been created and deleted six separate times, resulting in a good salting. This recent creation inadvertently bypassed the salt when created as Sierra mccormick, followed by a move request. Whoever made the move apparently did so unaware of the salt or deliberately disregarded the previous admin action. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To User:Curb Chain: I see no links to any other AFDs for this individual. So how can you state "NUMEROUS"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because the article has been created and deleted numerous times, makes the person non-notable? Maybe the past drafts of article were not done well which is why they were deleted in first place. I'm sure if the article was Wikified and properly referenced it wouldn't even be up for AFD at the moment. The actress has already co-starred in few notable films and has a regular role on a Disney Channel series (A.N.T. Farm), so even if this article were to be deleted because of this AFD, It will only be matter of time before it is re-created again due to her exposure on the aforementioned series. So I requesting that this article be Kept so it can be worked on. QuasyBoy 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notable young actress meeting WP:ENT in having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."[59] And toward that notable series where she had 22 appearances, and not to burst any bubbles, but the kids on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? are actors first... in the roles "of" fifth graders. A cute gimmic that requires a viewer's willing suspension of disbelief. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A review of the shows listed in your IMDb link above reveals that the roles were all minor, rather than significant ones. The participation in "5th grader" additionally fails significance. The children may be "actors" participating in a game show, but the individual 5th grade roles are not significant. While the concept is significant; the role is not. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asserting that as an actor, her playing the role of a 5th grader in 22 episodes of a notable series is the sole production we may consider in regard notability, as we look at an overall and growing career. But of course, without the "5th graders" and their significant contributions to the the notable production, all we would have is Jeff Foxworthy doing stand-up. A suitable argument toward significance of other roles is that they are, for the most part, named characters that were important or significant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes... so while personal determination that such named roles must all somehow be automatically be minor is a judgement call to which editors are entitled, please pardon me while I politely disagree. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Regardless of how you may wish to define the role on "5th Grader", the subject simply lacks "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The roles performed by the subject are minor support roles, rather than significant. None were starring roles that drove the plot, but rather supported the plot and main characters. It's nothing personal. This is not a judgement call, but a reflection of the films and participation therein by the subject, as credited by the producers. In addition to the lack of significant roles, the article lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. We can't use IMDb to establish notability, and the Disney Channel ref isn't reliable or independent. Notability simply hasn't been established through either the general or topical notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but even in your repetition, you have still not rebutted the reasonable presumption toward notability that she has through having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The presumption is not rebutted by offering an opiinion that her named characters are automatically unimportant and insignificant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes. That opinion contrary to the presumption allowed by ENT lacks any foundation. Perhaps you could share the sources you found from the various project's producers that show her named roles as insignificant? And if you wish yourself to now refer to cast listings in the IMDB you already denigrate, please understand that such listings can be simply alphabetical, or be based upon a cast member's addition to a project, or upon the cast member's IMDB popularity rating, or productions wish to elevate one cast member above another, or be completely random. Simply put, the GNG is not the only yardstick that is used to measure notability and the topical notability guideline has not been rebutted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Simply put, claims of significance amount to mere supposition. That is, expressing a belief about something; or the expression of a belief that is held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. Essentially, you are asking for proof of a negative. There is a lack of evidence which documents that the subject meets the topical notability guidelines which you assert, i.e., that she has had significant roles in multiple artistic productions. The topical notability guidelines serve as an indicator that sources may exist. They do not give leeway to dismissing the need for proper sourcing. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion stated in the topical guidelines is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance in an AfD discussion – the article itself must document notability. No more; no less. And nothing personal. Cind.amuse 10:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but even in your repetition, you have still not rebutted the reasonable presumption toward notability that she has through having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The presumption is not rebutted by offering an opiinion that her named characters are automatically unimportant and insignificant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes. That opinion contrary to the presumption allowed by ENT lacks any foundation. Perhaps you could share the sources you found from the various project's producers that show her named roles as insignificant? And if you wish yourself to now refer to cast listings in the IMDB you already denigrate, please understand that such listings can be simply alphabetical, or be based upon a cast member's addition to a project, or upon the cast member's IMDB popularity rating, or productions wish to elevate one cast member above another, or be completely random. Simply put, the GNG is not the only yardstick that is used to measure notability and the topical notability guideline has not been rebutted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Regardless of how you may wish to define the role on "5th Grader", the subject simply lacks "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The roles performed by the subject are minor support roles, rather than significant. None were starring roles that drove the plot, but rather supported the plot and main characters. It's nothing personal. This is not a judgement call, but a reflection of the films and participation therein by the subject, as credited by the producers. In addition to the lack of significant roles, the article lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. We can't use IMDb to establish notability, and the Disney Channel ref isn't reliable or independent. Notability simply hasn't been established through either the general or topical notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asserting that as an actor, her playing the role of a 5th grader in 22 episodes of a notable series is the sole production we may consider in regard notability, as we look at an overall and growing career. But of course, without the "5th graders" and their significant contributions to the the notable production, all we would have is Jeff Foxworthy doing stand-up. A suitable argument toward significance of other roles is that they are, for the most part, named characters that were important or significant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes... so while personal determination that such named roles must all somehow be automatically be minor is a judgement call to which editors are entitled, please pardon me while I politely disagree. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A review of the shows listed in your IMDb link above reveals that the roles were all minor, rather than significant ones. The participation in "5th grader" additionally fails significance. The children may be "actors" participating in a game show, but the individual 5th grade roles are not significant. While the concept is significant; the role is not. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More simply put, a claim that named roles in notable productions are automatically insignificant unless "proven" otherwise is what is unverifiable supposition. As these roles are verifiable in reliable sources, ENT is met, and the verifiability of this actor having significant roles in multiple notable productions does not itself have to be significant coverage, as significant is not the mandate. An unverifiable assertion that the roles are not significant or not multiple does not rebut the presumption. What IS mandated by policy is that the roles and multiple instances be themselves verifiable by readers in sources outside of Wikipedia, as outside is where notability is documented. Again, the GNG is not the sole yardstick by which we measure notability, and a circular argument that returns only to the GNG is flawed and does not rebut the presumption. It is through regular editing by editors that articles and Wikipedia itself improves... but never through deletion of what can be made to serve the project simply because it has not yet been done. Just essays.... but with bearing... WP:PROBLEM: "A common maxim is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." WP:UGLY: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Of course these essays supported by editing policy are simply that... essays. But editors need consider if heeding an essay improves the project or hurts it, as there are far more processes set in place to improve the improvable, and essentially only one for dealing with the totally useless. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue is not cleanup. The issue is notability and verifiability. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion stated in the topical guidelines is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance in an AfD discussion – the article itself must document notability. You claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagree, but according to WP:Editing policy improving an improvable article is definitely a matter for cleanup and regular editing, and according to WP:Deletion policy, deleting an improvable article because it has not yet been done is never quite the best option. And what "is" required of an article is that it asserts a notability, sometimes through meeting the GNG... or sometimes through meeting a topical guideline such as WP:ENT. And what "is" required is that such assertion be verifiable in sources outside of Wikipedia. Yes, nice for the sources to be added, but simply as long as verfiability is possible, the presumtption is not rebutted. If an article states "Acor X had a recurring role in 10 episodes of production Z", all that anyone need do is insert that statement into a search engine and verifibility presents itself, showing verifiability available to ANY reader or editor who chooses to search. As the presumption herein is verifiable by anyone with access to the internet, requiring that I or others must verify it for you and show the results of our efforts does not rebut the presumption. For example, if all citations and references were to somehow vanish from some random FA article, and its history disappear and not be recoverable, the topic of that article would still be as notable as it was before all the citations vanished. The new lack of once-included citations would not then make the topic somehow instantly non-notable, as the verifiability of the article's information would still be availble to anyone who did a search and could be returned through diligent effort and regular editing. Improving the improvable is WP:CLEANUP Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue pertaining to deletion is not cleanup, but notability. Again, you claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Still have to disagree. You may continue to deny it, but improving any article is definitely a matter for cleanup and regular editing, and deletion is a last resort saved for the unsalvable. The article asserts a notability through meeting WP:ENT, and as her works are verifiable in multiple reliable sources,[60] and her characters in these multiple production have their signficance shown by their being writen of in context to the various productions. For example, her character of Susan in Ramona and Beezus is the ongoing foil of the lead character Ramona as played by Joey King.[61] THAT makes her contibution to plotline of that notable production significant. Denial of the easy verifiability is not a rebuttal. I need not "prove" the reasonable and verifiable presumption simply because you have not been able to rebut. That's not how it works here. Improving the improvable is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue pertaining to deletion is not cleanup, but notability. Again, you claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagree, but according to WP:Editing policy improving an improvable article is definitely a matter for cleanup and regular editing, and according to WP:Deletion policy, deleting an improvable article because it has not yet been done is never quite the best option. And what "is" required of an article is that it asserts a notability, sometimes through meeting the GNG... or sometimes through meeting a topical guideline such as WP:ENT. And what "is" required is that such assertion be verifiable in sources outside of Wikipedia. Yes, nice for the sources to be added, but simply as long as verfiability is possible, the presumtption is not rebutted. If an article states "Acor X had a recurring role in 10 episodes of production Z", all that anyone need do is insert that statement into a search engine and verifibility presents itself, showing verifiability available to ANY reader or editor who chooses to search. As the presumption herein is verifiable by anyone with access to the internet, requiring that I or others must verify it for you and show the results of our efforts does not rebut the presumption. For example, if all citations and references were to somehow vanish from some random FA article, and its history disappear and not be recoverable, the topic of that article would still be as notable as it was before all the citations vanished. The new lack of once-included citations would not then make the topic somehow instantly non-notable, as the verifiability of the article's information would still be availble to anyone who did a search and could be returned through diligent effort and regular editing. Improving the improvable is WP:CLEANUP Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue is not cleanup. The issue is notability and verifiability. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion stated in the topical guidelines is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance in an AfD discussion – the article itself must document notability. You claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: G7. Doh5678 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dell Battery Module X284G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no indication that this battery is notable. A Google search only returns websites selling this battery. Rilak (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD G7. Phearson (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Omniflash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article's subject fails WP:N. The article is unreferenced and only has an external link to the vendor. Google Web returns 89 unique results for Omniflash AND "JK Microsystems". The query included the vendor name to filter out results about unrelated products. Using the same query Google News found one result, a press release; and Google Books found none. Rilak (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no stand-alone articles needed for individual products except where they are of historic value. W Nowicki (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing reliable source coverage of it. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Allsopp Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (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)Esther Deason Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
fails WP:GNG. also nominating sister competition: Esther Deason Shield. don't see how an under 16 competition (even if it's national) which are just mainly results listings merits an article. secondly, it gets no coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an important trophy of long standing. I agree that it needs a lot more than just a list of winners, and that the list of winners might be overdone. I do not agree with the opinion that it's "under 16" status is a reason for deletion. I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage in mainstream press. (I'm in the U.S., so I don't have a lot of access to Australian mainstream press.)
- Also, this page, which is about the Allsopp shield, was reached from the AFD link on the Esther Deason Shield. Please untangle this. Lou Sander (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- " This is an important trophy of long standing." Is not a criterion for notability. Neither tournament gets anything in gnews. It is not "important" in the context of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and nothing in a major Aust news site [62]. Please provide evidence of significant coverage of this event. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no need to untangle, one AfD can cover to 2 very similar topics. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources to indicate importance. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no need to untangle, one AfD can cover to 2 very similar topics. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and nothing in a major Aust news site [62]. Please provide evidence of significant coverage of this event. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It IS an important trophy in its field. We are not talking about something new, or "made up", or that is of interest only to a very few people. The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article, or that there aren't sources in the print literature of Australian softball. And of course there's no "need" to untangle, just as there's no "need" to capitalise and punctuate sentences, or to spell correctly. Cleome (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- being important is not the same as notable. This is an active competiton that receives no coverage in mainstream press. No sources = no article. Past 2 keep votes convince me no sources exist.LibStar (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One would not generally expect an under 16s softball trophy to be notable, but of course there is always a chance of finding that a particular case is an exception, so I have searched. I found no evidence of notability. For example, the first few Google hits cover Wikipedia, facebook, www.nt.softball.org.au (clearly not an independent source), sites offering a collection of articles from Wikipedia and like sources for sale, pages that briefly mention it, etc. Other searches similarly failed to indicate notability. The article itself offers no sources. As for the reasons given for keeping: What does "important" mean? does it mean "I personally think it's important"? if not, then it is necessary to indicate significant reliable sources that indicate that it is "important". "Of long standing" and "We are not talking about something new" are totally irrelevant: some brand new things receive significant coverage very quickly, some things that have been around for centuries have received very little attention. Nobody has suggested that it is "made up", so that is irrelevant too: it is not helpful to provide answers to reasons which have not been proposed. As for "I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage", the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep to show that there are sources: simply saying "for all we know there may be sources and you haven't shown that there aren't" is no good. Wikipedia requires evidence that sources exist, not a presumption that sources may exist even though none of us has seen them. "The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article": no, but the fact that nobody has provided reliable sources (whether online or otherwise) is, especially when several people have searched and come up with zilch. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- very well said James. People come up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES lame arguments without a shred of evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this essay is so unacceptable that it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere, MFD is this way. Reyk YO! 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. 1) Is it possible to post something here without impolite and disagreeable, if not borderline uncivil, commentary from folks who want to delete the article? 2) Is it possible that they can stop the endless repetition of their points in favor of deletion? (We heard them the first time. And the second. Etc.) 3) Is it possible that a national trophy, compteted for over many years by teams from several Australian states, and that is of great importance to indigenous Australians without writing or computers, might just be something that has some "notability," apart from coverage of it in sources easily found on Google. 4) Is it possible that if some sources can be found they won't be unreasonably ignored?
I ask these questions because I have a friend who is knowledgeable in Australian softball, and who is willing to do the research necessary to find non-online sources. She is willing to put in the time, but I am concerned that whatever she finds will be dismissed by the same uncooperative voices. Cleome (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question have you found any reliable sources to demonstrate this subject meeting WP:GNG. this is not being uncooperative. every article is assessed against notability guidelines not because WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nobody has answered your questions, but the answers have emerged. 1) No. 2) No. 3) Yes. 4) No. Birfday (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found some sources. I believe I've found some sources for these trophies and other aspects of Aussie softball. They are coming from Australia, so it might take a while. (I hope I can get electronic copies, but I've ordered hard copies, just to be sure.) The sources are a series of programs from the playoffs themselves, and the book Batter Up! by Lynn Embrey. Chapter 3 of the book is said to be an authoritative treatment of the championships. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't want to be premature in adding it as a source. Lou Sander (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is a guideline that states, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified that the AfD notice at Esther Deason Shield is linking to this AfD. I am making a non-admin procedural removal of this AfD notice at Esther Deason Shield, where a "procedural closure" is a "null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." This closure is without prejudice to an immediate AfD nomination for Esther Deason Shield which would be the first such nomination. Note that Speedy keep criteria #1 supports this removal, which reads as follows, "The nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." The nominator's statement is that "it gets no coverage in the mainstream press" which is either a comment about Arthur Allsopp Shield or has no interpretation. Likewise, the !vote made by JamesBWatson contains repeated references to "it". Again, this closure is without prejudice to an immediate nomination of Esther Deason Shield for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and read several reliable sources for this article, and added two of them to the article. I can add the other two if necessary. I also did some minor expansion and reconfiguration of the article. I'm hoping that this is enough to get the article removed from the AFD category, and to get the AFD tag removed from the main article. Lou Sander (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- neither of the added sources are third party. This still fails WP:GNG. ~
- Two more sources added. Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 minor references in regional newspapers hardly adds notability. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more sources added. Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever sources are found, uncooperative people can find ways to impeach them. It's a game and a lifestyle with them. I hope you are not one of them. Lou Sander (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the test here is whether notability is met not about being uncooperative. I don't see sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The coverage it has received does not add up to notability - which is not surprising, given that it is a junior competition, in a minority sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs)
- Keep. I, and possibly others, have been deterred from commenting because every "Keep" is responded negatively to by the person favoring the deletion, and every "Delete" is responded to with cheerleading from the same source. We all recognize that citations are the sine qua non of notability. But apart from the matter of citations, we can infer that this shield might just be notable due to its longstanding existence and its status as an integral part of Australian softball; that might keep us looking, in spite of some partisans not being able to find any citations. Regarding citations, there formerly were none, and now people have found some. Assertions that anyone is claiming WP:ILIKEIT are incorrect; nobody has claimed that. Instead, they have found some sources (which have also drawn negative comments). Similarly, comments about WP:MUSTBESOURCES are out of place. Nobody has said that. Instead, they have gone looking for sources, and they have found some. One can infer that there might be a little WP:OWN going on here, and that any sources other than those in academic peer-reviewed journals, the full text of which is available online, will be seen by some as inadequate. 74.109.248.67 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 74.109.248.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- you have failed to demonstrate the existence of indepth significant coverage, I'm expecting major newspapers not academic journals. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect - unfortunately, to the chagrin of those involved, softball in Australia, especially at junior levels, is a school/family/friends activity only. You will never find independent sources, other than local newspapers, because anyone interested enough to write articles will almost certainly be involved with the organisation in some way. This can be seen by the four sources found, two are low readership local newspapers, one is a gameday program and the other is published by the Australian Softball Federation. I suggest that it be redirected into the article on Arthur Allsopp - who is definitely notable enough because he played cricket at first class level - no idea if his softball experience would qualify on its own - or Softball in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There ARE sources. I, too, object to the constant negative and uncalled-for comments by editors with agendas. One notes that they are also on a campaign to delete other articles on related topics. Nice life, that. There might be some merit in combining some of these articles in something about Australian softball or its competitions. I am working on finding other sources. Birfday (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yes there are sources, but almost all are primary sources not third party reliable sources. I hold this subject to the same standard any article up for deletion, notability must be met, there is no other agenda. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep more sources here all third party reliable sources. Gnangarra 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hardly indepth coverage about the actual competition. merely confirms people participating it. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hardly a suprising response from you, yet again. These sources shows it does have significant coverage, in multiple locations across Australia by multiple independent reliable sources. I might support a merger to an article on Arthur Allsop but there isnt one yet. Your dogged abuse of every person who has a differing opinion of you is rather disruptive and I suggest you take a step back allow others express their opinion then trust an independent admin make the closure appropriate decision. Gnangarra 07:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- your sources merely confirm people that have played in it in regional newspapers. don't see how that qualifies as indepth coverage. no major Australian city wide newspaper has reported this truly national competition. nor has Australia's national broadcaster [63]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- my niece got a mention in a suburban newspaper for being selected in state championships for soccer at Under 16. guess that makes the competition notable. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- two points City of Penrith population is 184,000 thats a major city in Australia, it aint a state championship its a national championship. Gnangarra 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Penrith is part of the greater Sydney area. we never talk about the capital cities of Australia + Penrith. city in australia can refer to large municipalities. just like there is Fairfield city. these are not cities in the international sense. secondly this is a junior national championship that receives any sparing mentions in the press. not an adult national championship. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so agree its a nation competition not a state competition which you were calling it earlier. Gnangarra 09:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the fairfax owned penrith star has a 50,000 plus circulation, in population 180,000 1 in 3 in the region. Gnangarra 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so agree its a nation competition not a state competition which you were calling it earlier. Gnangarra 09:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Penrith is part of the greater Sydney area. we never talk about the capital cities of Australia + Penrith. city in australia can refer to large municipalities. just like there is Fairfield city. these are not cities in the international sense. secondly this is a junior national championship that receives any sparing mentions in the press. not an adult national championship. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- two points City of Penrith population is 184,000 thats a major city in Australia, it aint a state championship its a national championship. Gnangarra 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- my niece got a mention in a suburban newspaper for being selected in state championships for soccer at Under 16. guess that makes the competition notable. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- your sources merely confirm people that have played in it in regional newspapers. don't see how that qualifies as indepth coverage. no major Australian city wide newspaper has reported this truly national competition. nor has Australia's national broadcaster [63]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hardly a suprising response from you, yet again. These sources shows it does have significant coverage, in multiple locations across Australia by multiple independent reliable sources. I might support a merger to an article on Arthur Allsop but there isnt one yet. Your dogged abuse of every person who has a differing opinion of you is rather disruptive and I suggest you take a step back allow others express their opinion then trust an independent admin make the closure appropriate decision. Gnangarra 07:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
still it's not a city. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a national competition, with a long recorded history. The article as noted above has since its AfD notification been referenced using third party sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- noting inappropriate comment by libstar rewored and ensuing discussion moved to talk page with this edit by Libstar. Gnangarra 11:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- passing references and not indepth coverage. do we cover all national competitions for 15 year olds.LibStar (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a junior national competition that gets no national coverage nor coverage in any major capital city newspaper. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the references look good - newspapers & a book. I'm not really sure, but this seems to be a support article for Softball Australia, to declutter the main article? and linked from ASF National Championships (perhaps this one could be deleted as it seems to be almost duplicate of the section in Softball Australia. there are separate pages for all the competitions. I looked at some of the players/winner's names for patterns and there are some showing up in under 16s Arthur Allsopp Shield then later in under 19s Nox Bailey Shield & even then to the mens opens winners John Reid Shield (eg Andrew Kirkpatrick in 2000/u16 & 2003/u19 & 2006/mens open; David Shearer (2001/u16 & 2003/u19 for example - there may be others, I stopped looking after seeing these 2 examples) I'm not really familiar with men's softball, but I don't see any reason to select against 16s and just delete their pages, especially when the older players/awards pages are also listed. perhaps unrelated, but I did a basic search on Andrew Kirkpatrick to see if he seemed like an important player and at a quick glance he seems to play at international games. so this article might also be useful as a support article/background for players such as him to show their career progression/history? (just voting since I noticed the relisting on Australia page watch) Kathodonnell (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- career progression is best shown in an individual sportsperson's article. secondly, refs don't look good. 2 passing mentions in small newspapers, one book which is a primary source published by the Softball federation. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of other minor shields should not be used as a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states, "...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.' " Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete I still can't see general notability. Perhaps a merge with Softball Australia?Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BLTN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a WP:DICDEF and not suitable as an encyclopedia article. Whpq (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide" (WP:DICDEF). Guoguo12 (Talk) 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wiktionary dicdef. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move. It definitely belongs in Wiktionary, after all that IS the dictionary. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki over to Wikitionary because it's the dictionary 'round here. Doh5678 (Doh5678) 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For those who think this belongs on Wiktionary, please consider their inclusion criteria against the evidence that this text/chat abbreviation is actually used. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to allow participants to review votes given concerns raised about wiktionary inclusion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as possibly WP:MADEUP, or else a dictionary definition of a word for laughter in Internet slang. Cnilep (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_mobile_weapons except for ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, and ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam which as pointed out are sourced and to which I have therefore applied Merge tags. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GAT-01 Strike Dagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating all of these Mobile Suit Gundam SEED fictional weapon articles for deletion, as the subject of each one fails WP:GNG due to the lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:PLOT, these articles are inappropriate as they purely plot-only description of content. The list of these fictional weapons was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, so merging to a list is not an option as there is a recent consensus that a stand-alone list of these weapons would not be appropriate.
In these following debates individual articles on said fictional weapons have been deleted unanimously:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (2nd nomination)
Although I dislike mass-nominations, the overriding consensus in these discussions that these articles should be deleted has made me feel that it would be wasting contributors time to debate the rest of them individually.
The articles:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question You do know the last AfD from hell about these articles, no? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series, which I am aware of. As you can see, most of the articles which were nominated for deletion in it have since been deleted - I'm pooling the remaining ones here. Anthem 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons and merge them there. The mobile weapons are a fundamental part of the series, in fact three of the Gundams listed are heavily used by the main protagonists and antagonists of the series, and lack of coverage will be detrimental to the coverage of the series as a whole. I have previously show in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons that there is plenty of coverage by third-party sources (at least 13 different sources) of these fictional elements as a group to justify a list article. I'll also note that the notability of such a list is dependent on the parent articles Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny and that these fictional elements are anything but trivial. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've already had a deletion debate on List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons at WIkipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons and it was decided that there were not suitable third party sources to cover it. If you really want to "restore" the list, take it to deletion review. You can't really have it undeleted as a result of an independent deletion debate which doesn't involve the original participants - that would be abuse of process. Anthem 05:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I'm considering sending that AfD to DRV because there was clearly no consensus to delete, especially in the face of 12 reliable thrid-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the others a side, Impulse, Red frame, Freedom and Strike Freedom should all have at least 3 model magazines (Dengeki Hobby, Hobby Japan, Model Graphix, all independent sources) extensively and in multiple times, mentioning them, I am also quite sure that The Great Mechanics series mentioned them at least once; others, appeared at least once in each of these magazines. The Freedom article even listed a Japanese stamp collection. Actually, I am pretty sure the Freedom got quite some mention in some gaming magazines due to its imbalance power in Gundam Vs Gundam series game that made it a unit that players tend to use or ban, like the AWP in Counter-Strike. I failed to see how at least this article not meeting the GNG. I mentioned the past AfD because the last time, deletionists ruled out all magazines that are anime related saying them not being 3rd party/independent with no policy or guideline backing their claim, I have no intention and motivation to start yet another long and tedious argument where after I list actual sources, deletionists just insist they cannot be used. Also, I don't really like the SEED series and I literally hate SEED-D with passion so I am only here to witness yet another fruitless debate in Wikipedia. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frag it Sorry, Mythsearcher, but it's a better use of your time to just work on Gundam articles on the Gundam wikia. Doing so here is largely a waste of time. Jtrainor (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Striking my vote out of spite. This is clearly not a good faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- duhh... I think this kind of comment are among those making editors not staying in Wikipedia and having them not recommending friends and relatives to contribute to it. Contents may not be relevant to Wikipedia, rarely an editor is not. Besides this can be also perceive as "the best way to win an argument in Wikipedia, is to have your opponents leave Wikipedia"... --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an expanded, but not comprehensive, list of potential sources that I originally presented at WIkipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. As you can see, there is plenty of coverage for a list of mobile weapons of the series, which the articles in this nomination should be merged to per WP:BEFORE.
- Fargo, Paul (March 3, 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED". Anime News Network.
- Fargo, Paul (August 15, 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny DVD 1". Anime News Network.
- Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15. (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
- Kimlinger, Carl (May 6, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny: Final Plus DVD". Anime News Network.
- Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
- Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21. (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
- Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29. (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
- Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
- Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
- Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
- Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39. (Features Destiny Gundam)
- Konoh, Arata (January 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Destiny Calls". Newtype USA. 6 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–35. (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
- Martin, Theron (January 23, 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed X Astray Vol. 1". Anime News Network.
- Martin, Theron (September 30, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny TV Movie II". Anime News Network.
- Santos, Carlo (September 12, 2005). "Gundam Seed the Movie: The Empty Battlefield". Anime News Network.
- Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
- Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166.
{{cite journal}}
:|author=
has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs) - Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95.
{{cite journal}}
:|author=
has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan) - Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.
—Farix (t | c) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these meet WP:RS. There's absolutely no indication that any of these anime magazines and websites have the editorial processes and policies which, say, a national news organization or a mainstream academic publications have. Unless you can show evidence that these sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I'm really not going to buy into this. Anthem 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- ANN's and THEM Anime's reviews has passed several discussions at WP:ANIME and WP:RSN and have been used in several Featured Articles. Newtype USA was a nationally published magazine and carried in by most book retailers and newsstands containing articles translated from the original Japanese Newtype and additional American-based content. As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, sources do not have the be "mainstream" or "academic", which are both extremely subjective terms, in order to be a reliable source. It seems that your completely denial of these sources is based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't like them. It's just that I don't think they are reliable, and you haven't really given me any evidence that they are suitable sources to substantiate notability. If you really think you can, write a proper list about these in userspace with a ton of citations to your legion of reliable sources, and isn't just plot only coverage, and bring it to WP:DRV. All the current content is frankly terrible - I don't know why you think it would be of any help to you at all. Anthem 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- They are very much reliable and have passed previous challenges (see WP:A&M/ORS). You have to show they they are somehow unreliable. As for WP:PLOT, that is an issue that can be fixed through editing by adding real-world relevance. Also WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE states to salvage articles and content when possible instead of outright deleting them. Neither these articles nor the list are completely unsalvageable, even if they are "terrible". The sources I've provided demonstrate that much. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that all the burden concerning the sources lies on you, as does the responsibility to sort out the articles. Unless you demonstrate the sources are reliable and these articles can be fixed, deletion is the answer. Anthem 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- ANN' news and reviews have already been established to be reliable sources through multiple discussions (Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N Discussion), and THEM Anime reviews also meets the criteria as a reliable source because excerpts from their reviews have been republished by other sources (Project discussions: 1). Newtype USA was published by A.D. Vision under license from Kadokawa Shoten, one of the largest Japanese publishing companies, until February 2008. The original Newtype is one of the largest anime magazines in Japan with a circulation of 133,750 last year.[64] Claiming that it is unreliable is like stating that GamePro is unreliable for video game news and reviews because they are "nitch" publications. That should be all the proof you need that these sources are reliable. Also, you are the one that needs to prove that the articles are completely unsalvageable in the presents of a long list of reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus as to whether it's a reliable source can change. The outcome of this debate will speak for itself. There are plenty of other publications (such as The Sun, for instance), which have editorial boards and offer internships and have large circulations, but fail WP:RS. It has been cited by other anime sources, which to me suggests more that their reliability should be questioned. Anthem 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- In other words, you will never by convened that these sources are reliable because they don't fit into your arguments. The strange thing is, these sources have a much better track records for accurate reporting than the New York Times. —Farix (t | c) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft, prove it. Even if so, it's because they essentially reprint plot details from a fictional work. They're not really secondary sources. Anthem 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you will never by convened that these sources are reliable because they don't fit into your arguments. The strange thing is, these sources have a much better track records for accurate reporting than the New York Times. —Farix (t | c) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ANN' news and reviews have already been established to be reliable sources through multiple discussions (Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N Discussion), and THEM Anime reviews also meets the criteria as a reliable source because excerpts from their reviews have been republished by other sources (Project discussions: 1). Newtype USA was published by A.D. Vision under license from Kadokawa Shoten, one of the largest Japanese publishing companies, until February 2008. The original Newtype is one of the largest anime magazines in Japan with a circulation of 133,750 last year.[64] Claiming that it is unreliable is like stating that GamePro is unreliable for video game news and reviews because they are "nitch" publications. That should be all the proof you need that these sources are reliable. Also, you are the one that needs to prove that the articles are completely unsalvageable in the presents of a long list of reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are very much reliable and have passed previous challenges (see WP:A&M/ORS). You have to show they they are somehow unreliable. As for WP:PLOT, that is an issue that can be fixed through editing by adding real-world relevance. Also WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE states to salvage articles and content when possible instead of outright deleting them. Neither these articles nor the list are completely unsalvageable, even if they are "terrible". The sources I've provided demonstrate that much. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ANN's and THEM Anime's reviews has passed several discussions at WP:ANIME and WP:RSN and have been used in several Featured Articles. Newtype USA was a nationally published magazine and carried in by most book retailers and newsstands containing articles translated from the original Japanese Newtype and additional American-based content. As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, sources do not have the be "mainstream" or "academic", which are both extremely subjective terms, in order to be a reliable source. It seems that your completely denial of these sources is based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's obvious that these articles are wanted by a certain segment of the population, but the precedent and consensus elsewhere is clear: these sources are not sufficient, and coverage of the subject is entirely based in plot summary. We need more than that. I'd have no prejudice with recreation of the articles if recreation entailed a balanced view of only those subjects that have real-world notability. — chro • man • cer 16:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "sources are not sufficient" in what ways? —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not sufficient to establish notability for each individual bit of technology in this television series. The sources you've provided would be sufficient provide detail to Mobile weapons, which already exists. They are not sufficient to create one article for every single device ever featured in the series and its spinoff media. I'm not going to be dragged into arguments of sophistry here. Treating each individual device as a notable topic in and of itself is a ludicrous proposition, and previous consensus agreed that sources were not sufficient even for a combined treatment of all this fictional technology. Again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. — chro • man • cer 21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "sources are not sufficient" in what ways? —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refocus Can participants refocus on the subject of the discussion which is whatever GAT-01 Strike Dagger & others fictional elements received "individually" sufficient credible & that have weight toward specific or broad audience coverage to warrant an article within Wikipedia and not whatever xyz sources is reliable. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refocus I would say to merge them in the list of mobile suit weapons from Gundam SEED, but such list's being reviewed for inappropiate deletion.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anthem, your particular behaviour and attitude is exactly what spawned the AfD from hell. Your single-manned repeated refusal to accept sources being reliable does not mean they are not. There are no reliable sources for almost all anime, manga, comic, fictional stories with your standard for sources. Newtype is one of the most prominent anime magazines in Japan, other magazines listed are also very dominant as well. Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources yourself: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Your claim of consensus can change is not only theoretical, but also proves your failure to respect wikipedia's consensus, at least in this particular process. If you have problem with the reliability of sources that passed RSN, you should bring it up there instead of refusing to accept the current consensus just on the basis of "it can change". It shows your WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance pretty much to the book. You kept saying others have to prove it reliable, yet you provide no standard and you have no authority and knowledge in this particular field to judge. Also, the burden of providing a rigid standard that meets wikipedia policies is YOURS, you also need to prove any of the sources you claim to be not reliable as questionable sources as Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The sources listed are seldom poor reputed and is generally accepted in the community, thus it is you that are making the accusation, and as the accuser, you need to prove your view. Also, you need to prove that consensus has indeed changed as it is your claim, when past consensus speaks otherwise, you also need to prove the magazines reprint plot details, since very obviously the ones using them as sources will very likely say it is not the case. Your last two reply up there is really just WP:POINT, which sounded really rude and disrespect of wikipedia's policy on consensus and others, which, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to change the closing admin's view on the issue, if not discrediting your attitude and became less favour to your views. If you are not going to accept anything at all, we get your point, you got your point across, VERY WELL, so let us get to something more constructive instead of having the delusion of conceiving any hope of convincing the inconvincible, and have another train wreck discussion of us facing the wall which nothing gets through to your side yet you keep replying things stating you are not going to take any point at all, you can just save your replies unless you have something new to say. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr. All I can say is that my response to the claim that an anime magazine has better editing policies than a major national newspaper is indicative of my credulity with respect to that claim. Anthem 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Let's recap what you said BEFORE that: None of these meet WP:RS. There's absolutely no indication that any of these anime magazines and websites have the editorial processes and policies which, say, a national news organization or a mainstream academic publications have. This is 1) blatantly assuming bad faith; 2) calling major magazines in this particular field of topics that predates the said material by at least a decade if not two not creditable; 3) continue to refuse to accept the current consensus built around these sources even after you were told. Whether the anime magazines have better editing policies than major national newspaper? Let me tell you these, 1) since the otaku or fanboys if you prefer a more disrespectful term have more concern in the field than regular newspaper readers, people will know when these sources made mistakes and the editors of such magazines very careful not to offend them; 2) magazines do not have as tight a time constraint as newspapers, and thus have more time to fact check; 3) We are talking about notability about fictional items/characters here, the main facts about notability is highly likely reported from these kind of sources; 4) you still did not answer how did you interpret having a stamp of its own] being not notable and not reliable. The source is directly from the Japanese Post, the official postage department. Failure to answer at least number 4 showed your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF position. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ironic to say the least that you're accusing me of not acting in good faith......incidentally, I actually like Gundam, I just don't think we need all these fan-crufty lists. Anthem 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I don't think we need all of these articles as well, especially all these articles even if notable, need some major rewrite/revamp anyway, possibly meaning removing over 90% of the current contents and adding contents with reliable sources. That is why I did not cast my !vote on any stance yet, at least as of now and am only giving comments and asking essential questions to your comments. But obviously, you do not bother answering policy related questions that are directly related to this AfD process, and a straight denial of all sources being reliable, even including the Japan Post itself. It does not matter if you like Gundam or not, you did not show it and it is all just your own allegation, I do not have to believe it nor disprove it to advance my arguments. Iit is your straight denial without basis and attitude of refusal to discuss about the reliability and credibility that makes you (at least look very much like) assuming bad faith. Like I said, you have your POV, we know it, you will NOT accept anything anime related, even government organization websites as reliable, end of discussion from your side, we get it, your point came across VERY well. I understand there is no point in getting you to explain it, probably most of the others here understand that as well. So don't bother replying if you are not going to change your attitude and start answering questions constructively, if you think there is nothing wrong about it, ESPECIALLY if you think there is nothing wrong about it. Why explain something you think is right? The closing admin is going to see your repeated denial in the very early stages, and if you think you are correct about it, you can completely ignore my comments and questions, since you should be very confident that the closing admin will take your side if you are so sure that you are correct. On the other hand, if you felt shaken, and must reply to my questions, that means you yourself suspect your POV and that means you should probably answer my questions with actual facts, instead of just giving repeated empty denials, to harden your grounds. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to infer notability from the fact a government has issued a stamp with a fictional character on it. If you could summarize your arguments into 50 words or so, I might be able to provide a counterargument. Anthem 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- A simple answer, I am talking about your statement of not reliable, instead of just notability. So your answer simply meant you ignore an essential part of the question. And, no, it is not original research to infer notability from the fact that a government has issued a stamp with a fictional character on it, it is the fact that the government did so with such characters that are notable and not any random character, each page of the stamp series contained short description of the theme. Of course this is not as notable as the First Gundam, which got its appearance in this stamp series and a full set of 10 stamps on its own, but still, you have a stamp for X-wing, M. Falcon, but not the A-wing, B-wing nor the Tie-Bomber, not even the Tie-Fighter. This is simple enough of a common sense that you only make stamps with fictional characters if they have some sort of prominence. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we need all of these articles as well, especially all these articles even if notable, need some major rewrite/revamp anyway, possibly meaning removing over 90% of the current contents and adding contents with reliable sources. That is why I did not cast my !vote on any stance yet, at least as of now and am only giving comments and asking essential questions to your comments. But obviously, you do not bother answering policy related questions that are directly related to this AfD process, and a straight denial of all sources being reliable, even including the Japan Post itself. It does not matter if you like Gundam or not, you did not show it and it is all just your own allegation, I do not have to believe it nor disprove it to advance my arguments. Iit is your straight denial without basis and attitude of refusal to discuss about the reliability and credibility that makes you (at least look very much like) assuming bad faith. Like I said, you have your POV, we know it, you will NOT accept anything anime related, even government organization websites as reliable, end of discussion from your side, we get it, your point came across VERY well. I understand there is no point in getting you to explain it, probably most of the others here understand that as well. So don't bother replying if you are not going to change your attitude and start answering questions constructively, if you think there is nothing wrong about it, ESPECIALLY if you think there is nothing wrong about it. Why explain something you think is right? The closing admin is going to see your repeated denial in the very early stages, and if you think you are correct about it, you can completely ignore my comments and questions, since you should be very confident that the closing admin will take your side if you are so sure that you are correct. On the other hand, if you felt shaken, and must reply to my questions, that means you yourself suspect your POV and that means you should probably answer my questions with actual facts, instead of just giving repeated empty denials, to harden your grounds. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's recap what you said BEFORE that: None of these meet WP:RS. There's absolutely no indication that any of these anime magazines and websites have the editorial processes and policies which, say, a national news organization or a mainstream academic publications have. This is 1) blatantly assuming bad faith; 2) calling major magazines in this particular field of topics that predates the said material by at least a decade if not two not creditable; 3) continue to refuse to accept the current consensus built around these sources even after you were told. Whether the anime magazines have better editing policies than major national newspaper? Let me tell you these, 1) since the otaku or fanboys if you prefer a more disrespectful term have more concern in the field than regular newspaper readers, people will know when these sources made mistakes and the editors of such magazines very careful not to offend them; 2) magazines do not have as tight a time constraint as newspapers, and thus have more time to fact check; 3) We are talking about notability about fictional items/characters here, the main facts about notability is highly likely reported from these kind of sources; 4) you still did not answer how did you interpret having a stamp of its own] being not notable and not reliable. The source is directly from the Japanese Post, the official postage department. Failure to answer at least number 4 showed your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF position. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nomination. As pointed out in the nomination, none of these fictional weapons meets the general notability guideline. Most of the nominated articles do not provide references and, with no reliable third-party sources, there is no reason to keep these articles. A quick search engine test shows no indication that any article about these fictional mobile suits can be anything different from a plot-only description of a fictional work, which is what most of these articles are. The exceptions would be ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, which appear to show some real-world context in their articles, but, checking them in detail, it seems that they derive information from the TV series, taking plot and promotional campaign information instead of providing reliable secondary sources that give significant coverage to the fictional mobile suits; the real-world context provided amounts only to popularity in a sales catalog and the articles cite primary sources or a fansite to provide extra details, so there is no reason to keep them either. There are several reliable sources for the Gundam SEED series but the fictional mobile suits, either individually or as a group, have not shown that there are reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, reception and significance for them, which makes them merely redundant content forks of the plot and unnecessary splits of the main Gundam SEED articles. Jfgslo (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This discussion might want to be kept open for two weeks pending consensus here as the DRV result could have a direct impact on a result. I myself am waiting for the results of the DRV before I weigh in on this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, especially as a lot of the discussion here hasn't actually focused on the articles but on the process of deleting the list, which is now being discussed there. --Anthem 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted as the outcome of the DRV will inform this close. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons is to be restored I feel that some of these articles that lack sources should be merged imto that article. There can always be splitouts when the character has the references to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is restored it will be presumably as an overturn to no consensus. In that case, there's probably going to be another AFD debate in the near future. --Anthem 15:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, seems like a reasonable way to handle the content. Yes, it too might be deleted. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas, who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchize.[65] —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Readding my vote due to the person nomming this being banned as a sock. Jtrainor (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hobit. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, the only stuff I see that is worth a merge is the content in ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam, and ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam as those articles are sourced. The rest of the articles should be redirects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huynh Thong Nhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"A young, renowned Vietnamese art gallerist in Hanoi." No references. External links includes 3 to other painters and his email address. Unable to find anything via searches, but his alternate name, Richard Huynh, is a common name. Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing any significant reliable source coverage of him. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per suspicion of advertisement/promotion. The links provided aren't sufficient to hold this article together. I did an online search just to be safe, and turned up nothing mentioning him. Edit: Not mention, if you take a look at the history it seems that subject may've come on here because an e-mail address in his name was submitted to the page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathis Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. WP:A7 declined based on claims by author who admits to being contracted to write the article. CTJF83 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article had been speedy deleted four times. Article fails corp notability guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the article was written by a contractor hired to write it, that isn't grounds for deletion if the article can be written to comply with our inclusion criteria. The number of times it has been speedily deleted is also not grounds for deletion. The only thing that matters is compliance with WP:CORP. This is a large furniture store with outlets across the nation (an Oklahoma store which has become the largest furniture retailer in California), so I'm surprised at the lack of coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is NN company and fails WP:CORP. CTJF83 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob Gray OAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just being awarded the OAM is not enough to prove sufficient notability on wikipedia. This has been discussed before - see Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_36#OAMs_for_notability for a recent discussion. Is he the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I don't think so - his OAM seems to be for his work in the navy which almost certainly wouldn't have been reported outside in independent sources. The-Pope (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have drawn a blank looking for further sources on this person. I'm sure that the work he did to deserve an OAM was of top quality (you don't get one otherwise, generally), but I'm not seeing enough verifiable material for us to construct a BLP here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Biographical article about someone who had a solid but unremarkable career in the Royal Australian Navy. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dolphin (t) 12:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SAS Rapid Data Warehouse Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for IP. Reason is:
- [R]eads like a tech whitepaper or similar [66]
I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (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) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Business case then requirements before design before build before deployment? Well, that's an innovative approach! Nothing notable here, just a retread of the mundane, so delete. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be snobby. The principal steps are always the same in waterfall-model-like development architectures. It's mainly what's in these steps that makes the difference. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is completely out of my area of expertise. For what I found this model is one of several more-established solutions for an integral design approach for data warehouses. This reference (in German) states that notable methodologies are ASAP BW Roadmap of SAP, SAS Rapid Warehousing, the spiral model of Gill&Rao, the IDSE approach, and the life cycle method of Kimball. From my perspective, it would be good if we had an article on warehouse development or warehouse design methodologies and could merge the current article (with little to none useful information) there. We don't have these articles and it looks like we also don't have someone with the required expertise. So the question is: the article does not explain why what it specifically contains is notable (IMO it is not), nor does it provide any references, so should we assume good faith, hoping for an improvement some day, or delete it? Maybe the answer should be that if some day someone will come along and is willing to write a constructive article on this subject then he is invited to do so but until then maybe it is better to delete this article. Nageh (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inspirative (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band appears to fail to meet the notablity criteria of WP:BAND. The article cites only 2 instances of independent coverage. When performing a Google search, I found no additional independent coverage that was not from a self-published source. The 2 instances of coverage were not major. One was simply a brief review of one of the bands albums, and I was unable to translate the other article. The band came up with no results on Google News. With such little coverage, no songs on a country's music chart, and no awards, the band fails to meet WP:BAND. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I am willing to assume good faith about the the offline coverage in the Thai magazines. I've also found a review at TheSilentBallet.com here, thus passing the general notability guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those sources that you are relying on do you view as RSs? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2011 (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) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Schoeners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Saturday Night Live sketch, no sources. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. It is a terribly written article about a terrible sketch, but it cannot be said that it is without sources and the mere assertion that it is not notable does not make it non-notable. The article does include references. While most of them I acknowledge are rather poor, there is a modicum of sourcing that merits the article being tagged in the manner that it is and designated as a stub.Agent 86 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2011 (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) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any substantive coverage in reliable sources at all. Zero relevant Google Books or Google News hits. None of the "references" cited in the article satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Appears to be a clear failure of the GNG. Deor (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is primary sources which serve to establish existence which is not in dispute. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the contention that WP:GNG has incurred any violation due to the presence of this article. Neither of the unique reference sources were self-generated, and her distinguished background and achievement of chief meteorologist while in her 20's is noteworthy to those interested in a similar career path.
- Evelyn Taft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local meteorologist, albeit in a major market, that doesn't have widespread notability necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but some of the other news anchors at the same TV station have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsapw (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Of the four provided references, two are not independent of the subject (being from the subject's employer and alma mater) and the other two don't even mention the subject. I was not able to find anything else besides many mentions in "weather babe" blogs which are neither reliable nor significant. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Durling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable secondary character in a movie and book. The article is currently nearly all plot. No real-world commentary on the importance of the character or scholarly discussion of the character. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems mostly plot, and the character is un-notable, and would probably be better off in a list of characters in Tom Clancy novels. Rcsprinter (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (create) a list of Jack Ryan fictional universe characters. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiana University Dance Marathon (IUDM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student group. While this is a good cause, not all good causes are notable enough to be encyclopedic. OCNative (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the applicable guidelines WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — OCNative (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Small interest group. Fails WP:ORG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ballekere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up as needed. Villages are considered notable per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Villages are generally held to be notable. The nominator's stated reason provides no details of why he thinks this should be deleted. An article about a village is not covered by the policy he quotes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike De Paulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deprodded, yet notability is still questionable as the references added were both just peripheral mentions. There are numerous peripheral mentions which turn up, but I am unable to find any substantial reliable sources to document notability of this trainer. Some of the horses, perhaps, but notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Mentioned as trainer, but lacks significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as POV fork. Neutralitytalk 03:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalist crimes against humanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unlikely this article could ever be written in a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. Current article reads more like an attack page, and contains no references which suggest or support the presented ideas that the subjects listed are so-called 'capitalist regimes' or have engaged in 'crimes against humanity'. France3470 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is just a POV attack article, any any information within the scope of this article is likely covered elsewhere without use of the phrase "Capitalist Regimes".
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SBK Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. A non-notable local radio show where the article has no reliable third-party sources to establish notability. The previous version of the article has been speedily deleted for being too promotional and the author SBKLivePR (talk · contribs) is obviously a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the one who PRODded this version, and I could find nothing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability established. SBK live covered multiple times in the local paper, The Orlando Sentinel -- http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/lastcall/tag/sbk-live
Bigdintx (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the newspaper "coverage" is pretty much just promotional. Wouldn't be surprised if they were connected. Eeekster (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, care should be taken to maintain a neutral point of view. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
POV essay in the making. 'Things I find similar between X and Y' is not a good idea for an article, even if similar arguments are occasionally voiced by some scholars, as it becomes a selective soapboxing. With the risk of indulging in WP:OTHERCRAP, I'd say that 'Comparison of X and Y' opens up for 'Comparison between Liberalism and Nazism', 'Comparison between Catholicism and Satanism', 'Comparison between Socialism and Sadism', etc.. Soman (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks notability. Lacks analysis of the topic it purports to discuss. It looks like it was created merely to suggest that there are commonalities between the two ideologies. But after looking article's history I am surprised now that it was not named Proof that Nazism equals Stalinism. (Igny (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete- Yes, there is sourcing out there on this topic: "Red Fascism" or whatever one wants to call it. No, there probably shouldn't be an article on it, because it is inherently a POV topic -- originating circa 1939 at the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Would or should an article called Comparison of Conservatism and Nazism fly? How about Comparison of Liberalism and Communism? No and no, unless I miss my guess, even though either of those could probably be sourced out with an hour's worth of work. Why? Those topics are clearly POV enterprises. This is a similar situation, even though the POV might be hard for a non-specialist to see. Carrite (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HA! Complete with a photoshopped "montage" image of Hitler and Stalin!!! Check out the rights description of that image if you need further proof that something is rotten in Denmark. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "HA!"?! You saw the picture and didn't immediately realize it was a montage? As a general education, well-known images Marx-Engels-Lenin, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin and Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao are all photo montages (and three out of five in the last one are notorious mass murderers). --Sander Säde 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid reason given under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. This notable topic is subject of at least four scholarly sources of the highest reliability:
- Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
- Furet, François; Ernst Nolte (2001). Fascism and communism. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803219953.
- Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
- Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.
- --Martin (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's another substantial book about the topic: The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia. The notability of the topic is well established. Warden (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Martin's comment decides it. There is clearly an encyclopaedic and scholarly topic to be written here. Therefore, "Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism" should not be a redlink, and this AfD must be closed as "keep".
However, this is going to be a difficult topic to write, because of its controversial nature and because so many Wikipedians are interested in Fascism, Stalinism and the Second World War in general. This kind of article can turn into a war between competing "experts" for a while. I think the content will need to be written much more carefully than is the case at the moment. I suggest that whenever you make an opinion statement in this article, you use in-text attribution. So for example, where the current text reads the two regimes have been described as the most murderous in history, with only Pol Pot being comparable, a preferable wording would be Kershaw (1997) says that the two regimes are the most murderous in history. Yes, this will make the text more cumbersome, but it will also lead to many fewer arguments, reduce any potential risk of copyright violation claims from those who wish to delete it, and make the article seem more authoritative, reliable and trustworthy. Good luck—I wouldn't personally try to write this content on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is good advice. Obviously the article requires great care and the aim is to get consensus first on the talk page in regard to the scope before expanding this stub, and a couple of editors have offered their views on what should be covered in bullet point form on the article talk page. --Martin (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin, no shortage of sources to show notability. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note The Last Angry Man has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley [67]. --TFD (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the moment, due to the notability of this topic, I'm going to !vote to keep it. However, this article should cover such comparisons, not turn into one. There are serious dangers that this article is going to turn into a massive coatrack. The article shouldn't make any value judgements about Hitler and Stalin or any other dictators, but encyclopaedically cover the history of such comparisons. Anthem 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [68]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am going to delete the photoshopped montage, which is an utter POV fabrication and has no place in a serious encyclopedia. If concerned
activistseditors want to include complete and separate images of Hitler and Stalin, that would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the image is included is a content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page, but I note a similar image was deemed to be satisfactory and kept in the discussion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_20#Stalin_Hitler_photomontage.png. --Martin (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Original photo montage to advance a thesis = original research. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't, it illustrates a concept already present in reliable sources (see [69], for example). --Martin (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Original photo montage to advance a thesis = original research. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources specifically refer to and engage in the scholarly study of Nazism and Stalinism in comparison. There is nothing "POV" about it. There is no WP:OR or synthesis here, nor is there some "Proof that Nazism equals Stalinism" agenda here. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is what is POV here. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 17:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I differ and share the opinion of the nominator that this is a "POV essay in the making." Just you watch. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you've already derided that there is serious scholarship on the topic by suggesting Comparison of Conservatism and Nazism and Comparison of Liberalism and Communism are equally tenable Wikipedia article topics. Perhaps you'd like to respond at the article to what I've responded with to TFD as what I would consider as in scope to the article. I'd take your objections more seriously if they weren't based on ridiculing something instead of offering a thoughtful response. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you've already derided that there is serious scholarship on the topic by suggesting Comparison of Conservatism and Nazism and Comparison of Liberalism and Communism are equally tenable Wikipedia article topics. Perhaps you'd like to respond at the article to what I've responded with to TFD as what I would consider as in scope to the article. I'd take your objections more seriously if they weren't based on ridiculing something instead of offering a thoughtful response. PЄTЄRS
- Delete. What can work as a book doesn't necessarily work as a Wikipedia article. Agree that this is going to be a POV-magnet, for all sides. History of the 1930s, 1940s is already covered in numerous articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it can't work. The only issue at the moment is (my perception) that some editors are objecting based only on their personal prejudices that other editors are going to use the article as a WP:FORUM to equate Hitler and Stalin (as expressed in the past, although that specific charge hasn't been made this time around, yet). I've suggested an approach to content, let me know if that strikes you as POV. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it can't work. The only issue at the moment is (my perception) that some editors are objecting based only on their personal prejudices that other editors are going to use the article as a WP:FORUM to equate Hitler and Stalin (as expressed in the past, although that specific charge hasn't been made this time around, yet). I've suggested an approach to content, let me know if that strikes you as POV. PЄTЄRS
- Keep. The comparison dates back to the 1920s and this has been the subject of extensive scholarly study and countless books for decades. The article needs expansion, but could be a worthwhile addition to articles such as the one on the official European remembrance day for Stalinism and Nazism, thus providing more of the background of why these ideologies are commemorated together and the extensive history of the comparison/concept/theory(/ies)/scholarly debate since the 1920s. Tataral (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A very well-known area of academic research, so the question is how come we didn't have the article so far? Needs to be expanded, naturally, but there is plenty of highest quality sources for that (scientific monographs, peer-reviewed scientific articles). Nominator doesn't actually give a reason, so I recommend a premature close/withdrawal. --Sander Säde 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Protest all you want, but this article really is a POV essay in the making, presented as it is. If there's any reason for it to survive it would be to examine the history of scholarship that deals with the topic in a historical sense, and it would certianly need a rename. The current title suggests that there's a natural comparison to be made and that it needs to be made, where any amount of "comparison" topics can just as easilt be written, and are not, for good reasons. -- 143.112.144.129 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 14 June 2011[reply]
- Keep If multiple university presses are publishing books on a certain topic it is generally notable, and I think that's the case here. Certainly could use some cleanup by a knowledgeable editor, but I don't think it's irredeemably biased. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The broader topic already turns up in multiple "criticisms of" sections in artcles on communism, fascism and various "criticisms" of articles. Another one dealing with the same subject isn't necessary 143.112.144.129 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very subjective and very vague grounds for deletion! This isn't an article about a "broader topic", but an article specifically about comparing Nazism and Stalinism, a subject addressed by multiple reliable sources. It isn't the same as other articles about "communism." 203.118.185.200 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With multiple reliable sources specifically comparing Nazism and Stalinism, this is an obviously notable and significant subject. No reason it shouldn't be the topic of an article; article problems can be fixed by editing and are not a reason for deletion. 203.118.184.111 (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, some scholars have compared the two systems, but we would need an overview of this literature to establish the notability and coherence of the topic so that a neutral article could be written. TFD (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? That to me looks an awful lot like making up an arbitrary reason for deletion. And if in your view "an overview of this literature" could establish notability, why are you voting delete? 203.118.184.237 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has not been established and we have no sources to explain what weight to apply. Good reason to delete. However, if you can find sources, then please present them. TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the IP that this is an arbitrary reason. Per WP:GNG: "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 or stand-alone list." This is significant coverage:
- Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
- Furet, François; Ernst Nolte (2001). Fascism and communism. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803219953.
- Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
- Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.
- Overy, Richard (2004), The dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Allen Lane. ISBN 9780713993097
- --Martin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the IP that this is an arbitrary reason. Per WP:GNG: "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 or stand-alone list." This is significant coverage:
- Notability has not been established and we have no sources to explain what weight to apply. Good reason to delete. However, if you can find sources, then please present them. TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've stricken my delete vote above. This isn't even close in terms of notability, clearly a keep. But it's gonna be a POV magnet, mark my words. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G. S. Pradeep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 'No refs' is an extremely poor rationale for deletion. There are plenty of articles that cover the subject found from a Google News search. The article can and should be improved rather than deleted.--Michig (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Lot of awards but I do not know if any cover national or international ones as they would then represent notability. General article structure and wording should be improved. -- CrossTempleJay → talk 16:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (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) 01:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible copyright problems. A good deal of this article seems to be a close paraphrase of his website. Might be enough for G12 but it could use a few more eyes first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. The last version of this article without the copyright problems is this one. However, it's an unsourced stub that talks more about the show then the subject. This should be deleted with leave to write a new sourced article which won't be subject to CSD G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of articles about the subject in Indian newspapers and news sites - a few examples: [70], [71], [72]. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Noted TV personality. Reduce to a stub if no improvement is made by the time a decision is taken here. Tintin 07:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well known TV anchor in Malayalam Language. He is the idea behind the concept reverse quiz. --Anoopan (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of lakes in Maine. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of ponds in Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 1: Most definitely not notable. #2 There is no way you can fill this in. If you somehow manage to include every single pond, once it rains, there will be a edit storm and a epic edit war. WikiCopter 04:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Your definition of pond is not the one most people use. There are lots of ponds that are permanent bodies of water, whether man-made or natural. They do not get created with rain. There are issues with this list, but the issues you bring up are non-sequiters and in no way justify deleting it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think that every single pond warrants a mention. Although I disagree with the nom's definition of pond, I doubt we need a listing of every tiny body of water in a state. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Ponds in Maine" is not an encyclopaedic topic (notability issues, pond is a subjective term), and this list has only two entries. --Anthem 09:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [73]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of lakes in Maine, which already contains many notable ponds. –BMRR (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2011 (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) 01:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of lakes in Maine as suggested by Anthem. The terms overlap, but lakes is the more common term. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant to say "as suggested by BMRR"; Anthem suggested deletion, not a merge. –BMRR (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect with List of lakes in Maine. Neutralitytalk 02:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seldon Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:CREATIVE. article lacks reliable sources. most of gnews hits [74] are passing mentions. only the first article [75] has some mention but he is mentioned among many artists. don't see significant indepth coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep have subsequent to the intial listing provided a wide range of references (including a number of interviews with Hunt). Any search will come up with substantial 'hits' so I can only conclude that the nominator did not undertake sufficient research before nominating the article. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep self evident - nomination should be withdrawn SatuSuro 10:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trapped! (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article on a TV series of little notability, the article's history shows ongoing problems with content insertion and removal, nonetheless a lot of the current content is garbage (list of the contestants, in-depth analysis of the rounds etc.) this article is one of the worst I've come across. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:18pm • 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the deletion policy basis of this AfD? Looking at the history there are no revert wars just iterative edits with poor summary word choice. Notability can be established. References can be added. So I'm saying keep and allow the article to be improved. Paulzag (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Paulzag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You can, read the AfD tag. If you can improve it so that it has verifiable independent reliable sources, then by all means go ahead, no one's stopping you. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:51pm • 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the AfD tag which is why I asked you to state the policy basis.
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - no attempt made
- If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. - no attempt made.
- So it seems the correct tag is RefImprove not AfD Paulzag (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the AfD tag which is why I asked you to state the policy basis.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominating an article about a show that has been on the UK's leading television channel for years is absurd. The current state of the article may reflect badly on wikipedia, but is no reason to delete. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it notable but not verifiable. There are plenty of people who have acted on BBC TV shows who've had their articles deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Slack, then there are other BBC TV shows which have had their articles deleted and all because they lack reliable sources. Meeting a notability guideline, as stated in said guidelines, doesn't merit the article's inclusion on Wikipedia, there needs to be encyclopedic content and independent, verifiable, reliable sources. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But you originally claimed it had little notability. Now you're focusing on verifiability. What happened to other BBC TV actor's pages isn't relevant. This is about the show's page. The article should be fixed, not deleted. The correct RefImprove tag should be added to it. Paulzag (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it notable but not verifiable. There are plenty of people who have acted on BBC TV shows who've had their articles deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Slack, then there are other BBC TV shows which have had their articles deleted and all because they lack reliable sources. Meeting a notability guideline, as stated in said guidelines, doesn't merit the article's inclusion on Wikipedia, there needs to be encyclopedic content and independent, verifiable, reliable sources. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is horribly bloated and unreferenced at the moment, but a TV series which has already run four seasons should have no problem with verifiability. I've just added a reference now. With any luck, an editor with better knowledge than I about the series will come along at some point and get rid of all the trivial and otherwise inappropriate content. Either way, the page's problems can be dealt with without deleting it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Stagecoach Manchester bus routes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greater Manchester bus route 86 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any significant coverage of this bus service in reliable 3rd party sources indicating importance, so think it should be deleted. AD 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Individual bus routes are normally considered non-notable. The only source provided in this article is the bus company's own schedule for this route, which is not an independent source that can help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, possibly as part of a grouped article with similar route 85. Despite the current lack of references, some do exist, certainly at local level ([76] [77] [78] [79] [80]) and briefly in Buses Magazine. It's borderline whether or not this is enough for WP:GNG, and rather depends on how you define significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Metropolitan90 or redirect to List of Stagecoach Manchester bus routes. Insignificant coverage. Wikipedia is not a public transit guide. Neutralitytalk 02:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Stagecoach Manchester bus routes. While it doesn't seem like a notable bus route in terms of a global encyclopaedia, it does seem notable in the context of Manchester bus routes, sot the redirect is a good option. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Continental (Saturday Night Live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed by IP with no explanation. SNL sketch that, while recurring, doesn't seem to be notable. I did a quick search for references, and couldn't really find anything that would be reason enough to keep this. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The New York Times wrote that "Walken's Saturday Night Live role as the suave sleazebag in The Continental, a parody of an early 50's show Walken watched as a kid, rivals John Belushi's cheezborger, cheezborger routine as the funniest skit in the show's 29-year history." The Washington Post wrote that "Walken's regular Saturday Night Live character The Continental is so pathologically lecherous that Walken can barely keep a straight face during the skits." The Dallas Morning News asked, "Why not just make Christopher Walken the permanent guest host and get it over with?"and then commented, "Saturday Night Live only seems to get lifted out of its doldrums when the Continental shows up to stumble through cue-card readings and otherwise rescue smugly juvenile skits from the comfortably numb(skull) zone." Anticipating an upcoming Walken appearance, The Hartford Courant predicted that he would "reprise his role as the sleazy seducer in a sketch they call The Continental". Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable as evidenced by sources diligently found by Cullen. Looking for reviews of the SNL: The Best of Christopher Walken DVD may also be worthwhile. –xenotalk 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Barry Gibb Talk Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed without explanation by IP. Recurring SNL sketch that fails WP:GNG. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject is not notable outside of the show on which it is featured. Article information is mostly trivial and not encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A book called The War for Late Night: When Leno Went Early and Television Went Crazy, describes Jimmy Fallon's performance in the skit as "perhaps most memorably, a perpetually pissed-off, dead-on Barry Gibb, who hosted his own irrationally enraged talk show with his brother Robin (played with equally devastating accuracy by Justin Timberlake)". MTV wrote "Maybe folks were surprised when Justin Timberlake hosted "Saturday Night Live" in 2003 and slayed the crowd alongside Jimmy Fallon during "The Barry Gibb Talk Show." Three weeks ago, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer] called the skit "memorable". Entertainment Weekly called the skit "still the funniest thing Jimmy Fallon has ever done". MTV reported that Justin Timberlake won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series for his guest-stint on "Saturday Night Live" in 2009. That Timberlake appearance featured an episode of the Barry Gibb Talk Show. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is one of the show's more memorable sketches and deserves a page. It wouldn't make sense to delete this page when some not as memorable sketches have pages. Cleo20 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TRX2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The majority of existing article references are not about TRX2 and those that specifically refer to the product only mention the product in passing and/or are about another subject. ttonyb (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - this article is a promotional piece - shoulda been speedied. How can language like "lead scientist Thomas Whitfield believes..." be considered encyclopedic? Close examination of the author of this article - BibiWhite - (a waste of my time) - is in fact a further promotional piece for Thomas Whitfield. Bibiwhite is not a user - it is self-promotion - give it up Thomas. MarkDask 10:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peermade Development Society (PDS) PDS Organic Spices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The organisation seems non-notable, and the text is mostly a copy-vio from various pages of their website at http://www.pdspeermade.com/html/about.htm. I started copy edits, but am not sure it's worth saving. Diannaa (Talk) 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Flood (High Tide album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP: NALBUMS. This album is a posthumous compilation of demos by High Tide, of interest only to this obscure and short-lived band's handful of hardcore fans. While I am an obsessive fan of the band myself and would enjoy expanding this article, there are no reliable third party sources which could be used to add worthwhile information. The only third party coverage out there are a couple progressive rock-specific resources which have no information on this album beyond what can be deduced from reading the track listing of the album itself. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this release; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marx Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This film does not appear to be particularly notable. WCityMike 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since it has not yet been released in the US, English-language reviews are not readily available. However, as it appears to have been the recipient of critical commentary in German-language sources independent of the subject, I would have to assess that notable in Germany, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find it quite bizarre that it's even nominated. I shall now add further evidence of its notability in terms which suit the specific requirements of English wikipedia. But, once again, bizarre. And a waste of everyone's time. Rachel0898 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that for what has been flagged as a non-notable film the Marx Reloaded page has generated 5890 views [81] in the last 30 days. Arguably a high number given I can find no additional information about an English-language release date. Further, although it's hardly comparing like with like - especially since the following film is over ten years old - Spider (film), a UK English-language feature film with a notable, even cult director attached, and which was released in cinemas worldwide, generated 8912 hits in the last 30 days. Rachel0898 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2011 (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) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability has been established by the sources. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: crazy that this has been considered for deletion: an entry for an actually-existing documentary film that has already been broadcast in france and germany, which takes a serious look at the 'global financial crisis' we all purport to be be so interested in, which presents the view of a raft of well known theorists about this crisis, which drags marx, trotsky and lenin into the modern 'matrix' and which has already generated a substantial amount of english-language discussion online ahead of a release in the UK; all in all pretty relevant for a free encyclopedia. Muzzafrabad 11 June 2011 --Muzzafrabad (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - a well written and resourced entry on a serious topic - a genuine keeper. MarkDask 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has not been established, and I could find no reliable third-party references to this show. SudoGhost™ 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Neutralitytalk 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.