Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 25
< 24 October | 26 October > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Article was blanked by creator/sole author and moved to his user page. MfD may be appropriate.. The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Jay Project (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 evidence of notability. Article creator acknowledges here that it is his own personal hobby OS. Google News returns no hits. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research, no reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1066 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WP:OR and self promotion. — Abhishek Talk 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the Google code page says 'we now have a Wikipedia article'. WP:COI. I typically expect more from a Google search. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:27, 26 October 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. Tone 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Manuel Andres Velez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An 18-year old DJ, record producer and musician. Has released an album on his own self-published label. Absolutely no reliable sources to be found. A Google search of him and his album ("Manuel Velez" "Bury The Hatchet") comes up with 8 sources. He goes by "Manuel Andres Velez" and "Manuel Velez". Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This clearly fails the WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet either general notability or that for musicians. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Purely promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:44, 1 November 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) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Law clerk's day (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 cannot find any reference to this supposed holiday in reliable sources. Google News Archive searches for "Law clerk's day" "February 29" and "Law clerk's day" "Learned Hand" yield zero sources. The New York Times article linked from the article contains no mention of this holiday. Goodvac (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I too can find no RS, looks like a hoax. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, This is a real holiday. I was a law clerk last year, and it was celebrated in our chambers. My mom is a staff attorney at a court and they have celebrated it yearly for as long as she can remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.201.114 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax per comments provided by 108.65.201.114. 108.65.201.114 said they were a law clerk "last year" and this holiday was celebrated -- except that the holiday supposedly takes place on February 29, and there was no February 29 last year. (Anyway, there are no sources for this holiday I could find outside Wikipedia itself.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a hoax per CSD G3. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's certainly not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 26 October 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. Tone 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FC Quebec (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 football team that does not exist yet and provides no evidence of notability TonyStarks (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- first source is dead, and links to a non-reliable source anyway (public forum). Second source doesn't even mention the club, just to verify a claim wrt what # expansion team would be. Can find nothing in a search to even verify this is happening, let alone that this club is notable as yet. Fails WP:OR because it seems unverifiable as far as I can tell; also fails WP:N; possibly fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Naturally, no prejudice against recreation when/if the team is established. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canadian Soccer League as an expansion team which obviously never came to fruition. GiantSnowman 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the franchise never got started. PKT(alk) 20:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - Didn't happen, and no evidence of it going to happen. Coverage is insignificant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 1 November 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 Closed. This AfD has been supplanted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap paradox in fiction (2nd nomination). Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bootstrap paradox in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this a real thing? Jasonfward (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look.I'm sorry, Im making a real hash of this, but all I want is to nominate this article for deletion Bootstrap_paradox_in_fiction and to put my reasons for why. Jasonfward (talk) 21:54, 25 October 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. Tone 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- African Icons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football club that does not exist yet .. no evidence of notability and no references provided either TonyStarks (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fails WP:CRYSTAL massively. "...which still has no 2009 official press or media release information...", followed by a dead link? Nothing I can see on Google beyond WP mirrors to even verify this as speculation, let alone verify it's genuine. And so, by extension, absolutely nothing with which to claim notability. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up, I did actually find something relating to this after searching for the other, related AfD: [1]. Not reliable by any stretch, and I'm not convinced it's actually from a legitimate news source (nothing like a major news agency, anyway) because otherwise this would probably find something resembling a reliable mirror for it. Regardless, the content suggests this was going to happen in 2008, yet it clearly hasn't. So perhaps not as bad as I first thought, but it's certainly a non-notable team that never came to fruition, and may not ever. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canadian Soccer League as an expansion team which obviously never came to fruition. GiantSnowman 17:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks too non-notable to even support a redirect--appears never to have gotten beyond the idea stage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 November 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. There is a consensus below that ERCIM is non-notable per the applicable guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ERCIM (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable consortium. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "A consortium of so many leading research institutes is already thereby notable", but notability is not inherited. Researchers working at different institutes collaborate all the time, that's nothing out of the ordinary. Unless such consortia receive non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, they are not notable. This is one of those: delete. Crusio (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is not automatically inherited. But note that, for example, WP:NBOOK, WP:NFILM and WP:NMUSIC all allow, under certain conditions, for inherited notability. WP:NOTINHERITED states: "not every organization to which a notable person belongs ... is itself notable", and by analogy we are led to infer that "not every consortium to which a notable organization belongs is itself notable". But in the case of ERCIM, it is not a matter of just a notable organization belonging to it; the majority of organizations in this consortium are notable. --Lambiam 21:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A consortium of notable organizations would seem inherently worthy of an article to me. Deletion would create red links from a number articles, including World Wide Web Consortium. Useful for navigational purposes between national research organizations. —Ruud 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of these two !votes seem to have any basis in policy and fly in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED, despite the inventive reasoning given by Lambiam. --Crusio (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy. That notability is not always inherited does not imply it is never inherited (see the last inequality at Universal quantification#Negation). —Ruud 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to argue that NOTINHERITED is just an essay, that's fine with me, but then you'll have to show this meets GNG (it's not a book, film, or music). And GNG does not provide for "notable institutions belong to it". --Crusio (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not exclude "notable institutions belong to it" either. —Ruud 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many things that GNG does not specifically exclude. However, there are several criteria that it insists upon. --Crusio (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a guideline, not a complete and exhaustive list of criteria and article must satisfy to be able to be included. Note the use of the words "generally" and "usually" in the guideline. —Ruud 07:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not exclude "notable institutions belong to it" either. —Ruud 21:44, 25 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That a group of organizations are notable, does not mean that ever project undertaken by the group is notable. Even notable organizations do non-notable things, and engage in non-notable joint projects. This is not exactly NOTINHERITED, but just common sense. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ERCIM is not a project. It is an umbrella organization, just like, for example, the European Music Council. --Lambiam 11:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and it also fails WP:ORG by a large measure (and that guideline addresses the "inherited" argument explicitly). DGG's comment, as far as I see, does not basically change if you replace "project" with "organization": "Even notable organizations create non-notable umbrella organizations". --Crusio (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But both of you completely ignore the weight aspect of my recommendation above. If some notable organization is the sole notable member of an umbrella organization, sure, that does not make the umbrella automatically notable. But if it is formed by, essentially, mostly notable organizations, then we have a different situation – at least, that is my argument. Another example is the European Mathematical Society, which I consider to be notable, but mainly by the combined weight of its notable members. --Lambiam 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you completely ignore the absence of reliable sources showing notability. In addition, I have to say that the creation of a Category:ERCIM and a {{Template|ERCIM}} is rather pointy. Even if this AfD would end in a keep or no consensus, that category is superfluous and the template (which you have added to every ERCIM member organization) is WP:UNDUE. --Crusio (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guideline is a guideline. It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I am aware of the guideline, but I'm arguing here that this is one of the occasions where an exception may apply. You are essentially dismissing that because it would constitute an exception. Which, as far as I'm concerned, just means that you ignore my argument.
- By the way, a Google scholar search tells me there are about 12,700 hits. It is not easy to ascertain whether these contain non-trivial coverage by independent sources. What, for instance, about this?
- I don't get your point about Category:ERCIM being superfluous at all. Do you think it is overcategorization? --Lambiam 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That category (and template) are absolutely superfluous. Most of the organisations that are a member of ERCIM will belong to dozens and dozens of this kind of consortia. Are you going to create cats for all of those? and then add temaplates for all of these organisations at the end of the articles? As for ignoring your argument, if you mean that by "not agreeing with you" I am "ignoring your argument", then I guess that is correct. Instead of putting your energy in silly things like that cat and template, try to come up with sources (like the one you mention above). A few more like that, and everybody here who has !voted "delete" will change to "keep". --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dozens and dozens of this kind of consortia". I think you are totally mistaken. For most ERCIM members you will be hard put to come up with more than one, for some two, for just a few maybe three such umbrella organizations. This is not your standard European research consortium in which for each member a few research scientists participate in a project that lasts for four years or so. ERCIM is a permanent organization in which the member institutes participate as a whole, and are represented at the top level. The presidents of ERCIM are typically also directors of some national member institute. As far as finding sources is concerned, I don't see why it should be specifically my duty to put effort in that. I think, in fact, that those who are inclined to recommend deletion should put even more work into making sure they do not unduly recommend the deletion of notable content. --Lambiam 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not your duty at all. But it is impossible for me to prove that there are no sources, only to assert that I haven't been able to find any. You, however, are arguing that this should be kept and to give that argument any weight at all, you need to show that there are sources, otherwise your argument is just empty. --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument that this is a case that calls for the occasional exception is indeed empty if you ignore the argument that this is a case that calls for the occasional exception and instead insist that we should not make an exception because then we would be making an exception. --Lambiam 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not your duty at all. But it is impossible for me to prove that there are no sources, only to assert that I haven't been able to find any. You, however, are arguing that this should be kept and to give that argument any weight at all, you need to show that there are sources, otherwise your argument is just empty. --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dozens and dozens of this kind of consortia". I think you are totally mistaken. For most ERCIM members you will be hard put to come up with more than one, for some two, for just a few maybe three such umbrella organizations. This is not your standard European research consortium in which for each member a few research scientists participate in a project that lasts for four years or so. ERCIM is a permanent organization in which the member institutes participate as a whole, and are represented at the top level. The presidents of ERCIM are typically also directors of some national member institute. As far as finding sources is concerned, I don't see why it should be specifically my duty to put effort in that. I think, in fact, that those who are inclined to recommend deletion should put even more work into making sure they do not unduly recommend the deletion of notable content. --Lambiam 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That category (and template) are absolutely superfluous. Most of the organisations that are a member of ERCIM will belong to dozens and dozens of this kind of consortia. Are you going to create cats for all of those? and then add temaplates for all of these organisations at the end of the articles? As for ignoring your argument, if you mean that by "not agreeing with you" I am "ignoring your argument", then I guess that is correct. Instead of putting your energy in silly things like that cat and template, try to come up with sources (like the one you mention above). A few more like that, and everybody here who has !voted "delete" will change to "keep". --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and it also fails WP:ORG by a large measure (and that guideline addresses the "inherited" argument explicitly). DGG's comment, as far as I see, does not basically change if you replace "project" with "organization": "Even notable organizations create non-notable umbrella organizations". --Crusio (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is using a rather strange definition of "inheritance" here (which usually is defined as "attributes acquired via (biological) heredity from the parents").While notability of a parent organization does not automatically imply notability of the child organizations, the situation here is the exact opposite: we have a number of very notable sibling organizations and I would argue that - at least for navigational purposes - we should have an article of the common parent organization. —Ruud 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Inheritance" has certainly a meaning beyond biology (as in "the inheritance I got from my rich uncle"). And calling ERCIM the parent organization for really notable organizations such as INRIA is, frankly, absurd. --Crusio (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I agree that the direction of inheritance is not guaranteed to make sense once taken out of its biological context. The rest of my argumentation still stands. —Ruud 18:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per the not-inherited argument. If it was notable, it'd have more reliable source coverage. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I admire DGG's reasoning here. Besides, hosting the W3C has become a routine activity. Maybe ERCIM will come up with something great in the future but for now, this is a plain delete. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what "routine activity" means in this context. Is it like "Composing musicals has become a routine activity for Andrew Loyd Webber"? That routine activity made his name. W3C has three headquarters: in Europe, at ERCIM; one in Asia, at Keio University; and in the U.S., at MIT. I don't think that running any one of these HQs is a routine activity at all. --Lambiam 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. A bunch of organizations in a group. They might do something notable in the future, though so far, none. HurricaneFan25 | talk 23:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite the evident notability of many of its members, I'm not seeing any sign that the umbrella group is itself notable under either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 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) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtney Wickman (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 person (fails WP:BIO without significant coverage in reliable sources); information may belong in article on her father, but right now this seems like a stealth attack page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO by some margin, borderline A7 case. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a trace of notability.Vincelord (talk) 16:22, 26 October 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) 15:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicky Trebek (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 BLP that fails notability criteria of WP:BAND or WP:GNG for significant coverage. I have been unable to find coverage of this person in any independent reliable source. Note that the Youtube video provided as the sole source is a fake "Behind the Music" video (VH1 never made a bio of Trebek [2]). Being the stepdaughter of Alex Trebek provides no individual notability per WP:INHERIT. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree that being the stepdaughter of Alex Trebek on it's own is not considered a notable and I don't think anyone was alluding to the "Behind The Music" as being anything more than Alex Trebek narrating a birthday video for his daughter. I do find however the fact that she co wrote and sang the ending credit song in the film "April Shower" is and her recording career as far as the many notables she has worked with on them. Her C.D's are available on I Tunes and C.D. Baby as most C.D's these day's are released independent.Also I did notice that she does get quite a bit of traffic on the site last I looked was 755 in the last 30 day's. So I guess some people are interested in her.I too did find it hard to get a lot of info and references on her but found her song at the end of the movie very good and stumbled upon the "FAKE" Behind the Music and her own professional video for the song "Faith or Fear" which is also done very well. If it gets deleted, oh well I tried and did find her worth a mention hope you guys do too.Thanks Punkinfo (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The only coverage in reliable sources that I could find just has her as the answer to a trivia question. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 19 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. From a musical standpoint, she doesn't really seem notable. What label is she signed to and how large and notable is her discography? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:49, 27 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PR-operatørene (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 with 20 employees, advertisment-styled. (WP:NN company, fails WP:CORP). Awards claimed do not seem notable, either. Asav | Talk 20:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another public relations business advertising on Wikipedia. Only claims to minimal importance are petty trade awards. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CORP and Smerdis. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:53, 1 November 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. Concerns for deletion appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of syndicated columnists (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. An incomplete list that adds very little to WP. It would be better to have the topic as a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the initial entry, you can see it was created as a stub about syndicated columnists, not as a list. That was almost six years ago, and a lot has changed since then. It was moved to the "list of" title in May 2009 and I agree it's not particularly useful now, but if it went back to being an article about the job itself and expanded, it could be viable. No particular opinion on whether to keep and rename or delete and start fresh. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Print syndication would serve the same purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be shoehorned in there, but it's not really the same thing. Print syndication is a business model. A syndicated columnist is a person with a career based upon that business model. Like how waste collection and waste collector have separate articles. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Print syndication would serve the same purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I don't see any reason to delete this, it seems to easily meet WP:LISTN. There are no rules against lists that could be categories or are incomplete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the current article. This is the definition of something better accomplished with a category; there's nothing in the current article that would be serve as the basis for a different article about the practice itself. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- query—could nominator maybe point to a policy that suggests deletion? WP:LISTPURP seems to be a policy that suggests that a reason other than "would be better to have the topic as a category" would be good to have.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is no reason this information can't exist as both a list and as a category, per WP:CLN, so feel free to make that category in addition to this. That a list is incomplete is irrelevant, as everything on Wikipedia is just a work in progress, and lists of people by occupation are not supposed to list every person that exists who has that job, but only those who merit articles; they are indexes of Wikipedia topics. The list can be annotated and made sortable by plenty more information than the bare ABC that a category can handle: by birth/death dates and/or dates active, the number of papers/media outlets in which they are syndicated (if that number is meaningfully verifiable in some way, maybe as a high number if it varies throughout their career), the geographic range of their syndication (regional, national, worldwide?), their country of origin, their print syndicate... And I see it has two redlinks, which may or may not be for columnists who actually merit articles in this case, but at any rate redlinks identifying missing topics is supposed to be one of the functions of lists. Develop it, don't delete it. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:LISTN. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the basic rationale for deletion is wrong. Lists and categories can and usually should coexist. the criterion for inclusion, as usual, is being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Almost all lists are inherently incomplete, and always will be , because additional people become notable--and ones who were earlier notable get recognized as such and the articles written. If there are ones currently in Wikipedia that shoul dbe added, the solution is to add them. When we start deleting incomplete articles, we'll be pretty much does to just the featured content. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 31 October 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. Tone 15:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ERSA Group (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:NN company, fails WP:CORP. Additional research shows no relevant G-hits (other than directories, facebook, etc.) The company's sole claim to fame appears to be having purchased (now-expired) naming rights to a section of the arena where the Detroit Pistons play.
This article was previously speedy deleted, but recreated by same author. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another management consulting, technology consulting and technology outsourcing company advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CORP and Smerdis. Purely promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 1 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K12 (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)
The article seems to be more for advertisement purposes than anything else. The company is too small, and is trivial in the wide-spread world of online learning services. The company does not seem to stand out in any way (i.e. wal-mart works, but a local store wont). -- Sleegi[✆Talk] 18:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. It gets coverage. [3] [4] etc. etc. Dream Focus 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see any news "about" the company. Google News has 16 hits. 9 are articles about the K12 attempting to get their program installed in various schools. None of the articles covered K12, the company. 5 of those are SEC mandated announcements from K12 about finances. 1 is a ratings downgrade by TheStreet.com. 1 is for about K12 schools (not the company). --Marc Kupper|talk 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I have a concern about this AFD as the article is about a publicly traded company on the NYSE.[5] Per WP:LISTED these companies are likely to be notable. There is no evidence the nominator, or anyone, has followed WP:BEFORE. A second consideration is that "The company is too small, and is trivial in the wide-spread world" are not grounds for deletion. What we care about is if K12 is notable per WP:CORP or WP:N. At present, the article itself does not provide this evidence though that does not mean there has never been any detailed coverage in the nearly three years K12 has been a public company much less in the 12+ years the company has operated. There's a problem with searching for evidence of notability as K12 is a common term and there has been lots of coverage as a result of K12 attempting to secure contracts with school distracts plus coverage of those instances where K12 has a contract. Thus, what I'd like to see is discussion in how to find a needle in the haystack. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A NYSE listed company is likely to be notable, and the operations of this company are likely to become controversial, so I see this article as one to be kept. However, there should be some copy editing to improve the tone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:GNG is not violated here, its sources are reliable, this is a signifigant online schooling company, I know many children in real life whom attend this due to varying disabilities. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub with a bucket wheel excavator and keep. Unreferenced text and text referenced only to its internal sites must go. But this business was apparently co-founded by Ronald Reagan's secretary of education, William J. Bennett[6] in support of the homeschooling mummery, and as noted is publicly traded. Shocking, but not surprising; and notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
jj I consider it a simple rule that companies on the NYSE are notable, as being financially major players in the world of business. More or less the same idea as keeping athletes in the top level sports leagues. (I would not extent this to other US exchanges; I'm not competent to evaluate elsewhere).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Kaptain (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 one line stub on individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The latter says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Having searched for such sources, they don't seem to exist, with the only coverage being about his campaign for Mayor and routine local news coverage of his duties. WP:POLITICIAN also says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 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." This is also not met and with a population of 107,000 Elgin is clearly not a major metropolitan city, nor does it appear to be of regional importance, being the eighth largest city in its state. Valenciano (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a publicly elected mayor of a reasonably significant city, we know he had to campaign and some biographical details are out there in the press. Likely even the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times have some biographical content. Regardless of whether it is easy to find any content from out of state or national sources, I think this bio should exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A "city" of 107,000 would be called a town in many countries so its signifigance is very questionable. It's the 241st (!) largest population centre in its country or the eighth largest population centre within one of the 50 sub-divisions of its country and certainly doesn't seem to be a notable regional centre, particularly since it's only 40 miles away from Chicago. Even the press that you suggest are from Chicago... surely the REAL city of regional importance no? As I said, I looked for sources before nominating, none came up.
- Chicago Tribune? Only two mention him. Both articles are general articles about various Mayoral races and only mention him in passing in the context of a campaign. As I said that's covered by WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability."
- Chicago Sun Times? Again 2 articles. A brief quote in an article about crime in Elgin and a quick mention in the news in brief section that he took part in a presentation for a Home and Community organisation. All four of those are as far as it gets from significant coverage.
- You say: "Regardless of whether it is easy to find any content from out of state or national sources, I think this bio should exist." That's a blatant example of WP:ILIKEIT, an argument which carries no weight in deletion debates. We can't keep unreferenced articles, particularly WP:BLPs on the offchance that sources *might* exist. Either these are produced or it gets deleted is the way it usually works. Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the article on his predecessor Ed Schock. I would expect that a somewhat similar article for this person might be crafted. You might have to rely on the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) as I did for some details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the article on Ed Schock should exist either. While on first glance it looks impressively referenced, none of the refs seem to be about him. WP:GNG explains that: <"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.> All that applies here as well. News stories which deal with the bog standard day to day functions of the Mayor or which cover the local election are routine and trivial. Give me an in depth bio in a regional newspaper and I'll be happy to reconsider. Also when the issue of what constituted a significant metropolitan area came up in the past for the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN there was disagreement over whether the metropolis should have a minimum population of 250,000 or 500,000. I doubt Elgin with 107,000 people is even the regional centre for many of its inhabitants (who probably work and use facilities in Chicago) let alone the surrounding area.
- You say: "Regardless of whether it is easy to find any content from out of state or national sources, I think this bio should exist." That's a blatant example of WP:ILIKEIT, an argument which carries no weight in deletion debates. We can't keep unreferenced articles, particularly WP:BLPs on the offchance that sources *might* exist. Either these are produced or it gets deleted is the way it usually works. Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall I think in cases like these, Wikipedia would be much better served by a general article, Local Government in Elgin say, which would cover the council, its history, its powers, the elections there and then have a section on the Mayors in context. Valenciano (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this can be expanded, from my experience on wikipedia, single sentence articles do not meet the standards, however if you can provide more of a description, bump it up to a paragraph, and provide a few citations, I would certainly vote to keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This now meets the requirements for a stub-class article, and now has a few sufficient reliable references, good work by User:Northamerica1000 and his salvagebility skills, he deserves a barnstar. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article should be expanded with biographical details and reliable sources, and then I also would vote to keep. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The question is not the current state of the article, which can always be expanded if the article is kept. (Usually a politician's biographical information can be filled in based on his bio on the city's website, even though such bios are a non-independent source. But in fact that bio is a campaign statement rather than a biography. It reads as if he is still running; it doesn't even mention that he is the mayor.). The question here is whether he should have an article at all. IMO he should not. Being mayor (and prior to that, city councilman) of the eighth largest city in his state does not grant him presumed notability under WP:POLITICIAN, especially since he has been mayor for only a few months. He has to be judged by whether he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and he hasn't. He has received MINOR coverage in reliable sources. Google News finds only routine coverage of the things that mayors say and do. There is nothing that amounts to significant coverage about HIM. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AfD is about topic notability per the availability of reliable sources, not a lack of them in articles. This type of vote doesn't really have any gravitas. See section WP:ATD in the deletion policy regarding alternatives to deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've expanded the article and added the following sources:
- Jenco, Melissa (April 5, 2011.) "Kaptain ousts Schock as mayor." Trib Local
- (April 12, 2011.) "Knocking on doors a winning strategy." Trib Local
- Danahey, Mike (April 27, 2011.) "Kaptain sworn in as Elgin mayor." The Courier News
- Northamerica1000(talk) 05:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for adding sources. My !vote is still to delete, for two reasons. One is that the new sources are from small hyper-local papers. The other is that they are about the election, not about him - in other words they are routine coverage that would be provided even for a small town mayoral election. (I am not saying that Elgin is a small town, but it's not a big city either.) I was actually more impressed by the coverage I pointed to above, from the Chicago papers, because that coverage is regional rather than just local. However, that coverage again was routine and was just about him doing the things you expect any mayor to do. I don't find notability there. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note to AfD closer: Users Phoenix B 1of3 stated that he or she would change their !vote to keep, and user DThomsen8 stated that he or she would vote keep (both above) per additions of information and references to the article, which I have performed. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A city of 100,000 in the US is consider sufficiently large for mayors to be notable, as shown in many AfDs . The bottom cutoff is not quite as clear: Since I'm somewhat of a deletionist in local subjects, I have sometimes argued for keeping it at 100,000, but often anything more than 50 thousand has been accepted. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I certainly wouldn't go along with that and it hasn't been my experience at AfD discussions. I'm pretty sure there no such policy in writing anywhere. (See WP:Common outcomes#Politicians which just says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD".) According to List of United States cities by population there are 275 American cities with a population over 100,000. Every present and former mayor of every one of those cities deserves an automatic article here? I don't accept that as consensus. Maybe a discussion could be started elsewhere to reach a consensus, but in the meantime I submit that this is merely your opinion and that the criterion here has to be WP:GNG. If people accept the sources found so far as "significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources," then the article should be kept. If not - not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember such AFDs either. A comparable case is this AFD on a Mayor of a town of 136,000 where the result was redirect and delete history. There was even a case on a Mayor of a city of 433,000 here which was redirected on the grounds that: "The notability rules for mayors also state that the article has to be more substantial than just "Person is the current mayor of city. Stub notice, categories." A mayor of a major city is likely to be notable, but doesn't get to claim inherent notability just because they're a mayor" an argument which still holds true. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I certainly wouldn't go along with that and it hasn't been my experience at AfD discussions. I'm pretty sure there no such policy in writing anywhere. (See WP:Common outcomes#Politicians which just says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD".) According to List of United States cities by population there are 275 American cities with a population over 100,000. Every present and former mayor of every one of those cities deserves an automatic article here? I don't accept that as consensus. Maybe a discussion could be started elsewhere to reach a consensus, but in the meantime I submit that this is merely your opinion and that the criterion here has to be WP:GNG. If people accept the sources found so far as "significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources," then the article should be kept. If not - not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 24 October 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, Sandstein 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Kaptain has regional and local coverage. I can't call this report routine nor trivial. Kaptain has been noticed in the news because: 1. He's an underdog who won the election. 2. Elgin's crime rate went down and yet it still has an image problem. These are not trivial, routine topics. These are newsworthy topics. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:GNG:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The ref you cite doesn't do that, it's a general article about crime reductions in the North Chicago suburbs, not only Elgin but also Aurora. You cite 2 things for his notability: that he's an underdog that won an election... this counts for nothing in notability terms, there are literally thousands of people every year who win unexpected election victories. Secondly "Elgin's crime rate went down" ... based on the source you supply this counts for nada asthe reduction has absolutely nothing to do with him. As Kaptain himself says in that source: “If you look at the statistics, Elgin has one of the lowest crime rates in the state — comparable to Naperville... it’s gone down consecutively the last 10 years.” Now if Kaptain had been Mayor for that entire decade I'd concede that you might have an argument, but as he assumed the office this year, any reductions in crime in Elgin are certainly not down to his policies or actions. With that debunked, we're still left with the fact that he fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mayor of a city with over a hundred thousand people. Coverage has been found. Look around for more at [7] Dream Focus 02:45, 27 October 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) 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saadaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing to indicate why this film is notable, no references except IMDB, and article is nearly all plot Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix through regular editing. Sources are available for this16-year-old Malayalam film which bombed at the box office and yet was well received a few years later upon video release. The film has the sourcable participation of multiple India notables: A. K. Lohithadas, Krishna Kumar, Suresh Gopi, Lalu Alex, Geetha, Kaviyoor Ponnamma, Chitra, Sivaji, Madhupal, Sreenath, Mammukoya, Priyanka, and Bindu. If it were unsourcable, a deletion would be a consideration, but we usually hold off on nominating 3-week-old improvable stubs... a better option being tagging them for concerns and allowing allow them to be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (per WP:CSB, I'll await input from Cinema of India editors, ... those editors better able to find non-English sources) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source appears to be the IMDB, which is user-generated content and thus not a WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The sourcing is weak, but there is every indication that this is notable and sourceable with Malayalam and other Indian language sources. It certainly was a real movie, with several notable actors, and this mention-only in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema supports that it is probably notable enough in that country (under the spelling "Sadooram").[8] A cinematic bomb in the west, with equally notable actors, would surely merit an article. If this were a Biography of a Living Person I would !vote differently, but let's give this a chance to be developed over time. Just tag it instead, like User:MichaelQSchmidt suggests. First Light (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch and clue. My thanks. I have often found searches for Indian film greatly hampered due the various spelling in English for various Indian stars and films... when who-ever covered it in English might use his own way of spelling something phonetically. I've seem "v" and "th" interchanged quite a bit... same for "i" and "y" and "ee"... as more often as not, names and titles will use double consonsent and vowels in one source and single consonsent and vowels in another. Apparently they have no hard and fast rule on such... with one simple name or title often being found under a dozen different spellings. Again, thanks much for the new clue Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Needs References and other links. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:01, 17 October 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) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM may be more prudent than outright deletion of this article. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 19 October 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, Sandstein 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mainstream film with notable cast and crew. have added a couple of more refs now.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:59, 31 October 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. consensus is very clear; I'm not sure it was relisted, as consensus was clear earlier also. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Occupy Dataran (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 seems to be WP:SOAP and is also verging on WP:COPYPASTE from http://www.facebook.com/occupydataran?sk=info and http://twitter.com/occupydataran. Any thoughts? Planetary ChaosTalk 12:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources showing from The Sun, The Star, and the Wall Street Journal. This is additionally a well constructed piece, which should count for something. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At this point, a footnote in the "Occupy" "movement" at best. WP is not Facebook or Twitter and this is just a collection of trivial things (hand gestures, seriously...) --Crusio (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Informative with credible sources cited. There are many different "occupies" out there that do not share same objectives hence need to treated as separate movements. Should be kept and given time to grow. Bellytuning 02:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC) — Bellytuning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - Agree with the above. It's a new page, should be given time to grow, and some of this information is hard to find. The hand gestures diagram seemed trivial, even to me at first, but when read in the context of where its happening it's quite unique. This is happening in Malaysia which is only seeing the dawn of a two-party representative democracy and so any form of direct democracy and all of its quirks including hand gestures and the rest - are quite unique and I think more than trivial. I vote to keep it and let it grow. - kriskhaira (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Satisfies GNG in terms of coverage, and I agree with the comments above that these events were/are particularly noteworthy in view of Malaysia's political environment.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - unless there has been a temporal anomoly, this pre-dated Occupy Wall Street and was thus the first such protest. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 25 October 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, Sandstein 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A quick glance reveils plenty of coverage, a thorough search of the references reveals WP:GNG is fully met. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Topic surpasses WP:GNG, per several reliable sources in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample news coverage of the event, even as far as China! Dream Focus 15:15, 31 October 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) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Theoretical theology (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 thoroughly original research-dominated essay lacking reliable sources. While mentions of the phrase "theoretical theology" appear in some sources, such as this one, they do not appear to support the actual topic of the article (study of the theory of everything) and thus this article would require a fundamental, essential rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Moogwrench (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Moogwrench (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Moogwrench (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Pure essay and OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In its present form, it's all original research. That said, the term itself is generic enough that it seems like it should be redirected somewhere - but hell if I know where. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:28, 26 October 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. Tone 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhonda Rydell (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:ENT and the GNG. Non-notable model/actress whose most significant achievements are three bit/unbilled roles and a single picture in Playboy. Attained brief, minimal BLP1E-type press coverage as the onetime girlfriend of a moderately notorious con man, but not significant enough to merit more than the briefest mention in the con man's own article (so redirect after deletion would be appropriate). Only one non-imdb reference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 3 minor roles and a Dateline interview fails WP:ENT.[9] Being part of 1998 Playboy pictorial "The Babes Of Baywatch" does not impart any notability, and it has been decided elsewhere that being a Playboy Playmate is not in itself notable. Further, I can find no verifiability of article's claim that she is an "Independent TV/Movie Producer", and so she fails WP:FILMMAKER. She has some sourcability and mention for her being one of many falling for con man Christophe Rocancourt,[10][11][12][13][14] which could, at most, be mentioned in his article, but there is no merit in listing all those that fell for this con man. Pretty much, if it were not for involvement with Rocancourt, she would never have received coverage by media. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:04, 1 November 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 Stop! WP:HAMMERtime.. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled Fourth Ben 10 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)
unaired series, by an unknown creator. so new, it doesn't even have a name yet. I would CSD this, except the criteria don't cover TV shows. :( Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's nothing but speculation available (and not that much, either). Userfication or incubation would be appropriate in the meantime, but the title doesn't seem like a valid redirect — frankie (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's nothing notable here to even merge, other than just a sentence. JDDJS (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although it's an (alleged) TV show not an album, I think we can apply WP:HAMMER here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. No reliable sources, nothing to verify. Huon (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think at this point WP:SNOW should be applied, and this AFD end early. Nobody has argued to save it, while 5 editors have argued to delete it. JDDJS (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's HAMMER time! Sven Manguard Wha? 06:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. No sources to establish it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Until sources exist, this is premature. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:07, 26 October 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Benjamin Reichert (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 professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. I missed the text describing his football career. Ridernyc (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has made over 100 appearances as a professional footballer, clearly meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - having played in the 3rd Liga, and the 2. Bundesliga, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 25 October 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. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anton Singov (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 professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. (Additionally, the article, minus the small intro, seems to be nothing more than a place to list off all these non-notable "medals" he's won...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for lack of reliable sources. Per WP:USUAL, this could easily change as coverage of the e-sports scene expands - and, if sources become available about Mr. Singov, an article might become appropriate. But not yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:51, 26 October 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. Tone 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Rodriguez (electronic sports player) (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 professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wow, lots of these debates today. If there are reliable sources that talk about this individual, then an article would be appropriate. Blogs are right out (anyone can write anything), but there's a growing list of news sites (with editorial control) talking about the e-sports scene in general. So, WP:USUAL applies - if sources become available, an article would work. Not before then. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 25 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ola Moum (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 professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 26 October 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 airlines of New Zealand. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Napier (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 and WP:GNG, only refs given are one directory listing and one article with barely a passing mention. Essentially a WP:SPAM article to promote a company. Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notification of this deletion discusion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Air, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - As a scheduled service provider, I'm quite inclined to lean torwards notability and "keep". However I'm unfamiliar with "third level carrier" status, so I can't be sure if that isn't a "catchall everybody else" category or not that the NZ aviation authorities use. In addition, the fleet of aircraft as listed in the article shows no airliner or dedicated cargo types; rather, a variety of single- and twin-engined general aviation aircraft. In the absence of further explanation as to the status of the carrier, or references establishing notability despite its tiny status, I tip over to the 'delete' side. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere. Looks like one person and one plane. Unless it crashes and kills lots of people it's unlikely to rise to notability anytime soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of airlines of New Zealand is a potential merge candidate. Merge the content to a new section and redirect the current page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of airlines of New Zealand and redirect, per Stuartyeates.-gadfium 20:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - and I think I'm being generous since by the looks of it, it is a small operation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ahunt and my original PROD tag. Although Unscintillating has gone to some effort to add extra references to the article, they only serve to emphasise how far this falls short of the GNG, as the refs only contain passing mentions. The list of NZ airlines is purely a list, and Air Napier is already included, so there is nothing to merge. "Third Level Carrier" is a now infrequently-used old term for what is now called a regional airline. YSSYguy (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a redirect from Third Level Carrier to Regional airline. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that "refs only contain passing mentions" is not based on WP:N or WP:GNG. The term at WP:GNG is "significant coverage", where "significant coverage" is any coverage more than a "trivial mention". Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This organization certainly is close to the notability that calls for a stand alone article. You'd think that turning an airport into an international airport would make news across New Zealand and internationally too, but all I have seen so far is the two local newspaper articles. There is nothing objectionable here that would call for deletion. There is reliable material, and a certificated CAA "Air Operator" is a topic we somehow want in the encyclopedia. The idea that this article was written for promotion is not based on analysis, as nobody would promote scheduled passenger service that no longer exists. A key question here is, if this airline currently had scheduled passenger service, it would be without a doubt notable, but what should be done with it now? There is much unsourced material, so much so that removing it might leave the article with only 5 sentences. What happened to the company after they lost their international airport? When and why did they drop their scheduled passenger service? Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are confusing "I think this is an important subject" with what Wikipedia means by notability. You may think that this article should be kept, but on Wikipedia companies need extensive independent third party coverage beyond directory listings to be "notable" and clearly this subject doesn't have those references. As WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article", which is the case here. WP:CORPDEPTH explains this in much more detail. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are legitimate questions here, but given that we have three good independent sources, claiming these constitute "no" sources is IMO not advancing this discussion. I have not made a !vote, so your telling me what my !vote is doesn't make sense. Where is the guideline that says companies need "extensive" coverage to have a stand-alone article? WP:CORPDEPTH states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The general rule is that once notable, always notable, but at this point we don't have the sourcing to demonstrate the notability of this company when it had scheduled passenger service. Clearly we have reliable encyclopedic information, on a topic that clearly we want readers to be able to enter the name in the search box—the government of New Zealand in certificating this organization makes it so. I see three choices, (1) find a good merge target, (2) fail to find a good merge target and keep the article as the best remaining alternative (and possibly call the close "no consensus"), and (3) find more sources and keep the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have missed listing the one option that we are here to discuss and that is deleting the article because the company is non-notable. No one has said we have "no sources", except you. WP:CORP sets the standard for notability for companies and it says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability ... Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories ... inclusion in lists of similar organizations." So let's go over the refs currently cited in the article and see if they amount to more than directory listings or passing mentions. The first ref is a government directory listing which lists all the companies in the country, the second ref is a govt directory listing of all air operator certificate holders in the country, the third ref is an article about air services which makes one passing mention of the company at the very end of the article. The three additional items that are in the bibliography, but not used as refs are similar. The first cited with a quote shows that the mention of the company is merely incidental to the article which is about another operator. The second article is about attempts to bring jet service to Hawkes Bay by other operators and once again only mentions the company as incidental to the story. The third article comes the closest to any listed as it deals with the the purchase of one Cessna 162 by the company, but the article reads more like a press release picked up by the local paper and still deals primarily with the aircraft and not the company. None of these establishes notability and the fact that these are all the refs that can be found shows that this company, like the majority of the world's small flying school and air taxi operators, is in fact non-notable in the Wikipedia use of the word and thus should not have an article on it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only read through the second sentence of the above post, where I got to the sentence, "No one has said we have "no sources", except you." Actually what I said was that there were three good independent sources. The person that said incorrectly that there were no sources is the nominator:
Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]As WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article", which is the case here.
- I have only read through the second sentence of the above post, where I got to the sentence, "No one has said we have "no sources", except you." Actually what I said was that there were three good independent sources. The person that said incorrectly that there were no sources is the nominator:
- Regarding the last sentence of the previous comment, "...the fact that these are all the refs that can be found shows that this company...is in fact non-notable...", seems again to say that the nominator thinks that refs must be "extensive", but this is not an argument based on policy/guidelines. Further, it is a logical fallacy to argue from "facts" (the "fact" of research perfection) that can have no theoretical existence. Another logical fallacy is the argument of the form ["insufficient evidence is evidence of the absence of sufficient evidence"]. Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a definition of "passing mention" at WP:CORP, "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am reposting a reply to the nominator I just added at Talk:Air Napier,
Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]A directory listing (or telephone directory listing as you call it) documents a data entry person noticing the text enough to get it printable or viewable, an airline certification is a regulatory process that involves bureaucrats conducting analysis and providing ongoing regulatory attention such that there will not be an airplane accident causing the politicians and societal leaders that fly on certificated airlines to demand explanations.
- Comment - and as I noted on Talk:Air Napier, all air carriers of all sizes are subject to government certification and oversight. Being listed on the government list of certified air carriers, does not by itself confer notability any more than a restaurant being listed as meeting inspection requirements by the local health authority does. It no more confers notability than being listed in the phone book, since all air carrers are certified or else they are not air carriers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge) WP:N in the nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons." Having had scheduled passenger service, this airline attracted worldwide attention. The company led a successful effort to change a regional airport into an international airport. I think that the sources currently are marginal in terms of amount of material, and the absence of answers for the questions I asked above may leave readers with the same questions. But the six references from three sources are reliable and independent, and have depth in their detail. Further, no good merge targets have been identified. Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You stated "Having had scheduled passenger service, this airline attracted worldwide attention. The company led a successful effort to change a regional airport into an international airport. ". If these things are correct why are there no third part refs that say this? Worldwide attention would mean it would be mentioned in newspapers all over the world - where are the refs? - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After all this discussion, still the only facts clearly referenced in the article are their business registration details and that fact that it "was 1 of 185 organisations certificated under New Zealand Civil Air Authority Part 119 as an Air Operator". Not exactly WP:notable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this article has one of the most ridiculous bibliography sections I've seen: Air Napier#Bibliography. Mere snippets of mentions in the press are not a bibliography; they are called press clips. And I don't find much cite-worthy stuff in those given there; if you want to phrase that fact in term of wikirules, they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those have been added by well-meaning editors trying to show notability, but, as you note, the very fact that they are the best sources available and make mere passing mentions only serves to underline how far short of WP:CORP the subject falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 1 November 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither theist nor atheist but religious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating: Be good only for saving yourself and the world
"Drishtantoism" seems to be some blog-and-forum inspired "religion"... if this can be verified then the author can write about it, but these "principle-pages" are simply not suitable here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both We don't even have an article on the parent movemnet Drishtantoism, and for good reason - there are no reliable sources (news, books, scholarly) out there which discuss it. As a religious movement, it's too new to be notable. Certainly Wikipedia is not the place to be propogating it, per WP:SOAP. Yunshui 雲水 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, I agree. We shouldn't have this Soapboxing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main source of Drishtantoism
[edit]The book, In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty(দৃষ্টান্তবাদী দৃষ্টিতে কবিতার সৌন্দর্যোপভোগযাত্রা) by Shobuj Taposh is the main source of Drishtantoism.RatanMukha (talk) 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thirst of knowing
[edit]On drishtantoism, I want to know more by wikipedia. On the philosophy the articles I have found those are in Bangla. For this, thirst of knowing is not being satisfied.SwThom123 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.36.43 (talk) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Topics should only be here if there has been significant coverage in independent sources, and I don't see any in English. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unsourced original essays. If there's a sourceable article to be written, title should be Drishtantoism. No opinion on the encyclopedia-worthiness of that. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Reliable source of Drishtantoism
[edit]The book, In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty(দৃষ্টান্তবাদী দৃষ্টিতে কবিতার সৌন্দর্যোপভোগযাত্রা) by Shobuj Taposh is the main source of Drishtantoism.RatanMukha (talk) 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a primary source, and thus not a reliable source. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of Drishtantoism
[edit]We have found a brief evaluation of Drishtantoism in PRAJNA (A Philosophical Journal) of philosophy department of University of Chittagong.RatanMukha (talk) 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which issue, please? Yunshui 雲水 12:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In PRAJNA, there are: ‘সম্প্রতি নতুন দর্শনের সন্ধানে কোনো কোনো দর্শনচর্চাকারী উঠেপড়ে লেগেছেন। দৃষ্টান্তবাদ নামের একটি দর্শন মাথাছাড়া দিয়ে উঠেছে। একাজে বিশেষ করে বাংলাদেশের তরুণরা নিমগ্ন রয়েছেন। এটাকে তারা বাঙালির দার্শনিক সমস্যার সমাধান হিসেবে দেখছেন। তবে তাদের এই প্রয়াস, বাঙালি সাধারণ মানুষের বিশ্বাসের ভিতকে নাড়াবে, নিঃসন্দেহে বলতে পারি। চার্বাকদের কিছুটা মানসিকতা দৃষ্টান্তবাদীদের মধ্যে রয়েছে। চার্বাকরা অবশ্য বেদের মতোন ধর্মগ্রন্থকে আক্রমণ করেছিল, কিন্তু দৃষ্টান্তবাদীরা তা না করে যেকোনো ধর্মগ্রন্থের পাশকেটে ব্যবধানে থাকাকে বর্তমান সময়ের জন্য গুরুত্বপূর্ণ পদপে মনে করছেন।’"Editorial". Prajna (A philosophical Journal). 2010. University of Chittagong, Vol.13, P.10.RatanMukha (talk) 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Volume 13 isn't up on their website yet, which explains why I couldn't find the reference. As an editorial (rather than an article), this isn't a reliable source, per WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."). I can't make much out of the Google translation (too many technical terms for the software), but I doubt this would even be acceptable as a source for a Drishtantoism article, let alone either of these. Yunshui 雲水 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In PRAJNA, there are: ‘সম্প্রতি নতুন দর্শনের সন্ধানে কোনো কোনো দর্শনচর্চাকারী উঠেপড়ে লেগেছেন। দৃষ্টান্তবাদ নামের একটি দর্শন মাথাছাড়া দিয়ে উঠেছে। একাজে বিশেষ করে বাংলাদেশের তরুণরা নিমগ্ন রয়েছেন। এটাকে তারা বাঙালির দার্শনিক সমস্যার সমাধান হিসেবে দেখছেন। তবে তাদের এই প্রয়াস, বাঙালি সাধারণ মানুষের বিশ্বাসের ভিতকে নাড়াবে, নিঃসন্দেহে বলতে পারি। চার্বাকদের কিছুটা মানসিকতা দৃষ্টান্তবাদীদের মধ্যে রয়েছে। চার্বাকরা অবশ্য বেদের মতোন ধর্মগ্রন্থকে আক্রমণ করেছিল, কিন্তু দৃষ্টান্তবাদীরা তা না করে যেকোনো ধর্মগ্রন্থের পাশকেটে ব্যবধানে থাকাকে বর্তমান সময়ের জন্য গুরুত্বপূর্ণ পদপে মনে করছেন।’(translated by me: Recently some philosophy-readers are trying to investigate new philosophy (in India). A philosophical thought, entitled ‘Drishtantoism’ has been lighted. In this work, the young writers of Bangladesh are very busy. They claim that the philosophy is the solution of all Bengali philosophical problems. But undoubtedly we can say that the attempt they are driving is able for quaking Indian mind. Drishtantoists hold some mentality of Charvaka. Surely Charvaka attacked religious book like Veda. But avoiding this type of books, Drishtantoists stay at much distance. They think, for the time, it is just Decision.)"Editorial". Prajna (A philosophical Journal). 2010. University of Chittagong, Vol.13, P.10.RatanMukha (talk) 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the translation, it's helpful for understanding the content. However, the problems still remain:
- as an editorial piece, this does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.
- there is no in depth coverage of the Drishtantoist movement - this passage establishes the philosophy's existence, but little more.
- there is no mention in the source of either of the two precepts of Drishtantoism which are up for deletion here - making it largely irrelevant to this discussion.
- Yunshui 雲水 22:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Bengali Wikipedia, we find some commentary sentences about Drishtantoism (দৃষ্টান্তবাদ). Links: http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/উত্তর_আধুনিকতাবাদ, http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/পরাবাস্তবাদ SwThom123 (talk) 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- As open wikis, other versions of Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources for notability or verifiability. Yunshui 雲水 21:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as there is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 1 November 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. Tone 15:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er. Shoaib Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced article on an engineer turned preacher of dubious notability. Main contributor User:Samirmd might be in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no reliable sources in English; the sources currently listed are not acceptable and there's no real assertion of notability either. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - The only source present in the article that I would consider a reliable one is this Express India article, but it doesn't mention the subject of this article, and in fact, doesn't verify the statement that it is supposed to support. I cannot find any coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 1 November 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darkroom (electronic music project) (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)
I'm not really seeing much in the way of notability for this band. Burning Shed is a small independent label, and none of their albums seem to have done much of anything. I'm bundling one of the two members of the band here as well (Andrew Ostler), since he has an article solely on the basis of being a member of this band; the other one has another unrelated claim of notability that will have to be separately addressed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Various Darkroom albums have been reviewed in reliable sources - Melody Maker, Sound On Sound, Future Music, The Wire - thus fitting one of the criteria for notability. While you may or may not consider the two main members notable, the project also has links to two established bands No-Man and Bass Communion via shared players and remix activity as well as being the main driver behind a longstanding London music clubnight (Improvizone). The main problem with the article is that it has not progressed beyond stub status, and it would be more appropriate to deal with that rather than go for speedy deletion. I'll expand the article shortly to deal with this problem. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've proceeded with this, although more work could be done. Note the band's performance at a number of international loop music festivals, independently documented. - Dann Chinn (talk) 10:22, 9 October 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) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Andrew Ostler - I believe he's also produced looping/sound software as used by various other artists including Brian Eno. I'll look into this. - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:20, 13 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficient discography to merit inclusion. Yeah, it's self-sourced, which is less than optimum. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture and this fits the latter. Informative piece containing information of possible interest to users that would be lost without a corresponding gain to the project, if deleted. A terrible rationale here, I know — so let's go with a pillar: Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense) to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:GNG is shown in its reliable sources and accurate detailed description. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 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. Tone 15:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MapmyUser (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 indication of WP:notability. Only reference given is to Alexa. Google searches do not reveal any notability. Disputed prod noq (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nothing in gnews. No reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 11 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and WP:SPAM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:33, 1 November 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. Tone 15:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenLDev (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 software: no refs in article and a search turns up none. Ghits are almost all download links, WP mirrors, and blog and mailing list mentions; no reliable sources. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA named 'OpenLDev' so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:44, 12 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. The only reliable source hits I'm seeing are incidental mentions; the author of this software apparently wrote a book. The tone is not entirely appropriate (OpenLDev strives to provide an easy-to-use interface that is both productive for experts and simple for beginners) and the subject is some sort of utility for computer programming (a graphical front-end to Linux development tools such as gcc, GNU autotools and make). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP is not a product catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:35, 1 November 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 Gairaigo. This does not prevent a merge from the history or any other editorial solution where to place this material that may obtain consensus. Sandstein 06:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Franponais (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 not established. This is not based on reliable sources, and I can't find anything beyond one sentence mentions in a handful of books and articles. It doesn't appear to have been the focus of any serious study at all. (There's a "humour" book of photos of bad French in Japan, but I don't think that counts.) It merits an entry in wiktionary at best, as far as I can see. I would be happy to be proved wrong. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep—the first source has two whole paragraphs on the subject, the second has an entire chapter on it. seems to me to meet gng:
- Francine Thyrion, Jean René Klein (1 December 2010). Les études françaises au Japon: Tradition et renouveau. Presses univ. de Louvain. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-2-87463-224-2. Retrieved 11 October 2011.
- Harald Haarmann (1986). Prestigefunktionen europäischer Sprachen im modernen Japan. Buske Verlag. p. 105ff. ISBN 978-3-87118-700-1. Retrieved 11 October 2011.
- — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first sources is really only one paragraph and a mention in the conclusion - but it certainly is on topic. The second source, however, appears to be about a different topic to the article here. It appears to be about how French words are absorbed into modern Japanese (common morphological changes etc.), not how French is misused on menus and signs in attempted affectation (I should say that my German is poor, and this is a gist reading). Compare the equivalent pairing of Engrish (fuddled English, often used for its coolness) with Wasei-eigo (pseudo-anglicisms in Japanese - what the German article calls Japenglish). The term is attested in RS, but is the article topic?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—you're right that the second source is more about the technical ways in which french words are absorbed into japanese than about the humor that french speakers may see in the process. on the other hand, the author discusses that topic in a way which seems to me to indicate that it's encyclopedic. my feeling is that you're right that much of the material (unsourced, probably unsourceable) in the article is unencyclopedic, but the subject of franponais itself is encyclopedic. my feeling is that given available sources, the problems with the article can be fixed by editing rather than by deletion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mean that the topic under the article name "Franponais" should change? Among non-reliable sources, the current topic seems to be what the term refers to, so if Franponais gets covered in future RS, I think it's more likely to be referring to the current topic. In addition, I wonder if the German source wouldn't be best used in making Gairaigo better. This is frustrating: it feels like there's someone's PhD and serious book waiting to be written, but without it we're struggling for sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (again) I've just re-read your comment and noticed you imply that, as it currently stands, the article is about the humour French see in the process of French words being absorbed into Japanese. That's not the topic of the current article as I read it. It seems to me it's pretty much about the misuse of French as French (on menus and in advertising/PR, written in latin script) rather than words such as プチ (puchi - from petit) which are loan-words in Japanese. Thus perhaps I see a bigger difference between the two sources you found than you do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—i see how my comment could produce that impression. i'm not sure what i meant, exactly. i think that i was trying to acknowledge the "humor" book of photos you found. anyway, my feeling ultimately is that the article shouldn't be deleted because there is a topic or topics called "franponais" that is(are) covered in reliable sources, and that those sources should determine what the article should be about. since the material in the article is pretty much unsourced as it stands, it could easily be blanked and rewritten, or even just redirected to something else (possibly temporarily) if the topic currently written about seems unsalvageable to an editor. it just seems to me like a bad idea to delete the thing when there are whole chapters of books on a subject described by the term just because the article is not done right.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't chapters of books, though. There's half a chapter of one book, and a paragraph in another, so far (and about different topics). I would be happy with a redirect, perhaps to Gairaigo (any other suggestions?). I'm confident that in the future there will be RS on (bad) French as a cultural PR phenomenon, so some kind of place holder like a redirect might be a good idea. Anyway, it would be nice if there were more than just us commenting on this AfD.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed on all points. i believe that it's generally considered acceptable to withdraw nomination and just do the redirect after it gets closed, but i also agree that at this point, it would be better if more people chimed in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't chapters of books, though. There's half a chapter of one book, and a paragraph in another, so far (and about different topics). I would be happy with a redirect, perhaps to Gairaigo (any other suggestions?). I'm confident that in the future there will be RS on (bad) French as a cultural PR phenomenon, so some kind of place holder like a redirect might be a good idea. Anyway, it would be nice if there were more than just us commenting on this AfD.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—i see how my comment could produce that impression. i'm not sure what i meant, exactly. i think that i was trying to acknowledge the "humor" book of photos you found. anyway, my feeling ultimately is that the article shouldn't be deleted because there is a topic or topics called "franponais" that is(are) covered in reliable sources, and that those sources should determine what the article should be about. since the material in the article is pretty much unsourced as it stands, it could easily be blanked and rewritten, or even just redirected to something else (possibly temporarily) if the topic currently written about seems unsalvageable to an editor. it just seems to me like a bad idea to delete the thing when there are whole chapters of books on a subject described by the term just because the article is not done right.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—you're right that the second source is more about the technical ways in which french words are absorbed into japanese than about the humor that french speakers may see in the process. on the other hand, the author discusses that topic in a way which seems to me to indicate that it's encyclopedic. my feeling is that you're right that much of the material (unsourced, probably unsourceable) in the article is unencyclopedic, but the subject of franponais itself is encyclopedic. my feeling is that given available sources, the problems with the article can be fixed by editing rather than by deletion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 12 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —DeansFA (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is nothing more than a poor translating issue, not a notable blending of languages. References may discuss the issue but don't make it notable. Anecdotal at best. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:41, 1 November 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. Tone 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Homer Conferencing (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 prodded this article for lack of independent sourcing. In response the author added a couple of indiscriminate product directories, two of which rely on reader submissions. I looked and was unable to find additional sourcing, so I believe this software fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG, which requires independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, d'oh! Article is about videoconferencing software. It does creepy stuff too (Homer can also be used to remotely observe the activities on a desktop screen) and Google News, Books, Scholar haven't heard of it. Referenced only to wikis, bookmark pages, and other self published sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - poorly sourced, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:59, 27 October 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. 2 relists and no arguments against deletion, or demonstrating notability. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Mansfield Productions (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 company existed, I'm pretty sure, but the article is nothing but a compilation of lists and the outfit does not seem to be very notable: [15]. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until and unless reliable sources covering its work can be found. I couldn't find any in a quick google search. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 25 October 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. Tone 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Blue Bond Proposal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The only independent source is an in-passing mention on Bloomberg. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; promotional article for a debt restructuring proposal from an obscure think tank (the Breugel article is a disambiguation page about the family of painters). No indication that this proposal meets any notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct link is Bruegel (institution). Both articles have been created by a COI editor. The institution seems to be notable (albeit perhaps less than they themselves seem to think...) --Crusio (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Bruegel (institution), then redirect. Not sufficient for a stand-alone article, but worth for mentioning in the Bruegel (institution) article. The term "The Blue Bond Proposal" may be useful as a potential search term. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Smerdis. Purely promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:44, 1 November 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) 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sergio Garcia (baseball) (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 former minor league baseball player. Never reached majors, so he fails WP:BASE/N. His prod was declined because he was suspended for drugs, which may make him notable. I don't think a suspension makes him notable, especially since players are getting suspended for drugs literally all the time. Alex (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 21:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if there was some media coverage, I don't think the suspension makes him notable. — NY-13021 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only thing suggesting any notability is the PED suspension, which does not establish notability. The suspension isn't even enough to make this a case of WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 28 October 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) 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Insight Foundation (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 don't think this article satisfies WP:CORP or WP:GNG. There are two sources that cover an opening of a helpline in 2010, but none of them provide much more than that, and that's all I could find. Don't be confused with this Insight Foundation or this one Muhandes (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. (I was the one who contested an A7 on this, for what that's worth.) Good as the two sources are, only one is directly about the company - the Times of India article would support notability for its founder, but not for the foundation. One more source would be enough, but I can't find much beyond four passing mentions. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 15 October 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, Rcsprinter (lecture) 11:51, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without coverages from periodicals, sufficient votes from everyone else, and anyone else improving this article, this article's topic has been proven to be non-notable. --Gh87 (talk) 01:10, 26 October 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. We can't keep relisting this forever, and it's clear interest in outright deletion is minimal at most. — Joseph Fox 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shape of Things to Come (The O.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)
Previously was nominated for {{prod}} in 2008; therefore, this discussion for The O.C. episode is created. Even with other previously-featured articles, this article's topic's notability is not established for years. I would say delete. --Gh87 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Merge and delete are not the same thing: delete blocks away revisions of an article; merge preserves previous revisions. I vote neutral for now; I will change back to delete someday if more will vote for the same thing. --Gh87 (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I haven't looked into this episode yet, but I noted the previous prod when noticing that a slew of O.C. episode articles are currently prodded.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per WP:ATD, to a season or list of episode articles. There's no reason to delete this entirely, as it can meet V by being primarily sourced. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 3 October 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) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 15 October 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, Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 11:47, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if even just due to utter lack of interest of editors for deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete. It's just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT and trivia, nothing that sustains a separate article from an episode list. – sgeureka t•c 07:06, 27 October 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) 20:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adrian Chu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
VQuakr (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]"He is an accomplished individual and well known in the University of Washington community and Seattle business community. He is also active on Linkedin as well."
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not showing any sign of notability; probably could have been PRODded. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete He has a real estate license, which still adds up to him not showing any notability. According to the blog ref, he was a student in Feb 2011. Unable to find any reliable references about him.Bgwhite (talk) 00:38, 26 October 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. Tone 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CouponCabin (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 topic of the article is apparently not notable, with coverage in news and other media being limited to tangential references by minor newspaper or magazine articles. Article is written like an ad or press release. The article's creator (User:Laurenboukas) also appears to have a substantial conflict of interest, being within this company's PR department. scooteytalk 06:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertisement for a routine online business: an affiliate marketing publisher that offers thousands of online coupon codes as well as printable coupons for local businesses and groceries, daily deal aggregation and product recommendations. The site works with Commission Junction, Google Affiliate Network, LinkShare and other affiliate networks to provide both traffic and sales to retailers via online coupons. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Smerdis. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:45, 1 November 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 as a copyright violation (http://mysdscience.com/profile/LarryBock). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry bock (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 businessperson. Tinton5 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 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. It's worth noting that parts of the filmography appear to have been fictious, as "USS Seaviper", according to IMDb, isn't coming out until 2012, not 2009 as listed, and has no mention of DeZolt The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kit DeZolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP that meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. The subject of this article has only had one major role (in a similarly non-notable movie) and has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A handfull of minor roles and one lead in an arguable non-notable production fails WP:ENT. His role of "Kitzu" in Chocolate Star Entertainment and two episodes of Detective Story "might" have been enough, if the role could be determined as significant and the productions notable. Without such determination, his lack[16] of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Promotion of a not notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 27 October 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. (former-admin close) Secret account 05:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cambridge Satchel 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)
Not notable; simply an advertisement for an obscure company. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep there's enough coverage out there to get past WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The source in the article, from The Guardian, is significant coverage, as is this from online magazine Fashionista; plus the company is up for an (admittedly minor) award this year... There's also a lot of minor coverage (mentions of the company seem to abound throughout current fashion literature), which added together implies notability. Yunshui 雲水 07:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wrote the article on the basis of the company's notability as evident in its coverage by the Guardian, not as an advertisement. Sandstein 08:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, albeit weakly. It would appear that there are indeed sources talking about the business. There's a human interest story of the week aspect about its foundation, and it would appear that its products have become a passing fad in the world of fashion. I don't see this kind of coverage as making a case that this business has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It apparently makes satchels that some folks like. A worthy achievement, but not the sort of thing that equates to the sort of long term significance that endures for centuries and makes the business an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has significant coverage in reliable and independent publications, and being a top selling fashion accessory is a significant and demonstrable effect on society, so it satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG. There was the Guardian article, and in addition I added coverage from Fashionista. There is another article about the company in Telegraph (UK), which says 2012 sales are expected to hit $16 million. There is an article in Women's Wear Daily. When people here pronounce that something is a "passing fad" they are engaging in pointless crystal ball gazing, and such claims should be ignored by the closing admin, unless they are quoting a reliable source. The company is one of the top selling brands at Urban Outfitters, and has been covered in publications around the world. Edison (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The quoted source said that this brand had become "a cult among twenty-something fashion bloggers". This did not suggest long term notability to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not temporary, per WP:N. Yesterday's notable fad is still notable. Besides that, the reference does not predict that everyone will soon lose interest in the product. Its predicted sales 5 years from now is not that relevant to whether multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of it now. Edison (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Violates notability under WP:COMPANY. This is a small, obscure company that has no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". A couple of mentions in minor publications do not make it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian is not a minor publication, its coverage of the company is not a mere mention, and selling a great number of products and being fawned over by fashion blogggers is, at least, a "demonstrable effect on culture or society". It might not be a lasting or significant effect, but that's not required; notability is not temporary. Sandstein 08:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is sufficient significant coverage to establish notability per the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and IMO has slight influence on "culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education", so it borderline meets WP:COMPANY. HurricaneFan25 | talk 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The influence and effect thing seems irrelevant here, since WP:ORGIN (already linked above) states that "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." This company has received more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet that requirement. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:CORP is clearly met, as evidenced by the following sources: "British satchel maker takes fashion world by storm" and "Bag lovers go back to school for inspiration: Mother-and-daughter team's satchel company becomes 2011 global hit" from The Guardian, "Cambridge Satchel Company Sees Growth" from Women's Wear Daily, "Mother of invention gave the satchel a funky twist - HOW I MADE IT Julie Deane Founder of Cambridge Satchel Company" from The Sunday Times, and "A schoolbag is the new It bag" from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Goodvac (talk) 03:54, 3 November 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. Sandstein 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies (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 PRODded with reason "No independent sources, not covered in any selective major databases. does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was de-PRODded with comments on the talk page asserting notability based on the unique concept of the journal and the high profile of contributors. However, sources are still not available and the original PROD reason stands. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answers
- it is the only journal that convenes symposia and in-depth conferences on books in legal theory.
- In addition to being a journal it provides an opportunity for writers to meet their critics.
- The sumposia are events with tens of participants and many writers are applying to be included and those who are are included are among leading in their fields: Will Kymlicka (the father of the multi-culturalism movement), Adrian Vermeule from Harvard University, John Gardner in criminal law, from Oxford University and others.
- Here are the list of figures whom will write the articles to the upcoming issues, they include Jack Balkin and Paul Kahn (in constitutional law) both of them from Yale Law School, Rae Langton from the Department of philosophy, MIT, Ariel Porat (Tort), (Chicago Law School and Tel Aviv Law School), Eyal Benvenisty (International law), (New York University School of Law and Tel Aviv Law School).
Tzahy (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoc can also find about it in Hein. Tzahy (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do copy-paste from an e-mail that Prof. Barak Medina, dean of the Hebrew University Law faculty, sent to all students and faculty members (it's not a private mail, it distributed to a large number of peoples and I got their consent to upload it here):
שיתוף פעולה עם הוצ' אוקספורד בהוצאה לאור של כתב עת
בהמשך להסכם שיתוף הפעולה שלנו עם הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת קיימברידג' להוצאה לאור של ה- Israel Law Review, אני שמח לבשר על השגת הסכמה עם הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת אוקספורד לשיתוף פעולה בהוצאה לאור של ה- Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies.
And the english translation:
Coperation witn Oxford Universy Press for a journal publishing
Following our cooperation with Cambridge University Press that published Israel Law Journal, I'm glad to announce about our agreement with Oxford University Press to cooperate in publishing Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies. Tzahy (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tzahy. Also, we have to remember that the journal is new (2010), so we can not expect to find it in major databases. I did find it in Legal Research instructors at Stanford Law School, here and here. Also, the well-known professors who edit it, and the list of respectful and important professors who wrote there, are the best indication for the importance of the journal. The fact that it is going to work with Oxford University Press just prove that. For all those reason I think we should keep the article. RF123 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the links you give above are independent reliable sources. And, as you say, "the journal is new (2010), so we can not expect to find it in major databases", meaning that any speculation as to its notability falls afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. As for OUP, we only have an email from the journal's editor, not an acceptable source, either. That well-known people edit/contribute is not relevant either. --Crusio (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Professors from Yale, Hebrew University, University of Texas, Harvard Law School, Georgetown University Law Center and many more, are very important indication. I think they would not write in the journal if they did not think it's important or it will contribute to their professional advancement. RF123 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may very well be, but it is not one of the criteria for notability (either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG). --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tzahy. Also, we have to remember that the journal is new (2010), so we can not expect to find it in major databases. I did find it in Legal Research instructors at Stanford Law School, here and here. Also, the well-known professors who edit it, and the list of respectful and important professors who wrote there, are the best indication for the importance of the journal. The fact that it is going to work with Oxford University Press just prove that. For all those reason I think we should keep the article. RF123 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A journal who is being published by the faculty of law of the Hebrew university and who in which leading jurists and philosophers ([17]) are participating, does absolutely meet the notability criteria. --Jys1442 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the word "notability" has a very special meaning on WP, it has nothing to do with good/bad/worthwhile/etc. The appropriate guidelines have been linked above. Please indicate how any one of the notability criteria of either one of those guidelines you think is being met? --Crusio (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, my reply above was written with full awareness of the the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and with clarification why it meets the criteria. --Jys1442 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Decent level of GScholar hits for a journal that's only up to Volume II, notable contributors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The notable writers are more than enough to establish notability of the journal. Broccolo (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I also strongly believe that in this case the notability of the contributors, the quality of their contributions and the notability of the editing house makes the journal notable, despite its short past Cpt.schoener (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Cpt.schoener --Yoavd (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. James500 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see this journal indexed in Ulrich's, Journal Citation Reports, or any major selective scholarly databases. Although notable scholars may contribute to this journal, that does not make the journal itself notable (per WP:NJournals). However, I did find that it was indexed in HeinOnline, a legal research database - but that's the only place I've found it indexed. If the journal itself is notable, we should be able to find plenty of third-party, scholarly references to the journal itself, so it might be worth it to delete this article until the journal is indexed more broadly (which may take a few years). Phoenixred (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Very notable contributors for a new journal. Itzuvit (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED, do I really have to keep repeating that? --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good coverage in Google Scholar, indexed by HeinOnline, association with Oxford University Press. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 2 November 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. Better served as a category/navbox. — Joseph Fox 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of articles about Three Mile Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lists must be notable, just like other articles. This is a list about Wikipedia content. Unless someone has written about "How Three Mile Island has been covered in Wikipedia", this is not a notable topic. If someone wants to make a Portal or Outline with similar information, that may be plausible (if it doesn't exist already), but this is not a valid mainspace topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All of these can or should be in the category; the list does not aid navigation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant with the category. JIP | Talk 06:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Category listing are currently unable have text that expounds upon concepts, whereas articles are. See WP:NOTDUP for further rationale and clarifiation regarding this notion. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I know that. The thing is, this article does not even try to expound upon the concepts, it just lists them. JIP | Talk 23:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And change to a disambig page (which is what this really is). The arguement of "redundant with the category" is in itself redundant, as lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to "List of Three Mile Island topics". Useful as an index article, per WP:SETINDEX. Add disambiguation if necessary. A useful page to navigate Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That fails WP:LISTN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Three_Mile_Island_accident#See_also. Thats where a list of related info belongs. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable list, fails WP:N. This could be made into a category or perhaps a navbox and would be far more useful for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to clarify on (at least my interpretation) of how lists work. We can have lists about "things of type X" in the real world. We cannot have "lists of articles about things related to X." The former is an actual list of content; the latter is solely a navigational aid, a kind of crude table of contents. I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories; I have a problem with lists that are "self-referential". As far as I can see, nothing in our policies covering lists allow us to have any type of article titled List of articles about .... And it shouldn't. We have so many different ways of categorizing information, both reader-facing (lists of topics, portals, outlines, glossaries, overview articles, dab pages), editor-facing (Wikiprojects, noticeboards), and dual-facing (categories, and the search box)...why do we need, in just a select few instances, yet another type of organizational tool? It's simply the mark of a bad product to have too many different organizing schemes. More than one is good (I'm thinking here of how a textbook has a ToC, an Index, and a glossary; or how help for Microsoft products has a search box, a glossary, and an Index); too many is redundant. Too many guarantees that one list or the other isn't fully updated. Too many guarantees that one list or another gets to be used for POV pushing (consider the problems with had with Ethnic categories and Wikiprojects aggressively pushing themselves onto articles). Maybe I'm raising issues that go beyond one (or two) deletion discussions, and need to be raised in a larger forum. But I think that we have to consider these things as we make these individual decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have just added a wikilink to the orphaned stub of an article on Jack Herbein. IMHO, you might also like to consider deleting that page, instead/as-well. I'm tempted by the suggestion, above, that this page, here, though, is a useful disambiguation page. TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I (nom) would be willing to see this as a dab page, removing all of the See Also, since all of the articles actually contain "Three Mile Island", and thus there could be confusion when that is used as a search term. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the part of the dab guideline that deals with this issue (WP:PTM—partial title matches) that seems to be an inappropriate use of a dab. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as Exit2DOS proposed to the see also section. Seems plain obvious to me. Let's see: it's a list of 6 Wikipedia articles and we have this long discussion? (The list is also a disguised violation of WP:SELF as "articles" in its title actually means "Wikipedia articles". When I first saw this discussion, I expected it to be about a bibliography, i.e. articles that appeared somewhere else. Only Wikipedia articles are articles, huh? We have a List of US presidents not a List of articles about US presidents.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a navbox from it as Ahunt proposes would also work; it would be just another way of organizing a "see also". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some people like navboxes (not including me--I consider them ugly obtrusive and an incentive to over-linking), others like other navigational devices. All all justified, including lists of articles, as long as someone is willing to maintain them. All ways of organizing material that can potentially help users are good, We should not be here deleting the ones we don't care for. As long as they're not misleading, they're acceptable. Notability isn't an issue with navigational tools--they're basically part of the structure, not the contents. that these should even be discussed in the context of articles is wrong: they're justthe same as redirect and categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is a short list that is redundant to the category. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this does not meet the WP:GNG - no coverage of the topic"[Wikipedia] articles about Three Mile Island". Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Three Mile Island accident, evidently, as a short list of related links. Sandstein 06:19, 2 November 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 Remembrance Sunday. — Joseph Fox 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remembrance Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. No assertion of notability. No explanation of significance. Fails WP:GNG. ClaretAsh (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has multiple RS already. Being a short article is not a crime. No objection to editorial merge with similar-themed events to provide a more comprehensive view in a single article. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 8 October 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) 00:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The first source in the article is a 2010 announcement in the Guardian, which did not consider it worthwhile to review the actual program, before or after it aired. The second source is a brief mention cribbed from the Guardian. The third source is a BBC press release. No substantial WP:RS's there or on Google, that I can see. I no reason to expect any, but if you can find solid sources evidencing this program's notability, will be happy to reevaluate. Just because Remembrance Day is notable does not imply that this program is--notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I also don't really see anything worthwhile in this brief stub to merge over. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Remembrance Day (Add new category - TV SHOW, Remembrance Week - then this article). Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:54, 16 October 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, Rcsprinter (speak) 11:43, 17 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Remembrance Sunday (not Remembrance Day since it is specific to the UK). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Remembrance Sunday as proposed by P199. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smart Inventory Solutions (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 will transclude the discussion from the talk page so that others may comment as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Talk:Smart Inventory Solutions[reply]
Reception given to reply
[edit]- Delete This is
laughable self-promotionlaughably low-quality paid promotion (see below). Being listed at LC and Amazon, and almost winning an obscure award, and being published by so-and-so, does not make a book notable, unless for chutzpah. EEng (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. This book is not yet influential enough nor has it achieved any technical or historical significance as of the moment. Wikipedia is not a library. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-promotion, fails WP:GNG. It is not notable for a book to be in a bookshop. Reliable 3rd-party citations are needed; there is barely anything there at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK - almost passes #4, but one higher education institute is not "multiple". Yunshui 雲水 07:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood that criterion. It has a footnote which reads: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I did. Well, that just serves to strengthen my Delete !vote. Thanks for the exposition. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. EEng said it first, and I agree. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to reception given to reply
[edit]Hi all – Thank you for you input. I have been rummaging through other book entries and I am again scratching my head for cohesiveness as I believe this entry should be included in Wikipedia. In other book discussions, editors have noted that all published books should be included (except for vanity press creations). For example: “Wikipedia has a guideline saying that “IMDb, which is more thorough than WP will ever be, is no reason to reject movies, actors, etc. So too with books and Amazon, I think.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Greta_Garbage%27s_Outrageous_Bathroom_Book
Also, this book is technical in nature and very specialized; therefore the standard rules for notability do not apply.
The book has been referenced in an another book on best practice (from a major publishing house)– this is a clear third party citation
Not only is this technical manuscript sold on Amazon, it was also independently reviewed thus providing more of the third-party citations you are looking for. The Amazon reference makes it easy for people to see how others have rate the book.
Monash University, which uses this book, is one of only a handful in the world that runs a Masters program on Maintenance Management – the main subject area where this book is used. The only other that I know for sure is the University of Tennessee, and they use the materials from Monash.
Finally, here is an expanded list of the technical publications that have republished material from this book: • Reliability Magazine • Uptime Magazine • RAMS Asia Magazine • CEO Online • The Maintenance Journal • The Asset Management and Maintenance Journal • The Bangkok Post • Supply Chain Magazine • RCM Newsletter – University of Tennessee • M&E Plant and Maintenance • The National Provisioner • The author also has presented papers at conferences in Europe, Asia, North America and Australia.
This is a specialized publication that has had significant impact in the highly specialized field of spare parts management. I hope you will take these facts into account and approve inclusion. Laura P Wright (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being paid to promote this book? Googling your name suggests that you work in technical PR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey, you're right! You'd think someone whose "writing in biotechnology, nanotechnology, software, industrial, telecommuncations and other sectors has produced exceptional results for — and accolades from — more than 100 clients" would check out Wikipeida's policies before embarassing her client with this sure-to-be-deleted effort. Maybe all that "communicating advanced concepts to audiences with a nominal knowledge" made her think we'd be hyponotizedby arguments such as, "The book has been reviewed by several independent reviews published at Amazon.com. Note that at one of them is in their top 50 reviewers." I wonder if her humiliated client will pay her bill? EEng (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being paid to promote this book? Googling your name suggests that you work in technical PR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Friends: Yes, that’s me. No, I’m not being paid – that rule is quite clear on Wiki. Otherwise, I would have hidden my name behind a moniker. I simply thought it would be useful to get some experience on the site so I can speak intelligently about it. I have been trying very hard to be polite and understand the rules and am really taken aback by the hostility of at least one person here. (Not you, CS. You were right to ask the question.) Soon, I will try again to go through each point of the WP:GNG And NBook3 and make myself clear on each point. I appreciate those of you who are trying to actually help. lpw 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)
Response to rebuttal to reception given to reply
[edit]- Good try -- "the standard rules for notability do not apply" -- but I'm afraid still no cigar. The rules apply even to your article! Sorry. And quoting someone who claims to be quoting a policy or guideline isn't very convincing -- how about you showing us that guideline/policy yourself, if it exists (which ot my knowledge it doesn't)? So, could you please point to a notability guideline, and pair it with sources which satisfy the points of that guideline? Otherwise, stop wasting our time. EEng (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura, there are two notability guidelines which apply to books: WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. All you have to do to ensure a keep !vote from any competent editor is provide evidence that the article's subject passes either one of these. There is no need to go trawling through Wikipedia's archives to find statements to the contrary, becuase they will be ignored - simply find a reliable source that shows Smart Inventory Solutions passes one of the two guidelines above, and it's in. Yunshui 雲水 07:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear-cut Fail of WP:NBOOK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Apologies for quoting Wikipedia back to you but when I looked at the pages, it seemed that this entry passed both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Bear with me please and consider the following. 1. The book is published by Industrial Press (a reputable, independent & reliable publisher). 2. There are three independent, non-trivial online citations. 3. The content is referenced and quoted in a book on best practice from another reliable source (McGraw-Hill). 4. The book is used in a university course. 5. There is no original research included (as I understand the Wikipedia definition). Lastly, and I have been waiting for a response in your help section on this, which is why I’m late with this response: 6. The book that is quoted in excerpts in many industry magazines in the form of columns by the author. The content is consistently excerpted from the book. Could those pubs be considered a third-party source? If so, I can provide plenty of them. lpw 23:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)
- You clearly haven't read either of the notability guidelines I linked to above very thouroughly, as you've completely failed to address them.
- The publisher of the book is irrelevant to either guideline.
- The number of cititions is also irrelevant to either of the guidelines (although several hundred citations might potentially be evidence for NBOOK3.
- Per the WP:GNG, we require sources that talk about the subject, rather than just quoting them.
- Original research, whilst a definte no-no, does't have much bearing on notability.
- These are not third-party sources as they are written by the book's author. That makes them the very definition of Not Independent - and thus, useless for WP:GNG.
- Please read those guidelines again, carefully, and then tell us how the book passes them. All the evidence that I an other editors have encountered so far suggests that it does not. Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the only thing that will make for significance are substantial third party reviews. "Appreciative notes on book jackets are not reliable sources. Reviews published by commentators in Google re not reliable sources I(one they reprint from genuine publications are--they will typically be found all the way at the bottom,as they don't pay much attention to them.) Being a widely used textbook is relevant for notability , but is not easy to demonstrate in the absence of specific statements in the technical literature. Being listed in library catalogs or referred to in a few other books is useless for notability. If you have proper reviews, list them--and only them: DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 31 October 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) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From Beneath (film) (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: Unremarkable film, unreleased, no google or google news. Eeekster (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too soon: unreleased, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film article is premature and the topic does not have required coverage.[18]
- Website will be up in next few days. Part of media package. Many people interested in film. Imdbs attached — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashemorrison (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Ashemorrison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- A film's website or IMDB are not enough per WP:NF or WP:RS to show notability. We are not here to be part of its "media package". Try again in a few months to offer a neutral article... BUT only if or when this is released and gets coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as G11 unambiguous promotion. This is an unreleased independent movie with no one notable associated--the director's just-added WP entry, David Doucette--should also be speedied on WP:NOTPROMOTION grounds. Searching on "From Beneath" + "David Doucette" finds zero Gnews hits, and general Google search returns a whopping nine hits--WP, primary, or unrelated. This project is not notable now and probably never will be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that sourcing is the issue and it's WP:TOOSOON certainly... but in that context, ANY premature article might by seen as promotional. If or when this is released and then gets coverage, an article might be worth consideration. And though the speedy on the David Doucette will likely be contested by its author, as a WP:BLP violation, I agree that that article is premature as well and do not see it or he as verifiable or notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to talk me down, I would probably be too cautious to actually speedy anything other than a blank page. :) But I do in fact find that most premature articles are promotional violations, by my lights. And the entry for the director is particularly egregious: "After experiencing success with the short films he made while attending Carleton University (working towards an honors degree in film studies), and spending two years working as a production assistant on various film and television sets in the Vancouver area, David felt well prepared to tackle his first feature film...David intends From Beneath to be a bold announcement of his arrival in the cinematic arena and a love letter to his favorite genre." Blech. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not in disagreement about the quality of the page on the filmmaker, nor in that being unsourced, the tone of the page on him seems quite autobiographical and lacking in neutrality. This is a common mistake of a newcomer unfamiliar with guidelines. I'd send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and suggest careful study before he makes any other contributions. Had a reliable source been cited as stating the same thing as did the author, we'd still desire it toned down. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Website worked for me. www.frombeneathfilm.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.20.112 (talk • contribs) 19:35, October 27, 2011
- We're not in disagreement about the quality of the page on the filmmaker, nor in that being unsourced, the tone of the page on him seems quite autobiographical and lacking in neutrality. This is a common mistake of a newcomer unfamiliar with guidelines. I'd send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and suggest careful study before he makes any other contributions. Had a reliable source been cited as stating the same thing as did the author, we'd still desire it toned down. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete propose WP:SNOW Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chinese Consulate-General, Houston (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 topic does not meet the GNG. There has been no coverage that I can find of the consulate itself. The sources listed are a) the consulate website, b) two maps of the area, which verify that the consulate exists, and c) an article about a man which briefly talks about a single event in his life - with one sentence about the consulate. While the event likely would warrant its own article, it does not mean that the consulate. There is no significant independent coverage of the consulate, and as such it doesn't warrant its own article. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:GNG requires independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Li Cunxin, the source of the consulate's only momentary blip in notability. —SMALLJIM 20:59, 23 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The current article is a WP:COATRACK. The proposed redirect is WP:UNDUE. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not redirect. Nom explains why the article doesn't belong, Have mörser explains why it is annoying and the proposed redirect non-neutral, esp. given the puny traffic. My own web search confirms the trivial nature of Ghits. If there is a decent, neutral WP page simply listing Chinese embassies and missions around the world, that might be worth considering as redirect target. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletefails WP:GNG. consulates are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 31 October 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. MTV nomination makes it notabkle enough Tone 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scribe (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)
Band does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reason for deletion is not clear. This band sounds great! I'm listening to them right now for the first time. Business Standard, MidDay, Best Media Info... What about these reports on the band? I think these are valid evidences of notability. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep This is a borderline case: the band fails many criteria of WP:BAND, but one can argue that the MTV Europe Music Award nomination and the reporting on that constitutes substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wether or not the band sounds good is irrelevant, although it does seem to meet criteria 8 of WP:BAND as this source tells us it's been nominated to MTV Europe Music Awards. If someone could find a source to confirm it being listed on Rolling Stone magazine, that would help too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.60.194 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K-1 France Grand Prix 2005 in Marseilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Fighting Network Korea MAX 2005. also nominating:
all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 18 October 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) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None of these articles have any independent sources and all of the events were, at most, qualifying events for other events. All fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Papaursa has it right. For example, the Marseilles event was a qualifying event for a qualifying event for a qualifying event for the final tournament. Astudent0 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hermann Hammesfahr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims that this person invented Fiberglass. Google search turns up almost nothing on him, the one book cited mentions him working on an early version of glass fiber, but as a fabric, and pretty indistinguishable from what eventually became the glass fibers used in modern fiberglass. Despite claims of notability, there doesn't seem to be much evidence. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There may not be much on a Google search, but there seems to be enough to confirm that he was the patenter of a significant advance in the development of glass fibres as a usable material. The problem is that he wasn't the first to produce them, the process for manufacturing glass fiber as we know it today is credited to Russell Games Slayter and fiberglass is generally used to refer to materials incorporating glass fibers rather than the fibers themselves. WP could use an article on glass fiber and its development and if Hermann Hammesfahr's contribution were discussed there in context we might not need this article. But a merge with fiberglass in its present state is inappropriate, so keep. --AJHingston (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 October 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) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes it needs a rewrite, but it has provided enough proper references that prove the notability of the subject. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please look at the references. As of this writing: (1) doesn't mention HH; (2) we can't check; (3) he gets mentioned in a paragraph; (4) doesn't work for me; (5) is the same as (3); (6) can't be checked online; (7) is the same as (2) and can't be checked; (8) is a photo; (9) is the same as (3)/(5) (in a book about optical networking); (10) is ancestry information apparently. So basically there is only one reference that actually mentions HH by name in conjuction with this invention, and it's not all that much of a mention. To address AJHingston's point above, there is an article on Glass fiber already, and I wouldn't object to a minor merge with relevant information (basically the paragraph from the books.google.com cite.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that spot. If you search on glassfibre (in the UK we tend to use compound nouns more often than in US English and it is a not uncommon though unconventional spelling) WP redirects to Fiberglass. Hence my failure to find the Glass fiber article. That needs sorting. On the wider point, there is clearly a dispute over the origin of the process, which should be addressed in the Glass fiber article. That mentions only Edward Libbey, but his article does not credit him with inventing glass fiber. US patents especially in the 19th century are a notoriously unreliable guide to the originator of an invention but as an example Jeff Hecht certainly gives the credit to Hammesfahr even though his book gives him little space. There actually seem to be two patents attributable to Hermann Hammesfahr - in 1880 (US patent 232122) for use as a fabric and 1902 (US patent 702725) using glass fiber as an electrical insulation and my impression is that they represented genuine developments in glass technology. But his notability is marginal and if somebody could put him in context in the Glass Fiber article that would be better in my view. However, it requires an understanding of both the precursors to Hammesfahr and the use of the material prior to the 1938 breakthrough. --AJHingston (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepI believe this article should be kept, there are sources verifying it and it is historically significant. We use fiber glass every day, and just because he has not recieved a lot of credit for the invention being his, he deserves his own page.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:01, 26 October 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. Tone 15:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NSW Premiers Student Volunteering Awards program (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:GNG. an unreferenced award article that gets nothing in gnews. and nothing in a major Australian news website [19]. created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 19 October 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) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There several links, however its not really an important page which is notable enough because it was set up by some hippy teacher. Ray-Rays 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
- Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is showing. WP:NOTIMPORTANT is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:57, 1 November 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leon Weinstein (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 assertion of notability, outside of non-notable books. Most ref's are non-WP:RS. Cannot find significant coverage elsewhere (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of people called Leon Weinstein in the news, but they're probably not him; this includes a store chain manager and an FBI agent. The Weinstein described in this Wikipedia article seems to have been mentioned only in a press release, [20]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Full name is 'Leon A. Weinstein". As the author of The Capitalist Guidebook he has generated a following. Also should not overlook the work he has done in the theatre. Yawanna (talk) 20:00, 24 October 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) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm having difficulty finding sources per WP:GNG. The mere assertion that he has "generated a following" and that the work he has done in theatre is notable is not backed by reliable sources as far as I can tell; the keep !voter is kindly asked for such sources. --Kinu t/c 04:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I too see no indication of this "following" - Looking for Hugh: The Capitalist Guidebook is self-published and has (according to Nielsen BookScan) minimal distribution - it's only available from the author/publisher. Would switch to keep if reliable sources are provided, but I can't find any. Yunshui 雲水 07:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:23, 26 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neuropsychophysiology (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, unreliable sources, advert Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable and possibly non-existent "field" of psychology. The term neuropsychophysiology is a tautological, pseudo-psychological term that I suspect is simply a marketing ploy for alt-med therapy. The pages on neuropsychology and psychophysiology would seem to cover the subject matter of this "field" already. The sources are not reliable (except for ones used solely to "prove" that it is a term in academic usage). The main reference to this topic is a self-published source, and it leads me to believe that it is simply an advert for the services of Michele Trimarchi. It is also an orphan and has been for a while. Famousdog (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tbe word appears to be used in a variety of sources. I cannot tell from searching alone whether any of those sources use it in a way that relates to this article, or whether there is some other coherent definition. Straight Google Scholar yields 403 hits; when I add -Trimarchi (exclude hits with "Trimarchi") I still get 398, suggesting that whatever the Scholar hits mean when they use the term, Ms. Trimarchi's theories are not it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 21 October 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) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For an article claiming to detail an entire field of research, 403 hits is actually extremely low, especially when you consider Google Scholar's rather (ahem) loose inclusion criteria. "Neuropsychology" gets 450,000 hits. "Psychophysiology" gets 300,000. Those 403 hits could be 403 typos, where people have written "neuropsychophysiology" instead of "neuropsychology" or "psychophysiology"! I recommend that this page simply be replaced by a disambig pointing to either of the other two fields. Famousdog (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's a book called Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychophysiology. I've not had a sight of its contents but here's a review in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry which indicates that it is respectable. So, the topic seems to be notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is unfortunately no definition in that review of what the authors consider "neuropsychophysiology". From the text of the review, the book seems to be discussing psychophysiology. Famousdog (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Google Book search shows that the term is widely used, though it is hard to be sure all writers mean exactly what this article presently says about it. "Personality Dimensions and Arousal"(Springer, 1997) uses the term in Chapter 9 and distinguishes it from neurophysiology and psychophysiology. Page 172 refers to "contemporary neuropsychophysiological research." Some of the other books discussing it at Google Book search include "Virtual reality in neuro-psycho-physiology" (1997,IOS Press), "Clinical and experimental neuropsychophysiology" (Croom Helm, 1985). It is discussed in"Handbook of psychophysiology," (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Contemporary hypnosis research (The Guilford Press, 1992). There are multiple reliable and independent sources with in-depth coverage of "neuropsychophysiology," so it is appropriate to have an article on the subject. Anything promotional of some alt-therapy or providing undue weight should be corrected by editing. The article history shows an appropriate stub in March of 2010, after which it gained a lot of argumentative and POV edits announcing that the term is a meaningless tautology. I suggest that that version be restored in large measure, and as the article is expanded and improved it can be referenced to some of the books I cited and some of the Google scholar results identified above. Edison (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Respectfully, Google Books has even looser standards than Google Scholar. I have looked at those references and in the first one, I cannot see where the author "distinguishes it from neurophysiology and psychophysiology" as you say he does. The only use of the term seems to be as a synonym for psychophysiology. In the second reference, the ONLY appearence of "neuro-psycho-physiology" appears to be the title of the book. There is no mention of it within the book! The third source isn't available online so I can't acquire a definition from it. In the fourth source, there are only 3 mentions in the body of the book and, undefined, it seems to be used as a synonym for (again) psychophysiology. The third source uses the term extensively without defining it, and it's a book on hypnosis, so I would doubt its scientific credentials anyway (I know, I know, prejediced). Finally, I think its worth pointing out that several of the relevant authors that use the term work in non-English countries. Frankly, this term is simply a grand-sounding and probably incorrectly used synonym for psychophysiology. I strongly recommend that we simply redirect this page or disambig to neuropsychology and psychophysiology. Famousdog (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nom;' objections seem to be over the fact that the term is used in the RW, although it shouldn't be. But we reflect the real world, and follow what ever they choose to do in such matters. Authors name books, and title articles; GScholar and G Books just list them as they are. We follow whatever the people in the field do; we don't try to redefine the field. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 31 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alonso (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Smells an awful lot like soap boxing. Artist is relatively unknown, hardly meets WP:NMG. Main contributor User:Thisisalonso seems to be in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 October 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) 00:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I searched pretty hard to find some sort of notability but I couldn't find anything that would show that he merits an article on wikipedia at this time. Releasing a single onto iTunes et all doesn't mean that you're automatically notable, nor does having the song remastered or handled by a certain group or company. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this person in reliable sources; only a few non-notable blogs/social media sites. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow Talk 03:29, 28 October 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. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greater Kolkata College of Engineering and Management (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 reason for nominating this article is lack of notable / verifiable source. This also Fails WP:GNG.It is also a case of copyvio bcuz the boys hostel is copy paste of MIT "Simmons Hall, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.JPG" and the lower part of the article is clearly copied from MIT library description. Vivekananda De--tAlK 17:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We generally keep legitimate degree granting institutions. The private college ended up shutting down due to student protest after too many were failed [21]. Copyvio issues can be dealt with by editting. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Well I might be wrong but "legitimate degree granting" isn't a criteria for notability according to WP:ORG.WP clearly says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it". If you search on google news only one news article about the "shutting down due to student protest" pops up.I sincerely believe this article is non-notable.The copyvio issue is comprises >70 percent of the problem.The "campus" description is copy pasted from MIT, the library description from either MIT or Cambridge, the photos of college library are from Lund University,hostel from MIT Simmons hostel,Elektro builing from Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Even the principals are Edmund Phelps and Jack Steinberger who are noble prize winners and yet check with the sources and the info turns out to be false.Now, if you start deleting every copyvio only few paragraphs remain.I will say again that a college does not need an article just because it exists for "legitimate degree granting".Sorry I may seem harsh to your comments but I need to justify my nomination for AfD.Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I didn't take the comments as harsh. They are a perfectly reasonable response based on policy guideline; exactly the sort of thing all editors discussing deletion should engage in. I want to make it clear that there are two issues at play, of which only one needs a discussion at AFD. The copyright issue is one that can be dealt with through editting, and doesn't require discussion at AFD. In fact, I will go ahead and deal with it momentarily. The key issue at hand of AFD is whether the article topic meets our inclusion guideline. I understand that it does not meet WP:ORG. However, we sometimes ignore all rules. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, and not guideline or policy, but it does point out that degree granting institutions are routinely kept. The reasoning is that they will have coverage in reliable sources (that may not be readily online) by their very nature, and as such should be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thank you for not taking offence.After your edit only the name of the college and logo remains.As I said more than 90 percent had to be deleted.And I have no problem whatsoever in keeping the article in the present form or merging it into West Bengal University of Technology.One thing I would like to point out that the removal of unattributed and untrue facts was only possible due to the efforts of this vandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.236.96.84. You may see that I have also given a warning.The last edit (or vandalism) this IP made to this article was in the form of abusive words against the college management and that too in Bengali language.Incidentally I am also a bengali. Moreover this IP was pointing to the fact that this college was using wikipedia's name for advertisement (not on the net but on brochures or offline material).Thus my intent is to actually thank this vandal. Vivekananda De--tAlK 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a merge to West Bengal University of Technology would be advisable. The two educational institutions are separate entities and only have some form of affiliation agreement. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thank you for not taking offence.After your edit only the name of the college and logo remains.As I said more than 90 percent had to be deleted.And I have no problem whatsoever in keeping the article in the present form or merging it into West Bengal University of Technology.One thing I would like to point out that the removal of unattributed and untrue facts was only possible due to the efforts of this vandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.236.96.84. You may see that I have also given a warning.The last edit (or vandalism) this IP made to this article was in the form of abusive words against the college management and that too in Bengali language.Incidentally I am also a bengali. Moreover this IP was pointing to the fact that this college was using wikipedia's name for advertisement (not on the net but on brochures or offline material).Thus my intent is to actually thank this vandal. Vivekananda De--tAlK 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I didn't take the comments as harsh. They are a perfectly reasonable response based on policy guideline; exactly the sort of thing all editors discussing deletion should engage in. I want to make it clear that there are two issues at play, of which only one needs a discussion at AFD. The copyright issue is one that can be dealt with through editting, and doesn't require discussion at AFD. In fact, I will go ahead and deal with it momentarily. The key issue at hand of AFD is whether the article topic meets our inclusion guideline. I understand that it does not meet WP:ORG. However, we sometimes ignore all rules. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, and not guideline or policy, but it does point out that degree granting institutions are routinely kept. The reasoning is that they will have coverage in reliable sources (that may not be readily online) by their very nature, and as such should be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Well I might be wrong but "legitimate degree granting" isn't a criteria for notability according to WP:ORG.WP clearly says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it". If you search on google news only one news article about the "shutting down due to student protest" pops up.I sincerely believe this article is non-notable.The copyvio issue is comprises >70 percent of the problem.The "campus" description is copy pasted from MIT, the library description from either MIT or Cambridge, the photos of college library are from Lund University,hostel from MIT Simmons hostel,Elektro builing from Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Even the principals are Edmund Phelps and Jack Steinberger who are noble prize winners and yet check with the sources and the info turns out to be false.Now, if you start deleting every copyvio only few paragraphs remain.I will say again that a college does not need an article just because it exists for "legitimate degree granting".Sorry I may seem harsh to your comments but I need to justify my nomination for AfD.Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The article has been stubbified. The entirety of the article was constructed as a mish mash of unattributed material copied from other university articles with most of the "facts" left the same making it both a copyvio, and more or less completely untrue. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 20 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (not sure why this was relisted after the nominator already stated his approval to keep) Tertiary education institution whose existence is verified by an independent source. Let this develop over time, not be deleted. --Pgallert (talk) 08:12, 26 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and no reasonable assertion of notability. Refs are mostly own web-site or Publicity releases. Nothing of any reputation. Small back-office support software house with a small (600) client base Velella Velella Talk 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets WP:GNG because of [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26]. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Topic is just meeting WP:GNG
- • Carr, David F. (May 23, 2011). "Zeroing In On Leads With Pardot Marketing Automation." Forbes Magazine.
- • Carr, David F. (August 31, 2011). "Pardot Ties Social Media To Marketing Automation Tools." Information Week.
- — Northamerica1000(talk) 11:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG just fine. Next time follow WP:BEFORE and do a quick Google news archive search before nominating an article. Others have pointed to reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 15:26, 31 October 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.