Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 10
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vaikom Muhammad Basheer. MBisanz talk 00:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tharaa specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Absolutely non-notable novel; no hits for "Thraraa specials" on Google Books, Google News archives, or Google (except Wikipedia). CtP (t • c) 21:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources. It's telling the novel doesn't have an article on the Malayalam Wikipedia (see 1968 entry), though many of the other novels do. Important author, but apparently not the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the creator of the article has left the following comment on its talk page:
The Novel Tharaa specials is not the most popular book written by Basheer. But I suppose if you want to have a complete coverage on Malayalam's greatest writer, You must have articles on all his works. (Freethinker123456 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC))
- In response, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily need complete coverage of Basheer, just of his notable works. Although I know comparative arguments are generally discouraged at AfD, I'm going to put this out here: many great and influential authors have written stories or books which don't all meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Take Isaac Asimov, for instance; despite his legendary status as a sci-fi author, there are still stories of his which I don't think warrant articles. CtP (t • c) 22:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for completing failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did find more results under "Thaaraa Specials" with an additional A, but it still didn't show anything that would prove that this book has any notability independent of its author. I'd say that there should be a redirect, but not under this specific spelling since the common English spelling looks to have four As instead of three. There is the possibility of non-English sources, but unless they can be provided and shown that they show notability for this book, I'm going to have to say that this book doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Short story by vaikom basheer.notable author.this can be merged with his page,if deleted.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Yes, Basheer is a notable author, but the notability of his stories cannot be inherited from this. Although it's an essay, WP:INHERITED lays this out pretty well. A merge does seem reasonable, although I'm not sure Basheer's page is the best place for it. Having more in-depth information on this novel than any of the others could give it undue weight. CtP (t • c) 12:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect to author. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Bowie#1976–79: the Berlin era. MBisanz talk 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlin Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redundant to the individual albums' articles and unsourced. It's worth mentioning in Brian Eno and David Bowie, certainly, but there's nothing to split apart. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to David Bowie#1976–79: the Berlin era. I was disappointed to see the poor quality of the Berlin Trilogy article, given that the term so frequently describes Bowie's landmark Low, "Heroes", and Lodger albums (hence why I don't support outright deletion here). But then I clicked over to Bowie's main page, read the "1976–79: the Berlin era" section, and realized that improving and expanding the trilogy article would only make it more and more identical to the well-sourced, comprehensive section that already exists in the Bowie article. And so because of that redundancy, I'm in favor of a redirect. Gongshow Talk 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Keep -- I don't have a terribly strong feeling on this one, but I certainly agree with Gongshow that it shouldn't simply be deleted; it's a common enough term relating to Bowie's history to deserve at least a redirect, which may well be the best option, since the Bowie article is in much better shape now (FA in fact) than when the Berlin Trilogy article was mainly written. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for reasons above - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the redirects This probably is a better option, but unfortunately, if I just redirected it, then someone could revert and go back and forth pointlessly. If it goes to AfD first and there's a consensus to redirect, it can't be reverted over and over again without at least appealing to the fact that other users want this redirected. Redirecting is probably the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to David_Bowie#1976.E2.80.9379:_the_Berlin_era. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball players from Canada. MBisanz talk 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Major League Baseball players from Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
too fine a consideration for an article; no precedent for having article lists of major professional sports leagues players by sub-national jurisdictions Mayumashu (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject adequately covered by List of Major League Baseball players from Canada, no clear reason to split by province. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not weighing in with an opinion, but I am sure the reason is their Frenchness.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect
Delete. This article lacks substantial content, and there is no reason to split this article from the parent article, List of Major League Baseball players from Canada. While the subject may be notable, that does not preclude us from incorporating the substance into a larger article. Existing article title may be left as a redirect in the closing administrator's discretion. Prior to deletion, someone should double-check to confirm that all notable listees are included in the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the comments of AutomaticStrikeout and Hmich below, I am reminded that Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, and I am changing my !vote to what I believe is the slightly better outcome in this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Major League Baseball players from Canada. AutomaticStrikeout 03:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the MLB players from Canada article. There is no reason for Quebec to be split off. --Hmich176 (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though the nomination seems likely to pass, my preference would be to keep the list and have it included in the main Canada list by way of 'transclusion' -- I hope that is the right term -- as I have seen with other such lists (though regretfully I cannot link to one as an example, as my memory fails me at this time). While I am a strong federalist, Quebec has been recognized by the Canadian Parliament as a distinct nation within Canada, and does enjoy a certain distinct status. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article on the status of Quebec, they haven't been recognized with any kind of official political special status. The House of Commons recognized that the Québécois form a nation, but there is a difference between the Province itself and the Québécois, no? --hmich176 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it's a very nebulous thing. But as the lead to the Quebec article states, it is Canada's (and North America's) only predominantly French-speaking society and I so think we do have a basis for categorizing and listing Quebec distinctly, here. Anyway, if my transclusion fantasy is just that, a redirect as proposed above would allow us to categorize in any relevant Qc. cats, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article on the status of Quebec, they haven't been recognized with any kind of official political special status. The House of Commons recognized that the Québécois form a nation, but there is a difference between the Province itself and the Québécois, no? --hmich176 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Emeli Sandé Live: @ The Royal Albert Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:NMUSIC. Also a case of WP:HAMMER — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL on top of those two as well, doesn't it? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. When those "TBA"s no longer apply and some significant coverage exists, that will be the time for an article. Gongshow Talk 02:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking the in depth coverage in independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete — fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, among others. —Theopolisme 05:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious test page. But please note for future reference that removing a WP:PROD doesn't require any reason to be stated, nor does the removal of a prod for any or no reason constitute any part of an argument for deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Yummy Stuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DeProded without any reason. List of Things without any concrete definition. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep: early closure per WP:WITHDRAWN. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rupankar Bagchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability outside of an assertion of having "sung many famous songs." Cites no third-party sources. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are several GNews results that confirm some sort of notability, and he appears to have performed several songs in film soundtracks (IMDB). He is often referred to simply as 'Rupankar', and there are several more sources when you search for that alone: [1], [2]. He appears to have won a 'Telly Samman/Tele Somman Award' as Best Playback Singer in 2007 ([3]) - as the award ceremony is covered on television I would say this is a sufficiently important award to confer notability. I suspect that someone who has released that many albums will have coverage in his home country even if Google doesn't find it. --Michig (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I'm withdrawing my nomination and speedily closing the discussion. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple Minds' Festival Tour 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tour fails WP:NCONCERT. Sourced to primary source of band's own website, a fansite, and a long list of poor and random Youtube videos by fans. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Concur with nomination statement. Article fails notability in accordance with WP:NCONCERT. Additionally, the 100+ YT videos violate copyright protection as an unauthorized recording of creative works. Our policy requires that we refrain from linking to websites which present content in violation of copyright protection. See WP:ELNEVER. Cindy(talk to me) 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article has no reliable sources to verify notability, all of the references are from Simple Mind's site, simpleminds, org, a fansite and YouTube videos that fail WP:EXTERNAL, which User:Lurulu has edit warred to keep in despite an ongoing discussion on their inclusion. Therefore the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Aspects (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence in independent reliable sources that this concert tour satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:NCONCERT. Gongshow Talk 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbian Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails organization notability test. References included in the article never actually directly mention the "league" and the matter does not have "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Original research is carried out by the individual who created the article and who is possibly affiliated with the group. Instances of plagiarism are also present. The sole reference (recently put in by Antidiskriminator) that mentions the organization is trivial coverage with a passing mention of the organization to identify a quoted person.◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes delete this. They are not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; short of notability, and likely inherent problems of neutrality. This organisation was supposedly founded by "Boris Malagurski", who seems to have a talent for self-promotion; the article was created and mostly edited by socks of Bormalagurski (talk · contribs). bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. —Theopolisme 05:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy delete per G11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G Capital Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advert without enough salvageable content Corporate 14:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. It also is potentially a copyright violation as some of the text has been lifted from here. And I don't doubt that the remainder is from other press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is a student film that fails the film notability test. References for the background section deal with exclusively with Kosovo and not the film itself. No reliable sources that address the actual film in detail are used. Many references don't exist or are blogs such as the "East of Main" reference. The behind the scenes section exists of comments stemming from the film's website. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it's not a student film, according to IMDb, it's a documentary film. It was shown on RT several times (preview, "Politika" article noting the film was shown in 60 countries worldwide), has several secondary sources and print media discussing the film ([4], [5], [6], etc.), the film received support from Princess Linda, wife of Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia [7], and it's a highly notable film.
- That's why I say Keep, but add these references to the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that the sources given here are credible and meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. As MichaelQSchmidt said in the previous nomination for deletion, where the result was Keep, "it must be remembered that documentary films rarely get the coverage of studio financed blockbusters, so notability is not dependent upon popularity. Per WP:CSB, non-English sources are allowable if translations are properly attributed." IMDb, combined with the references given here and some from the article, should suffice to give this film notability on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. IMDb is considered trivial coverage and does not establish notability as pointed out in the policy. IMDb can be edited by users much like wikipedia can and therefore cannot be used to gauge notability. [8] Hell it even says the description was written by Malagurski himself. These sources are tabloids ([9], [10], [11]) with the first two simply mentioning the film in passing. The Politika source discusses his latter film and gives this one a passing mention as well. Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia is hardly notable for anything other than being "nobility" and his wife's simple marriage to him does not establish notability for her, let alone for the film. It's obvious there isn't enough coverage to "actually write a whole article" with the sources available. Most of the article deals only with Kosovo and not the film while the much of the rest is purely promotional sounding and filled with comments from the film's website. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, according to your comments on one talk page, all media in Serbia are tabloids, including Večernje novosti, a renowned Belgrade-based newspaper, and Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans. "Politika" clearly says this film was broadcasted in 60 countries, which is certainly notable. There are several reliable sources that attest to the importance of this film. Not to mention that the film, directed by Boris Malagurski, features prominent individuals such as Lewis MacKenzie, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor, Michel Chossudovsky and others. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the many unreliable tabloid sources you inserted into the article. Now focus on the discussion here. This AFD doesn't need you conflating discussions. Are those three not tabloids? Is Večernje novosti not a tabloid? Do you honestly question that? Do bother to check the links. Don't say there are several independent and reliable sources when you can't even produce them. There aren't enough to warrant an entire separate article. You're having trouble finding sources that barely have it in passing mention. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Večernje novosti is not a tabloid, it's a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now. It's also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc.[12] But enough about "Novosti", I've already provided the links regarding the article in question, you've disputed them, now it's up to other editors to voice their opinion. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a tabloid. Live with that fact. [13] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's funny how you just changed the Večernje novosti article on Wikipedia so it says it's a tabloid. With no reference. Smooth. :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Večernje novosti is a tabloid. However, this refers to the format of the newspaper (ie smaller than broadsheet). It is *also* a reliable source, 60 year old newspaper, etc, etc. Isn't that great? You're both right... The Steve 05:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the Daily Mail was founded in 1896. Please stop this nonsense that the founding date is relevant to a source's reliability. I also linked you a bunch of sources, pick out the bunch which you prefer. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Večernje novosti is a tabloid. However, this refers to the format of the newspaper (ie smaller than broadsheet). It is *also* a reliable source, 60 year old newspaper, etc, etc. Isn't that great? You're both right... The Steve 05:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's funny how you just changed the Večernje novosti article on Wikipedia so it says it's a tabloid. With no reference. Smooth. :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We are not here to judge truth or not of a topic, but instead to determine if a topic of a internationally screened independent film has enough coverage in enough sources, even if non-English, to meet the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF. While this documentary will never have the market coverage of Star Trek, Star Wars, or Harry Potter, meriting inclusion within Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said anything about "truth". There aren't enough sources to write an entire seperate article. It's propped up by Kosovo history and promotion quotes. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Also add aforementioned references to the article. --Bolonium (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A year long inactive account who returned just to vote to keep an article. Nothing suspicious about that. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You definitely deserve a barnstar for pointing that out. Just because I haven't edited with my account doesn't mean I haven't visited Wikipedia. --Bolonium (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A year long inactive account who returned just to vote to keep an article. Nothing suspicious about that. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing really presented as a reason for a deletion. This is obviously by far notable film, that influenced a lot of things, and with numerous sources. I am afraid that this is only part of a WP:DISRUPTPOINT violation by User:PRODUCER on the User:UrbanVillager edits. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- USA Technologies Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert with too little salvageable content to be worth cleaning upCorporate 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article definitively needs cleaned up to improve the tone and remove advert like content and primary sources. However, that is not a reason to delete. The company seems to meet notability criteria for companies, they are publicly traded [14] and a quick search of google news shows plenty of articles from reliable sources that could be used as references. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is in need of cleanup and improvement. However that is not a valid reason for deletion, please see WP:NOTCLEANUP. This company is traded on NASDAQ. That alone is not a reason to keep (see WP:LISTED), but it's a very good reason to do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating for deletion. Company passes WP:CORP. A few examples of significant coverage:
- THE MEDIA BUSINESS: ADVERTISING; Want to get yourself some opera tickets? Just go down to the soda machine and swipe your card., The New York Times
- Internet-Anywhere Initiative Has Usa Technologies Abuzz The Wayne Company Hopes To Get Into The Black By Bringing E-Commerce To Vending Machines., Philadelphia Inquirer (subscription required)
- Philly Inc: USA Technologies faces second proxy fight in three years, Philadelphia Inquirer
- USA Technologies completes rights offering, Philadelphia Business Journal
- USA Technologies: A Proxy Fight To Control The Future Of A Promising Payment Processor, Seeking Alpha
- Soda on credit, CNNMoney
- USA Technologies lays off 22 to meet cash requirement, Philadelphia Business Journal
- USA Technologies Attempts to Out Anonymous Online Critics, Runs Into New California Fee Statute, Electronic Frontier Foundation
- USA Technologies v. Stokklerk, Electronic Frontier Foundation
- PhillyInc: Online postings doomed USA Technologies CEO, philly.com
- USA Technologies Says CEO Dismissed Over Online Posts, Fox Business
- Suing anonymous online critics: worth the trouble?, CNNMoney
- I do note that some of the controversial events about this company are not currently in the article, and probably should be. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 21:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll stipulate to this being poorly written, but the subject itself is notable and I agree that WP:NOTCLEANUP applies, needing cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Go Phightins! 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made some adjustments in hopes of improving the tone. Go Phightins! 22:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Company has been covered by the New York Times, CNN, and Fox News. The coverage isn't always flattering, but it's there. The current article is written in a promotional tone, but that can be fixed with a clean up.--xanchester (t) 22:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree that this article is written in a promotional tone but the subject is itself is notable, per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of organizations and companies. It seems like the article is an orphan and could probably use a link to cashless catering or the U.S. equivalent. ʈucoxn\talk 23:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ʈucoxn\talk 23:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable. Cleaned up while I was at it. A412 (Talk • C) 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fulfills WP:CORP. Tone/text have been adjusted since nom. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The New York Times talks about them, and other coverage as well. Dream Focus 07:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Publicly traded on a major exchange. Plenty of good cites as previously mentioned. Faustus37 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eye symptoms of thyroid problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is essentially incoherent, is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and has no inline citations. Furthermore, anything substantive in it would be more suitable as a subsection of Thyroid disease. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirect or merge. It's not exactly original research - it seems to be based on a Finnish article - but there is nothing encyclopedic here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in Thyroid disease, if necessary. --Cyclopiatalk 18:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing to merge here. The article has no mergable content. -- 17:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
- Delete - nice attempt to link two ideas, but so incoherently. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposing early closure per WP:SNOWBALL — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Abia (mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small, not notable as far as I can tell, as a search yielded, essentially word for word, the same article, so possible Copyright violation. ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the question is, why hasn't this been deleted yet? TV | talk 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, any figure from Greek mythology is going to be notable because at minimum there have been countless dictionaries and encyclopedias over the centuries attempting to give comprehensive coverage to the subject (and lo, many include entries on Abia: [15]). Finding copies of this Wikipedia article elsewhere on the web is typical and irrelevant to deletion; you should filter those out by including "-wikipedia" in your search. Particularly for a subject of such antiquity, you should also search Google Books or Google Scholar rather than just relying on a straight web search. Re: the copyvio claim, the first source cited in the article is from 1867, so there is no copyright infringement there, and if you mean the second sentence then rewrite it. At most, this should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate list of minor figures from Greek myth, but I personally don't find the small size of the article a problem, and we do readers a disservice by forcing them to browse immensely long lists just to find one entry (particularly if they are using a mobile device). postdlf (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I don't believe there is 1. enough information to justify a separate page for her and 2. that the article is a copyright infringing "copy and paste" deal from elsewhere on the web, instead of the web having a Copy and paste of Wikipedia. The problem I have with it is ,mainly that the subject isn't important. I personally believe that if you don't have enough information to write a 5-7 sentence paragraph, you don't get a separate article. Love always ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 23:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify what source you believe this to be copied from? If it's the Schmitz book, or anything with the same text as that book, then it has already been explained above that its copyright has expired. 10:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- However, I don't believe there is 1. enough information to justify a separate page for her and 2. that the article is a copyright infringing "copy and paste" deal from elsewhere on the web, instead of the web having a Copy and paste of Wikipedia. The problem I have with it is ,mainly that the subject isn't important. I personally believe that if you don't have enough information to write a 5-7 sentence paragraph, you don't get a separate article. Love always ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 23:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Greek mythological figures#Minor figures. There's not enough to justify a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Greek myth mentioned in a 2000 year old book. The Steve 06:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - figures in ancient Greek mythology are inherently encyclopedic. Merging could be considered. Claritas § 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as is standard procedure for such figures. Long established consistency to this extent has the effect of a practical guideline. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2012 Iranian fighter jet incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability WP:NOT current affairs, not a newspaper etc., etc.. Petebutt (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER....William 12:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable for stand-alone article, it would be different if they had actually hit the predator. (and although despite the title no fighters were involved) MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that it is not notable enough for its own article and in fact this incident is already mentioned in Sukhoi Su-25 and General Atomics MQ-1 Predator. Any further useful content of a political, as opposed to an aerospace, nature can be added to Iran–United States relations after 1979. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per above reasons; not news, doesn't have long term notability for a whole dedicated article, covered well on other articles already. Kyteto (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. As what Ahunt stated "incident is already mentioned in Sukhoi Su-25 and General Atomics MQ-1 Predator." Notability issues too. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This minor incident can be adequately covered through existing articles. I'd have no objection to recreation if this turns out to have long-term significance, but that seems unlikely at this time. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with an option to transwiki to Wikinews if they want it and don't have an article yet. Legoktm (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sulekha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert with little salvageable encyclopedic contentCorporate 05:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertisement. How did this page did I survive this long is the real question, not whether it should be deleted. CarniCat (meow) 05:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've been poking around using keywords like "industry-leading" and "best-of-breed" - pulls up dozens of pages like this. ;-) Corporate 05:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets notability criteria. It has tangible presence in the World Wide Web, particularly in relation to India-related content. Advert content can be modified,or removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is in need of cleanup and improvement. However that is not a valid reason for deletion, please re-read WP:NOTCLEANUP. Company passes WP:CORP. A few examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources include:
- Indian social site Sulekha gets $10M from Norwest, VentureBeat
- Sulekha merges Facebook and Craigslist in India, VentureBeat
- A portrait of India, at home on the Web, The Austin American-Statesman (subscription required)
- Sulekha to monetize on local commerce, The Economic Times
- Sulekha.com opens office, The Hindu
- Classified magic, The Financial Express
- I've never heard of this company before. Reading what reliable sources have to say about them, they seem to be a significant player in the Indian internet industry. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does look like an advertisement but that does not mean a deletion, please place a clean-up tag and remove the promotion part. Pearll's SunTALK 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Wojcik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is an MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization. There are no supported claims of notability, with the only source being his fight record at sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has fought for 4 notable MMA promotions, journeyman kickboxer, fought 2 Bellator and PRIDE veterans in the past 4 years. Sepulwiki 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not even been fighting for second tier MMA organizations (and he's lost 2/3 of those fights). The fact that he fought someone who later became notable is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Glory is a top tier MMA promotion in Europe and is known by most casual fans, Shooto is a top tier Japanese promotion that most if not all fans should know....chances are you are a borderline casual fan and only watch and keep up things related to the UFC and Strikeforce. Just b/c you think these are lower tier promotions doesnt mean everyone else does. Also he did not fight people who later become notable....he fought people who were notable before they fought....not sure where your information comes from. Sepulwiki
- I would have said Glory is a kickboxing, not MMA, organization (see Glory (kickboxing). None of this is about what I (or you) think, it's about what the consensus of WP editors thinks. I would refer you to WP:MMANOT where the MMA organizations he's fighting for (Superior, Israel FC) aren't even listed as second tier. As far as the fighters go, his loss to Veigh was 4 years before Veigh started fighting for Bellator (and hence became notable) and Lénogue doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then I would have said that you are once again wrong. Are you only reading this stuff on Wikipedia? Glory has put on mixed martial arts fights on their Glory cards, Glory 11 featured Alistair Overeem (current UFC fighter) in the main event, a fighter you are probably familiar with being a relatively new MMA fan and from the looks of it someone who doesnt watch the fights but reads about them on the internet more or less. and how Lénogue as not only a mixed martial artist but also a actor and stuntman fighting for PRIDE FC and BAMMA amongst other mid to top tier MMA promotions is very confusing to me. Instead of speaking out of context about a sport im starting to think you dont even watch. Sepulwiki
Here are over ten Glory MMA events, 3 of which featured on Sky Sports and other top cable programs, get your facts straight guy, http://www.sherdog.com/organizations/Glory-World-Series-1116. Sepulwiki
- Would you please show me when he fought in a Glory MMA match? Neither his article nor sherdog (have you heard of them?) show him ever fighting in an MMA match for Glory.Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw you had multiple declines for articles you nominated for deletion, seems to be some sort of pattern with you. Sepulwiki
- That comment is both irrelevant and untrue. If you actually look at my record at AfDs you'd see that I'm in the majority a large percentage of the time. So far you haven't addressed any of the issues concerning Wojcik--either him not meeting WP:MMANOT or the fact that the only coverage given is his fight record at sherdog. You also missed my point about claiming notability because of his opponents falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Your strategy seems to be attack the messenger instead of refuting the message. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DemonocracyUSA (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — DemonocracyUSA (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One fight in a second-tier organization, none on top-tier (Shooto Sweden is different from Shooto), only three fights against notable opponents. We (MMA fans) need to pick and choose our battles. This guy's just not worthy of a stand-alone article. Luchuslu (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Doesn't meet general notability guidelines or the specific guidelines for MMA fighters. There's also a lack of significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. I couldn't find non-routine coverage of him and the only source in the article is sherdog--and that's just his fight record. Mdtemp (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MMANOT by having no fights with a top tier promotion, as defined by WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty clearly fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and no fights for a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable minor league free agent baseball player. Deprodded for no reason. Spanneraol (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable--Yankees10 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towardskeep. Non-trivial coverage in multiple publications.[16][17] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- HBWS seals the deal for me with the sources he found below, which I feel push this over the bar of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N...William 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Boston's minor league player page. He has reached AAA. Muboshgu did find one good ref (other was from San Diego Padres). Think this would come under WP:BASEBALL/N's rule #7. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except he is no longer with Boston. Spanneraol (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And MLB.com is independent of MLB. The bottom of the story says "Lisa Winston is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're about a week into the minor league free agency period. Hardly any minor league free agents have signed new deals yet. People freak out about minor leaguers being free agents every year, and the vast majority of them have new deals by the start of the season. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that being a "minor league free agent" is not a valid reason to delete. It needs to be about the coverage such a person has received. I think Inman is right on that borderline, but I'm not for sure on which side.[18] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He meets the WP:GNG, as do most players good enough to earn a spot on a team's 40-man roster, if anyone bothers to do the research. In addition to Muboshgu's sources, I found these with about 30 seconds' worth of research: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Inman has had an extremely accomplished minor league career. He played in the 2008 All-Star Futures Game, he was at one point one of Baseball America's Top 100 minor league prospects, and he's a three-year minor-league All-Star (2006, 2007, and 2008). If we don't want to have a page for a player like him, we may as well not cover minor league baseball at all. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hit bull,
you're in big troublewin steak. AutomaticStrikeout 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- "Would it be possible to get him topic banned from de-prodding if the disruptiveness continues? AutomaticStrikeout 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)" - My "disruptiveness" de-prodded an article you now want to keep. You're welcome. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources produced by HBWS and Muboshgu satisfy the minimum threshold of notability per WP:GNG. That having been said, if he were a member of a MLB-affiliated organization, I would advocate merging the content to the appropriate "list of" minor league team page. That option is not available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramón Benjamín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable minor league baseball player who is a free agent. Deproded with no reason given. Spanneraol (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 17:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N...William 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. No presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable (notice an echo in here?). AutomaticStrikeout 04:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Was on a 40 man roster at one point, but I can't find significant coverage of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dumby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about non-notable drink. Based on ghits (zero), appears to be a neologism. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources at all. Wikipedia is not for cocktails recently made up one day.--xanchester (t) 03:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original nomination and User:Xanchester's !vote. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources whatsoever. Apparently made up one day. JIP | Talk 08:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced, unsourceable. Also, article was created and edited by 2 SPAs, and with similar names at that. Presumably invented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and snow close per above. This hasn't a snowball's chance of surviving at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete: I have tried this drink recently and it seems quite a new popular drink around Sydney that I think originates in the uk (www.cocktailmaking.co.uk). So it does exist and if people want to find out what it is they should be able to check it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpearson78 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Fpearson78's only contributions so far were today, all relating to this article Dumby. JIP | Talk 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After some searches, this mixed drink hasn't been covered in reliable sources; fails WP:N. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete, nice drink that people should learn about. I tried it and liked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telrakshy (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 November 2012
- — Telrakshy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biographical article, sourced in part to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, whose only real claim of notability is having been an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary. The article does suggest other accomplishments (business career, etc.) which might get him past a different notability guideline if they were expanded upon in more detail and with proper sourcing -- but as things currently stand the only yardstick we can actually judge him against is WP:POLITICIAN, and he fails that test. Delete if article doesn't see Heymann improvement soon. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:POLITICIAN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, I'm surprised the article was ever created in the first place RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've almost stopped being surprised at what is on here :) There are several that I have had qualms about. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, our inclusion standards were a lot more loosey-goosey back in 2007 when this article was created than they are now. So yeah, I'm with JoannaSerah — it ain't worth being surprised. Hell, given current standards I've even supported deleting some stuff that I created way back in the olden daze, so I don't like pointin' fingers at other people. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would have to agree. He has some coverage as a candidate, but I can't see that he's held any notable offices or anything. Just being a candidate is not something we usually keep. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per JoannaSerah, past cases at AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeletenOT NOTABLE.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disney XD. As per previous talk/WikiProject discussions as well as opinions at this AfD, general consensus seems to be to merge. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 04:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disney XD (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As discussion of Talk:Disney XD,All of versions of Disney XD page should be merged.But someone bring them back again. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because same reason:[reply]
- Disney XD (Netherlands & Flanders) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (UK and Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (France) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Germany) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Disney XD (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Redirect, or merge if there's anything left to merge, all to Disney XD. Perhaps speedily. The consensus in the Talk:Disney XD discussion was to merge the articles. The merge was performed in April 2011, but reverted without discussion months later. Thus, the redirects should be restored.--xanchester (t) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, there isn't an international version with only dubs or subtitles. Each localized version has it's own identity, programming, schedule, distribution and place in the national television markets. --C0re1980 (t) 10:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disney XD for the exact reasons Xanchester gave. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Outside of some local programs to satisfy the regulators and give local content makers slots, all of the channels have the same schedules mostly, and the UK/Ireland article wanders off into some tangent about launch events without any lasting notability (though that could probably stay as its own article because of the Fox Kids/Jetix lineage, though that too is redundant to Jetix's basic history). Nothing really lost in a merge. Nate • (chatter) 14:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all. This has been discussed many times before. Not sure why this is still an issue. What little unique there is about the individual isotopes of Disney XD, can be easily covered in the main article. A dedicated article is not needed for each country's copy of this channel. RadioFan (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment worth noting that the Disney XD (India) has already been discussed with consensus to merge. Same is true of Poland, UK & Ireland, and Latin America, which were discussed on Talk:Disney XD and selectively merged. I dont understand why these keep getting recreated.--RadioFan (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Semi-protection for the merge titles should be considered to prevent recreation, if possible. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Why not making main articles per world regions, such as Disney XD (Europe), Disney XD (Asia), Disney XD (Latin America) etc. Within the main articles paragraphs for each localized version. The merging articles redirects to the corresponding paragraphs. --C0re1980 (t) 11:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is already a merge agreement for the European versions I have merged all Europeans versions into just one: Disney XD (Europe). --C0re1980 (t) 14:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. No consensus reached after more than a month of discussion, and there seems little prospect of this changing by extending it. Michig (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Emil Kazaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this sculptor passes WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. I couldn't find any good sources online, and I'm not convinced about the sources in the article. The Asbarez article[24] has good coverage, but I don't think it is enough to support notability by itself. I couldn't find the LA Times piece referenced in the article, but from its title and the mention in the article I am doubtful that it contains significant coverage of Kazaz. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I located an additional reference, which indicates the subject won an award at the Florence Biennale (though see Florence_Biennale#Details from participants and visitors). That article (whose access needs Highbeam) does also contain 3rd party discussion of the subject's work, possibly from the award citation. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found the link to LA Times Article: http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan/01/local/me-59540. Also here is a link discussing his "William Saroyan" Medal award and contribution to the Armenian identity: http://www.mindiaspora.am/en/News/1654. Here is a link discussing his notability: http://agbu.org/pressoffice/article.asp?ID=663. Also, he won two other awards for sculpture at Florence Biennale, 2007, and 2009: http://www.florencebiennale.org/en/epremiati07.php. Another link associated with his St. Sahag and Mesrob Medal award: http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/news/tribute-to-emil-kazaz/. I hope this establishes enough notability for this sculptor. I originally wrote this information but it was deleted because I did not know how to cite them according to wikipedia reference coding. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuradyan12 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These links are helpful. All the same, other editors ought to be aware that Amuradyan12 has variously claimed to be a gallery owner and the artist's representative [25], and a student [26], depending on the situation, and has edited previously in AFDs and at biographies of Armenian artists using several accounts [27], [28]. WP:COI and WP:MULTIPLE are obvious concerns. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To make this absolutely clear to everyone, I am a gallery director, not owner. There are multiple galleries in the Los Angeles area and in Armenia who represent this particular artist. This artists artwork is also located in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Armenia. He is a culturally recognized person. As of right now there is almost no information of which I have written on his biography. So there is no biased information whatsover. I have provided multiple links above that are credible from churches, schools, government awards that establish his notability. If anyone would like to write the informatin themselves, please free to do so. Because, I know if I write anything neutral and reference the articles I will get attacked for them. So, please if anyone wishes to write anything about this artist themselves feel free to do so. Because I will not. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.69.4 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article (PanARMENIAN.Net) suggests that Mr Kazaz is a well known and awarded artist in his country. The coverage in Asbarez [29] and some of the sources presented above are sufficient to write a decent article about him. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it safe to take out that deletion note from the top? Also there is a note for more references, is this necessary considering that there are only a few sentences in the article and each one is itself referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuradyan12 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't remove the deletion notice. Deletion discussions usually last for seven days, after which an uninvolved editor will assess the consensus reached by the discussion. I will remove the notice about references as it seems that everything is sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of significant coverage under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and other guidelines. I'll examine the sources offered and then do my own search. The L.A. Times article cited above is about a group show, with two paragraphs at the end devoted to Kazaz: "One of the most striking pieces in this sprawling show is Emil Kazaz's "Hang Horse," an enigmatic convergence of loose, gangly lines and forms. Fragmented equestrian imagery struggles to take shape in an image that appears unfinished and vaguely surreal. Here, we think less about the medium than about the curious sum effect, as we should." This is not significant coverage, but it's also not coverage at all of the artist himself; it focuses exclusively on his work. This article is the best argument by far that he's had significant coverage, but it is a short piece that in itself is not sufficient to establish significant coverage, in my view. This source is not properly independent because it is the website of a ministry that promotes the Armenian diaspora, of which Kazaz is a member. In any event, the mention is in passing: "Hakobyan visited famous Armenina painter, sculptor Emil Kazaz with the accompaniment of Consul General Grigor Hovhannisyan and awarded him the “William Saroyan” Medal of the RA Ministry of Diaspora". This page has the same kinds of issues: it's an organization that promotes Armenian heritage, and thus is not entirely independent and reliable. The Florence Biennial awards are not significant awards in the world of art, I think we can agree, and in any event this page is merely a listing of awards and goes into no depth about the artist. This Armenian church website does not cover him in much depth and has the same kinds of independence and reliability issues as some of the other sources, given that he's a member of said church. This "article" is of questionable reliability; it's a press release, not independent coverage. A further search for sources turns up his own website, which is not reliable for notability, the website of a gallery that represents him, also not suitably independent, and various other trivial and routine coverage. All in all, I don't think we've established that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as required under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This discussion has been going on for three weeks. When will a decision be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.69.4 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. A borderline case. Batard0 makes a good case that we don't have substantial coverage in reliable sources, but [30] says that he's won the Khorenatsi medal, "the Republic of Armenia's highest cultural award", so that ought to support at least an article with the biographical facts for which we can rely on primary sources. Sandstein 08:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Las Vegas Review-Journal August 31, 1997 mentions an Emil Kazaz. Los Angeles Times January 1, 1999 mentions Emil Kazaz's "Hang Horse". Not enough for a stand alone article. Batard0 cites more sources, but still does not seem to be enough. I suggest taking all these sources, add the infrmation from them to a draft article, and request that the draft be moved to article space at WP:DRV or try WP:AFC. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term merely seems to be one that is coined by WWE to refer to "professional wrestling". The definition of the term probably deserves to go in the article Glossary of professional wrestling terms, but does not deserve a standalone page. Article largely refers to professional wrestling anyway. Three sources provided, but one is a dead link and the other two have zero mentions of the term "sports entertainment". Starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: If the article were to be expanded to include events OTHER than professional wrestling, then it might carry some weight. Faustus37 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per GaryColemanFan below. That makes more sense. Faustus37 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been working on Glossary of professional wrestling terms here and there, as the nomenclature of the business is both prevalent and significant. Much of this nomenclature has developed historically. OTOH, a lot of it has been invented by the WWE to suit the attitudes or beliefs of their audience. Witness "pipe bomb" with regards to CM Punk. "Sports entertainment" vis-a-vis the WWE has it's roots in their desire to get out of athletic commission oversight (and by extension, taxation), reinforced in recent years by their becoming a publicly traded company. However, is this the full extent of the subject matter of sports entertainment? I would think there to be things other than pro wrestling which are presented under the guise of being competitive sport, yet aren't necessarily organized along strict competitive lines. Dwarf tossing, anyone? That's just one example. Perhaps this requires further discussion. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 10:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It makes sense that the Harlem Globetrotters and maybe some others could be included with professional wrestling as "sports entertainment." However unless somebody else does it first it's WP:Original research. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's certainly an aversion on Wikipedia to using historical source material which can't be Googled. However, it would be easy to find sources from the 1970s or thereabouts which closely tie pro wrestling and roller derby together. Whether you can tie that to "sports entertainment" might be a bit harder, dependent upon whether "sports entertainment" is an actual subject or simply a modern-day buzzword/catchphrase. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the thing exists. I'm just not sure that the world does too, or calls it "sports entertainment" if it does. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to Professional wrestling. "Sports entertainment" isn't a real thing; it's a buzzword created to take advantage of a tax loophole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. (I will be able to add a more substantial argument in a few hours if this is not closed, but for now:) This term is well-established outside of WWE marketing. I fully agree that there are many buzzwords the company uses that would not be acceptable as article subjects here, but "sports entertainment" is not one of them. As already mentioned in the article, this term has a history dating from the 1930s. (It's not an inline reference, but the Toronto Star is a reputable source that is easily accessed, and the reporter, Lou Marsh, has his own WP article so is an unquestionably notable source.)
Examples of mainstream non-WWE use:
- Harlem Globetrotters: Reuters 2008 press release: ' "for decades the Harlem Globetrotters have defined family-friendly sports entertainment," said [Jeff] Urban, the former SVP of Sports Marketing at Gatorade.' http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/idUS252220+09-Aug-2012+BW20120809
- Roller Derby article from ThePostGame.com : "Forget everything you thought you knew about roller derby. This is not the sports entertainment version that was televised in the '70s and '80s with predetermined winners." http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201104/tough-cookies-rollicking-resurgence-roller-derby
- article from trueslant.com : "Modern roller derby isn't a retread of the descent into tawdry sports-entertainment spiral the game took in the 1970s." http://trueslant.com/jodydiperna/2010/01/24/freaking-roller-derby/
- A page on Roller Derby history : "For some leagues it's sports entertainment" http://www.baycitybombers.com/history.html
- article on Monster trucks from AskMen.com:
http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/205_sports_business.html
A basic Google search for any sport listed in the current article with the term "sports entertainment" will bring up a multitude of real-world uses, so I don't understand why there's any confusion at all over whether it's an established "thing". Yahoo even has an entire category in their directory listings with the heading "Sports Entertainment" here: http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Sports_Entertainment
And if that's not enough, the Hollywood trade magazine Variety apparently holds a "Sports Entertainment Summit" as an entertainment-industry-wide event. http://www.variety.com/events/2012/sports-entertainment-summit
(I apologize if any of this is incorrectly formatted, I don't normally participate in AfD discussions.) -TravelingCat (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems to be a recognized topic. Article should be improved so its about the overall topic, with less details on individual sports. (or sports entertainments, whatever) -Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have struck my "redirect" vote above. TravelingCat puts together a convincing argument. I wasn't sold on all of those being reliable sources, though, so I did a bit of research of my own. Through Google Books searches for "sports entertainment" (in quotation marks) with other terms added ("monster trucks", "roller", "basketball"), I found that there were, in fact, quite a few sources that use this term: (1) "Monster Trucks" by Lynn Peppas: "Monster trucks are recreational, sports entertainment vehicles...", (2) "The Sociology of Sport and Physical Education" by Anurag Saxena: "The film Idiocracy portrays a future where sports entertainment permeates the global culture: the president is an active champion professional wrestler and capital punishment consists of a combination demolition derby, monster truck event..." (3) "Savage Blood" by Alex Chance: "Mr Gruber was a Sports Entertainment promoter from De Soto, Missouri." (4) The August 1996 "American Motorcyclist" magazine describes a race as an "exciting three-hour package of sports entertainment." (5) "Roller Babes: The Story of the Roller Derby Queen" by D. M. Bordner: "...who remember the popular TV sports-entertainment show, roller derby,..." (6) "This I Believe: Life Lessons" by Dan Gediman et al.: "Some dismiss the roller derby as campy sports entertainment that's past its prime." (7) "The National Basketball Association: Business, Organization and Strategy" by Frank P. Jozsa, Jr.: "...being in the business of providing sports entertainment for basketball fans..." There are more, but you get the point by now. I was wrong when I commented earlier, and I think it is important that this article be given a chance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should also be noted, as I have mentioned on the article's talk page, that much of the article is plagiarized from this non-free source: http://books.google.com/books?id=uKarC6oX3P8C&pg=PT130 . I do not believe that this affects the notability of the article, for the reasons I have mentioned above, but I do acknowledge that much of the article will need to be deleted and/or rewritten if the article is kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Having read TravelingCat's sources and found a couple more myself that seem to suggest that this isn't limited to just a Professional Wrestling term. It may have originated there, but it has expanded outside the scope of professional wrestling. 108.8.231.56 (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Eep, previous vote added by me, sorry I always forget to log in >.> Insidious611 (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shahrekord super tanker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable Ship. Dengero (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - are we sure it's unremarkable? It's Iranian, very large
, and nuclear-powered, which ought to ring some bells somewhere. World Maritime News. The article is already cited including the Boston Globe. Aren't ships of a certain size presumed notable, in any case? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 2 refrences from Yahoo news/ Associated Press asserts notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the references? The Yahoo pieces don't even mention this ship, they are general pieces about the Iranian civil nuclear ship program. As does the Boston Globe piece, which seems to be based on the same AP article as the second Yahoo one? Morwen - Talk 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've leafed through several more refs. They do seem to be repeating the same stuff. The nuclear bit does not apply to this particular ship. Some of the articles claim the ship is an ocean liner but it appears to be simply a container ship (or do we make that a supertanker...), so some of the sources feel a bit flaky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The ship in question is IRAN SHAHR-E-KORD (IMO 9270684). According to Equasis, it's a container ship, not a supertanker nor an ocean liner, and it's definitely not nuclear-powered. I have nothing against keeping the article, but it requires heavy copyediting to meet WP:SHIPS quality standards. Tupsumato (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ships of this size generally have a presumption of notability. Looks like it needs renaming to Shahr-E-Kord though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Keep this. I think ship is notable. --Shorthate (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason for thinking it is notable? Lukeno94 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have little or no clue about ships, but this article seems like it was a mess from what I've read above - it's not nuclear powered, it's not a super-tanker, it's not even been named correctly. It now appears to be a lot better, but still hugely lacking in information for a supposedly notable ship. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Lukeno94. ●Mehran Debate● 05:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I removed the remains of the nuclear nonsense from the article and added the only reliable reference I could find (Equasis) as well as another site with photographs of the ship in 2010. As one of the first attempts to build a large merchant vessel in Iran, I would consider this ship notable enough for an article. However, there is very little to write about and it seems that the ship is not even in service yet. Also, judging from the pictures, it's just a normal container/general cargo ship with no special features. Tupsumato (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To, The Principal...yours sincerely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable Book. Fails WP:N. Dengero (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a search and there just isn't any/enough coverage of this book in independent and reliable sources to show notability enough to pass notability guidelines for books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a violation of WP:GNG. No significant coverage produced. Secret of success · talk 14:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google News and Books provided nothing relevant but any relevant sources probably wouldn't be Internet-based especially for India. Additionally, the book was probably mostly distributed to schools. I appreciate the author's contribution and concept for the book but it is not notable for Wikipedia at this time. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reviews or even brief mentions by published secondary sources. Because of the lack of coverage, it does not meet the general notability guideline or the guideline for books.--xanchester (t) 03:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are 3 keep votes against 3 delete (1 weak one) as well as it has been relisted thrice which is the limit perhaps there is no clear consensus at all. Closing and supporting the option of a re-nom after 2-3 months (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exposed (MTV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete This article was created in 2006 and remains unreferenced. The web has incidental mentions of the show in connection with celebrities, but no real coverage of it. All one can find is blurbs like http://www.tv[removespace]rage.com/shows/id-14758 this one at TV Rage or this one at http://www.meta[removespace]critic.com/tv/mtv-exposed Meta Critic. The most substantive comment that I found was the single line of analysis at page 325 of Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture by Laurie Ouellette: "The MTV dating show Exposed caters to the savvy, skeptical single while tracing its default to brute, bodily empiricism." followed by a blurb from the show's promo, and used as an example of the human body as truth. Most potential hits are false drops. So it fails the "significant coverage" test. Notability is not inherited, so all of those You Tube takes from the show are just that, celebrity cruft. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article itself is a mess, it is notable. Take a look at its official website at MTV. I think it passes WP:TVSERIES. TBrandley 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MTV official website is not an independent third-party source. It is their program. Exposed_(MTV_series) fails WP:TVSERIES because it failed to garner any significant media coverage. Being a national or international program helps garner that coverage it does not substitute for that coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 07:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There has been some very limited coverage, and it's a tough search because of the ambiguity of the term. In The New York Post, for example. And a passing mention here. This is all I can find, and I don't think it quite passes the WP:TVSERIES or WP:GNG bar, although that's arguable especially if more can be uncovered. --Batard0 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Although apparently not one of MTV's finer moments, the show does have independent coverage at places like TV Guide and Variety and Slate and 'The Morning Call'. I'm sure I could find more. According to one web site it comes in at number 16 in the "The 20 Worst MTV Shows of the 21st Century". Given that, and the obvious fact it was broadcast on a large scale, I say we have a clear WP:TVSERIES pass here. Faustus37 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the Variety article is substantial coverage; the others are either very short or incidental mentions. If you could find a bit more, I'd argue keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unsourced (WP:V). As to notability, I think you meant that it's the mcall.com article that is the only one approaching substantial coverage? But it reads like an opinion piece in some fourth-rate local publication, not what we look for with respect to WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Faustus. There's nothing to be gained by deletion. Most articles don't need to be long to be useful.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not meet notability guidelines. Moreover, each town manager doesn't fulfill criteria of WP:BIO. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 1. Snotbot t • c » 14:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink, never existed. Did you mean to nominate Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts instead? Morwen - Talk 15:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Sir, yes that is the article I intended to nominate for deletion. Thank you. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. I'm not a sir. You going to do that, then? Morwen - Talk 16:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Sir, yes that is the article I intended to nominate for deletion. Thank you. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment. This nomination was a mess. I have added the AFD notice to the article and have cleaned up the links here so that they actually point to where they belong. In an effort to avoid moving an active AFD page, I've left this in its misnamed state. Participants and the closing admin should note that the page under discussion is Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts (singular manager, comma), but the AFD page is titled with plural "managers" and no comma. There were arguably cleaner ways to do this involving a page move and a housekeeping CSD of the resultant redirect, but at least all the links work now. I have absolutely no opinion regarding the merits of this nomination, only wanting the redlinks gone and an end to the WP:DUCKSEASON over who should make it so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Office and many who have held it have been the subject of significant coverage in The Boston Globe and other reliable sources [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, I wouldn't consider those small blurbs in newspapers (even reliable ones) "significant coverage" but we'll have to get some other eyes to give us perspective. Moreover, what exactly makes all these city managers so notable? None of them seem to clear the hurtle of notability and thus the impetus of your page is weak at best. I could be wrong, though. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: on numerous grounds. First off, the article plainly fails WP:GEOSCOPE going away. Secondly, notability is not inherited. Thirdly, the article absolutely falls far under the threshold set by WP:POLITICIAN for notability; the appointed individuals managing small state or provincial cities just don't cut it, when the threshold is "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Ravenswing 05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Didn't even consider WP:GEOSCOPE when I nominated the article, but good point.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - GEOSCOPE? POLITICIAN? each town manager not fulfill criteria of WP:BIO requires the article to be deleted rather than deciding whether the manager's name should be listed in the article? Really? notability is not inherited? not inherited from what? The article is about the chief administrative manager position in Saugus, Massachusetts. The article sources at present go from 1947, 1950, 1952 all the way to 2012 and are sufficient in themselves to meet WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords' cites above are sufficient for the topic to meet WP:GNG. In news articles only having the topic in their name, the topic meets WP:GNG as having sufficient coverage for a stand alone article:
- "Saugus town manager fired in 1974 wins suit against city, selectmen". Boston Globe. February 8, 1980.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Norma Love (November 13, 1982). "Metropolitan Briefing Town Managers In Demand". Boston Globe.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - John Laidler (May 3, 1998). "Storm Clouds In Saugus Over Town Manager Issue". Boston Globe. p. 1.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - John Laidler (July 4, 2002). "Town Manager's Resignation A Surprise". Boston Globe . p. 3.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Katheleen Conti (November 24, 2005). "Town Manager Search Might Resume". Boston Globe. p. 5.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Kathy McCabe (February 15, 2007). "OT is frozen, funds delayed: Town manager eyes next vote". Boston Globe. p. 1.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Jeff McMenemy (October 29, 2011). "Lynn woman claims police brutality. Saugus town manager defends arresting officer's record". The Daily Item (Lynn). p. A1.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Matt Tempesta (December 15, 2011). "Saugus board votes to limit authority of town manager". The Daily Item (Lynn). p. A5.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Matt Tempesta (January 26, 2012). "Saugus setting baseline for Town Manager search". The Daily Item (Lynn). p. A6.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - Kathy McCabe (April 8, 2012). "Former Saugus town manager files suit seeking $65k in pay". Boston Globe. p. 5.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help)
- "Saugus town manager fired in 1974 wins suit against city, selectmen". Boston Globe. February 8, 1980.
- The position has had a rich and colorful history since its creation in 1947 and Wikipedia is a great place to bring that out. I don't see any basis for deleting per importance/significance under WP:NOT.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground.
As far as notability not being inherited, the glaringly obvious answer is that these articles being thrown up fail the requirements of the GNG. Any citation must discuss the subject in "significant detail" ... but these cites don't do that, do they? They quote someone holding the position (something specifically barred by the GNG as supporting notability), or they're about someone holding the position, but they don't discuss the position itself in the required detail.
That being said, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:POLITICIAN stands on their own and needs no reiteration here. The position is far under the level of WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GEOSCOPE wouldn't be satisfied if you came up with a thousand cites from small town dailies. Ravenswing 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's a strong irony in your last paragraph, insofar as you're claiming things specifically cited under WP:NOT as being invalid grounds to keep; Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus, and whether anyone or anything's history is "rich and colorful" or not has no bearing on any notability ground.
- I don't understand "Wikipedia is not a webhost for the town of Saugus". The topic clearly has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The significant coverage discusses the position itself and how it has changed over time in required detail and discuss how that position has been used over time by the people who have occupied it. The article should be kept so that a representative survey of that significant coverage can be detailed in the article. The position is not supposed to meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN because the town manager position is not a human being. The position is not supposed to meet the requirements of WP:GEOSCOPE because the town manager position is not an event. News stories are not composed only of quotes of someone holding the position. They provide the who, what, where, how, why, and when of the topic over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Boston Globe articles "Saugus has a great tradition... can he manage to end it?", "Saugus Gets 12th Manager in 14 Years", "Saugus Elects Town Manager", and the books "Modernizing local government in Massachusetts" and "An Analysis of Tenure and Termination of Town Managers in Saugus, Massachusetts" do discuss the subject in significant detail and meet WP:GNG requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: Uza Gamal asked about the relevance of WP:GEOSCOPE here. It says "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it" Now, this article lacks any national or international coverage (despite claims of "substantial coverage"). So we are left with only local coverage. Of a topic not notable, and article that doesn't meet WP:GNG. And, for the record, why don't you read WP:NOT closely and carefully. Because I am glad you mentioned it as it reiterates why this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia but I am not sure if you understand the rationale of my nomination.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like a reasonably important and well-reported position for Saugus, both now and historically. Meets the GNG. The Steve 07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — meets WP:GNG, unable to find a reason not to include from links cited by other !voters. —Theopolisme 00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 08:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rick Strawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to me to qualify as notable; articles are as much about the industry as about this particular transporter Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is a fair amount of news coverage, most of which seems very unflattering. The article would need some rewriting to represent all notable points of view. - MrX 02:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's source coverage of the June 23, 1996 arrest for a molestation charge of a 12 year old girl filed in Gwinnett County, battering the same 14-year-old girl February 1, 1997, his leading a transport team that took a 17-year-old Alabama girl to Jamaica on August 18, 2001, where she leaped to her death and he is quoted as saying the girl "showed absolutely no signs of suicidal tendency. I spent quite a bit of time with her. I absolutely do not think it was a suicide. It was a tragic end to a bad choice." There's coverage as a September 5, 2004 professional abductor who takes children on behalf of parents to a school in Tranquility Bay in Jamaica to straighten the kids out. (He might own a Discount Tire and Auto shop in Charlotte NC as of May 23, 2011). There seems to be enough source coverage for a biography article. What I posted is pretty much what an unbiased NPOV article would read, only in more unflattering detail. It's hard to say keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The only current source for the article is a single article (the other source simply summarizes the first) talking about Strawn as an example of a subspecies of youth transport firm, so on that basis I don't think he's independently notable. Older versions are WP:BLP problem-fests which seems to have been powered by fishing expeditions because the Legal Affairs article names him. Salting this might be a good idea. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — This subject only begins to approach WP:GNG, and fails basic criteria of WP:BASIC. Though there is substantial coverage, though ultimately by one reliable source, as pointed out by Mangoe. The summary of the Legal Affairs article in a second publication doesn't add much in the way of substantial coverage; it doesn't have anything that could support additional article content. Given the one (or 1.5 or 2) sources and the negative aspects of the coverage, WP:BLPCRIME applies. It can't be said the subject is well-known at all. Uzma and Mangoe have also both pointed out the negative content in coverage poses problems BLP-wise. I think that even if WP:BASIC/WP:GNG were satisfied by additional reliable coverage, in this case, the BLP problems are reason enough to vote !delete. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article doesn't even begin to argue for notability. Should have been speedied for not even bothering to assert notability. Yes, he's breathing, but that's about it. Qworty (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - completely non-notable. Was it ever tagged for speedy deletion? ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply yup, right after it was created back in 2008. The author, RucasHost, removed the speedy tag almost immediately, with a curt, "notability has been established" edit summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ICT Housekeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability requirements per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services
"If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
Company is not notable enough to have its own page, therefore we cannot merge the information over.
In addition, many of the references appear out dated or self published. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - part of the problem here seems to be that most of the sources provided in support of the article are in Thai so there is no way for non-Thai-speaking editors to verify that the sources say what the original editors claim they say. I have asked User:Manop to have a look at the article (he is listed at Wikipedia:Translators available for Thai-English). With a better understanding of the sources, hopefully a consensus can be built about the subject itself. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly this should be redirected to Internet censorship in Thailand? There was at least one demonstrable untruth on the page - I would be very skeptical about the other claims it makes. Morwen - Talk 22:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find any reliable third-party coverage of this tool. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - having had no response to the above request I suppose I have no choice but to opine for deletion until we can get some clear reliable sources to establish notability. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) . MBisanz talk 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Amazing Race 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:Crystal Solitary reference is only showing the 21st season at this time Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPecifically Sunday, Sept. 30 7:00-8:00 PM 60 MINUTES (45th season premiere) 8:00-9:00 PM THE AMAZING RACE (21st edition premiere) 9:00-10:00 PM THE GOOD WIFE (4th season premiere) 10:00-11:00 PM THE MENTALIST (5th season premiere) Read more at http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2012/07/11/cbs-announces-2012-2013-premiere-dates-395400/20120711cbs01/#a2yT7B7FGopTyKhP.99"
- Delete: Definitely a WP:CRYSTAL vio; however this should not preclude the page from being created when proper references for its existence do come out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems too soon, but inevitable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race 13 (Kept at AfD held six months before season debut); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race 6 (kept at AfD held months before debut); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The amazing race 17 (deleted at AfD 10 months before debut, lowercase title of article suggests article was also crappy).--Milowent • hasspoken 13:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning on a Keep. Definitely Cballing, depends if you want to recreate the article when the applications come out (Which, really, has a 99% chance of happening). Dengero (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Masem's reasoning. Dengero (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) until more info is available. I do believe I've seen sources about casting calls (definitely not for the current run) but I can't confirm if CBS has committed to another run this season. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've discovered that MakeBeliever is a sockpuppet of Secret222/Aaaarat, who previously created articles on fake TV show seasons. The Amazing Race Asia 5 was recently created by this sockpuppet, as was this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think it's far too soon, typically you won't hear anything about the following season for months yet. There's no reason to have a page up that will serve no purpose for a while. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps it's best to leave it for now and wait and see, reports suggest that Season 22 will be filmed this month, so if verifiable sources appear on the internet which confirm this season exists, then the deletion notice should be removed and business resume as usual. I don't think you'l get a better answer than that. News websites around the world do tend to document the Race when it appears in their country in some cases. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we don't need to have the sockpuppeteer's influence when creating a proper article rather than the guy copying all content from the earliest rendition from a prior season's page and only changing some minor numbers around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Show has been approved for its 22nd season so no reason to delete. Filming also began today. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the parent article, wait until get some information when the future season comes up in January. ApprenticeFan work 13:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears action has already been taken, as the page is no longer visible from The Amazing Race toolbar thing, and the page in question, although still visible has had info removed. Is this page being kept or deleted? I think we need a conclusion here 86.15.195.205 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- C. Sylendra Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability.the books written by him are virtually unknown. Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2. Snotbot t • c » 09:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Additional Director General of Police(I guess the 2nd Highest rank), Indian Athletics Team Manager, Author of 6 books - Enough for notability. I have added independent references for his books and various other claims. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A very notable subject. Secret of success · talk 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentADGP is the 2nd highest rank while he is on central deputation.Almost 1989-1981 batch officers are ADG'S or of IG rank in the state govt.This does no constitute notability as it is not ADG rank given by central government nor is he a joint secretary which is the minimum requirement of notability .he is not under warrant of precedence under president.mid level policeman.must have paid the editors to make the page on him,seeing the look of ismagnificent website.....(Harishrawat11 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CardRunners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy declined. Advertising of a non-notable online business which claims a tiny volume of sales for a few thousand customers. Per WP:ORG, existence is not notability and a few press releases in gambling trade publications and Web sites do not represent reliable independent coverage. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep — I would not class the article as "advertising" as it appears to lack classic elements of advertising like peacock terms and first-person statements ("we offer..."). The reliance on trade publications should not lead directly to deletion; most of the citations do have by-lines, which suggests a level of editorial responsibility beyond the level of pure blog postings. There remains a significant volume of content which needs to be directly links to citations, but this would appear to be among the several generally recognized poker-instruction sites; there is an article in the Toronto Sun which mentions this site among three, the other two being Bluefire Poker and Poker VT; the fact that the other two do not have articles should not sway the present deletion discussion (neither has been created and deleted). I've not included that article among citations for the present article as the topic is only mentioned incidentally. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It appears as this is a very popular website, and it is directly or indirectly referenced in many independent articles. See [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. Not entirely sure about the reliability for these two [59] [60], but they do provide critical commentary. Lastly, there many hits coming from GBooks and some from GScholar, but the actual text is not available for most of them so I can't tell for sure if there's significant coverage. These two [61] [62] indicate significance of the subject, even if they are just passing mentions — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker/debatelog --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this is not advertising, and there is just enough in the way of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Translectures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are a lot of false positives because of the convention of writing Trans. Lectures on references to lectures that have been translated but a gander at Google shows that there is a dearth of reliable sourcing and even the wikipedia article takes second place to the projects social media platform. Google books looks pretty empty too and scholar shows some papers but not a lot of external commentry - just from the project team. In short, this looks like a non-notable EU project and from the denseness of the text I suspect this has been written by the project team, but no point fixing this unless we agree to keep this. For that, the sourcing needs to be substantially improved. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The project might bear mention at Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, where several other projects are currently listed. I'm not arguing for merger, though, since this page is unreferenced and a search of Google News archives for "Framework Programmes transLectures" returned zero hits. The one web hit Google recommended instead was this Wikipedia article. Notability is in doubt. Cnilep (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence of third-party coverage, so a weak delete from me. Morwen - Talk 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GNG. No reliable, independent sources can be found to establish notability. I found zero news sources on 10/30; a Google News search today finds one hit, but it appears to be a press release. The http://translectures.eu/ web site has also come on line since my last search, but besides lacking independence, this seems to suggest it is WP:Too soon for coverage here. Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:TOOSOON as per Cnilep. -—Kvng 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete — WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and per nom. —Theopolisme 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert O. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request at OTRS 2012110110007313 - reason "It is not correct other than the birthday" Ronhjones (Talk) 19:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems to have had possible WP:BLP problems in the past but this revision that's been nominated is better (it had basically a big table debunking his quackery, which may or may not have been correct but in any case was inappropriate for Wikipedia). The section Robert O. Young#Legal issues appears to check out in the sources given. Morwen - Talk 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong speedy keep. I can speculate that the person who sent the message to OTRS is likely the same anon who was blocked for making legal threats in the past, but that's irrelevant. The article undergoes periods (such as in the last few months) where someone comes along and wants to add negative information or original research, and other periods where someone comes along to white-wash the article. The claim "It is not correct other than the birthday" is a blatantly false assertion. The sources cited have been deemed reliable either in the talk page discussion or at WP:RSN. It is interesting that someone chooses not to challenge whatever may be "not correct" on the talk page and instead complains to OTRS. That smacks of bad faith, and isn't supposed to be how Wikipedia works. The nomination is so obviously misplaced that this discussion should be closed immediately, and were it not for my WP:INVOLVEment, I would do it myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right. I have told the requester that I have started the deletion process for them (as we suggest to do, when they are not sure how to do it correctly), and told them that they should come to this page and make their case clear. Thus I would ask we leave it at least a day or so for the person to do so. If they then fail to post anything, you may draw your own conclusions. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of any past issues or OTRS issues, the subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I could not find significant coverage by Reliable Sources at Google News Archive. [63] Only 2 Reliable Sources are cited in the article; the Arizona Tribune citation is a dead link, and the San Diego Union-Tribune item is an op-ed type piece. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... "reliable sources" don't mean just news sources. Criticisms by physicians are also considered reliable, and these are cited in the article. Furthermore, the fact that this guy has appeared on notable mainstream TV shows (like Oprah for example) is sufficient to meet the WP:SIGCOV notability criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As disclosure: I have contributed to this article, but ALL of my contributions (many general improvements {10 edits over 2+ weeks}, including 3 repaired dead links and a removed dead wikilink; parallel citations across two versions of Young's core book; improved grammar, punctuation, precision and accuracy; and lastly and most importantly, a large table comparing and contrasting Young's "pH" with actual "pH", plus many self-contradictions from within Young's work—all with citations to the relevant scientific consensus positions) have ALL been deleted as "non [sic] encyclopedic crap", and again as "non-encyclopedic [sic] crap, 'crap' "—punctuated by blocking me (and my whole library, despite a hatnote) for "edit warring". Perhaps most importantly in the Wikipedia scheme of “Notability”: WP:NTEMP. To establish notability: 1)[[64]] is apparently WP:RS and Young is the subject (now ref#24); 2) on Young's Revision History page at 19:52, 7 September 2012, Amatulic asserts: "prior talk page discussion agreed that Gorski is a reliable source for this account" [[65]] (now ref #26; it's an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents); 3) [[66]] has a short article on Young, (now ref #19); 4) [[67]] (from Google News—isn't cited yet, but is also an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria states that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". As to the deadness of the link to "the Arizona Tribune citation", I presume that the Internet Archive could be used to repair it. I would have done so now, but it has been made very obvious to me that my help will be neither welcomed nor even tolerated there; at least thus far (I have not yet had time to address these issues precisely and more specifically with those responsible). Rudeness, repeated ongoing violation of WP:CIV, deletion of my efforts (in favor of non-function), the fact that the person most-helpful to me here is apparently someone in disfavor with the Wikipedian community (I initially thought that he'd done the redacting, but it now seems that he was redacted Talk:Robert_O._Young#Dutch_source_about_Young), no answers to multiply-repeated sincere requests for specifics—and all of the abuse has come from those entrusted with privileges here—is this welcome typical of that extended to all newbies? Actions and behavior speak louder than "guidelines" and "policies" that everyone with "power" here ignores. 67.91.184.187 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Newbie? According to your contributions list, you have been here since 2007 (OK, it's an IP, so maybe that wasn't you). But you have been editing this article at least since September. In that time you've been blocked three times, by three different administrators. You seem to want to keep this article so it can serve as a soapbox for your rebuttals of his work. That's not a reason to keep the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it seems apparent that the anon wants to use the article as a soapbox, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Buried in the screed above, the anon makes a valid point about Young's notability, with sufficient sources given to establish coverage. Let's not dismiss someone's argument just because it lacks focus. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Newbie? According to your contributions list, you have been here since 2007 (OK, it's an IP, so maybe that wasn't you). But you have been editing this article at least since September. In that time you've been blocked three times, by three different administrators. You seem to want to keep this article so it can serve as a soapbox for your rebuttals of his work. That's not a reason to keep the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per multiple comments by Amatulic. Why this was relisted is beyond me. I was going to echo the speedy keep when it was first listed, but thought it would be redundant. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Amatulic is basically correct. I do disagree that appearing on a major TV show is necessarily notability--what it all too often is is PR. But there is enough else to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MMOTHS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Taking this to AfD because of notability assertion via a single article in the Grammy website, which is the only thing that would separate this artist from the rest of the Facebook bands we get around here. All the other references as far as I can tell are local or otherwise not noteworthy. §FreeRangeFrog 23:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Specifically, the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and I am wary this may be a self promotion page as some of the language in the article is quite encyclopedic and reeks of self promotion. Holyfield1998 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's nothing 'local' about The Irish Times and Hot Press - Ireland is a country, not a small town. There's more than enough coverage around to demonstrate notability: Irish Times: [68], [69], Hot Press (site appears to be down, but one of several articles from Google Cache: [70], State magazine: [71], Grammy.com: [72], Clash: [73], [74], [75], BBC Ulster's 'Across the Line' show blog: [76], [77], This Is Fake DIY: [78], [79], Prefix magazine: [80], Huffington Post: [81], SxSW Festival site: [82], XLR8R: [83], Rolling Stone: [84]. They're not all 'significant' but there are multiple examples from the Irish Times and Hot Press that are, and those alone are enough to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sources provided by Michig would seem to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG, let alone any of the music-specific criteria. The article itself is clearly WP:PROMO and needs a major clean-up. I can understand where the nomination came from but just being badly written is not a reason for deletion. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hot Press is a national publication and the Irish Times happens to be the paper of record in my country. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources provided since nom satisfy WP:GNG — which is what AfD is all about. —Theopolisme 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.