Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trash traffic (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)
After searching, I can't find the term "trash traffic" anywhere, and "garbage traffic" was used by only one site (and it was a commercial one at that). Prof. Squirrel (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is really about click fraud. Normally, a redirect would be in order, but I am unable to find any evidence that this term is even minimally used that would justify a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Whpq. The topic at hand is already covered at another article, and as stated by both he and the Nom, there are no references to this term being used in any widespread manner, making a redirect pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The topic of the above nominated trash traffic article is about online advertising traffic visitors and I did not find any reference that call people/bots incentivized to click "trash traffic" as claimed in the trash traffic article. Clicks and sales resulting from click through are different, so the article seems to have been written from the hip. Trash traffic generally means amount/flow of garbage trucks passing a home or amount of garbage dumped into a dump (trash traffic at the landfill of 788,000 tons a year).[1] Trash traffic (air traffic control) is a neologism that refers to "an ever-changing mix of general aviation, flight training, corporate, military, and regional air carriers" disliked by larger airports.[2] Trash traffic (website) occurs when an Internet user "keys in a non-existent Web address as a result of a typing error, bad guess or amateurish mistake."[1][2]
- Either someone can use these two references to rewrite the article from scratch as Trash traffic (website) or delete. Redirect to web traffic would be fine as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ NickWingfield (September 5, 2003). "Internet Companies See Value In Misaddressed Web Traffic". Wall Street Journal. p. B1. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help) - ^ Andrea Caumont (January 31, 2005). "Broken Links Lined With Gold for Paxfire". Washington Post. p. E5. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
{{cite news}}
:|section=
ignored (help)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Omar Al Soma (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)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does not meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:27, 8 October 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 but severely chop. There seems to be a general consensus that this article is deeply, deeply flawed, to the point where there are no previous revisions we can simply revert to fix the problem. While AFD is not for cleanup there are sometimes cases where an article is so bad that is preferable to just remove it altogether and start over than to try and fix the existing one, so I do not consider this a misuse of AFD and the rationale for a speedy keep is explicitly rejected. However, there is no consensus that I can see as to whether there should be an article at all on this subject, so the article is being reduced to a stub, and I will note on the talk page that simply reverting to an earlier version of the article is contrary to the consensus established here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blended learning (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 is not a typical request for 'deletion' discussion. Over the years this article has evolved from its original cast into an opinion piece, promotion for an educational theory, and a vehicle for inline spam links. Concerns have been voiced on its talk page. I came to this article from one of its many backlinks and began to remove some of the promotional bold text, but as many subsequent editors have contributed to what it now is, I finally decided to bring it here for a community review. My recommendation would be to revert it to the last edit by its creator and to ensure that all 'references' are reliable and verifiable, and if not, delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. I'm afraid I have to go for a reluctant, but quite definite, delete. To a large extent I agree with Kudpung. However, looking at last edit by its creator, I'm afraid that what I see is very much of a personal essay, full of totally unsourced content, much of which looks like the kind of personal opinion that on Wikipedia is politely called original "research". In fact, it seems to me that in some ways it is even less suitable than the current version, and I don't see Kudpung's suggestion of going back to that version as viable. I thought perhaps there would be a later version that would be worth saving, so out of the 439 edits to the page I looked at every version at six monthly intervals throughout its eight and a half year history, and also at a few other versions in between. Unfortunately, I found that every version I looked at suffered from similar problems, and most versions were even worse than the original author's version, being to an even greater extent opinion pieces, even less objective and encyclopaedic. Some versions also appeared to contain copyright infringing content. The previous AfD closed as "keep", but I think it is fair to say that the general tone of much of the discussion was not so much "this article is fine as it is", more " this topic is probably notable, so the article could probably be cleaned up". However, after a few months short of six years, that clean-up has not taken place. On the face of it, the article appears to have plenty of references. However, looking at those of the references that are available online, I see a lot of things which have little relevance to the content of the article, a couple of dead links, at least one press release, etc etc, quite apart from the fact that substantial parts of the article are not referenced at all. At least some of the "references" look as though they are more in the nature of refspam than sources for the article's content. In any case, even if everything in the article could be reliably sourced, the general character of the article is unsuitable, containing a large proportion of opinion, promotion of particular views, and chatty content (e.g. "For example, consider a traditional class meeting schedule. Say that the course would normally meet Monday-Wednesday-Friday..."). From what Kudpung wrote above, his initial thought was to clean it up. That was my initial thought too, but the more I have looked into it, the less straightforward that has seemed. It would probably be possible to write a good article on this topic, but neither the present version nor any of the couple of dozens other versions I have looked at seems like a useful starting point. The article has, from its original creation, always been a vehicle for various editors to promote their own opinions, and in some cases to post spam links too. Amongst the 439 edits there is some usable content, but unfortunately it is so lost amongst the chaff that it would really be better to scrap it and start again from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and so it is quite improper to bring articles here just to have them spruced up. You simply have to click on the search link above to see that there are numerous books devoted to this topic such as Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional Learning; The Blended Learning Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies; Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. If the nominator wants a community review then he should start an RfC or GA review. If he wants the article rewritten then he should do it himself per {{sofixit}}. And, to hammer this point home, note that 99% of our articles have yet to pass a GA review. That's about 4 million articles and there's really no point in bringing any of them to AFD as we get few comments as it is and an increase in workload would just cause the process to collapse. Though, thinking about it, a complete collapse might be the best result as the quality of discussion and effort here is now so feeble that we should try a better process such as Pure Wiki Deletion. Warden (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per 'not an article'. It seems to be some sort of 'opinion piece/instruction manual for teachers' hybrid. What the hell is a phrase like "One more strategic advantage is that blending traditional f2f learning with Online Distance Learning provides the learner with a real chance to experience independent learning, moreover, Blended Learning is a sure step towards Life Long Learners, and Life Long Meaning Making...", for example, doing in Wikipedia? Where it isn't gobbledygook or vague puffery it is jargon. If there is an encyclopaedic topic entitled 'blended learning' out there, it sure as hell isn't evident in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I easily found two news articles explaining what blender learning was. [3] [4] There is no doubt this is a real thing, and notable enough to get coverage. Dream Focus 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If 'Blended learning' is an academic subject (and what other sort of subject could it be?), shouldn't we be citing academic sources about it, rather than just local newspaper stories? You might even find some such academic sources in the references for the existing article - though it is hard to tell whether they are any use. The point is that this isn't being proposed for deletion because 'the article lacks evidence for the notability of the subject' - it is being proposed for deletion because 'it isn't an encyclopaedic article, so we can't really tell whether the subject is notable or not'. Even a stub that did little more than cite a few decent sources, and explained clearly how 'blended learning' differs from other learning/teaching methods would be better than what we have - and indeed might stand a better chance of surviving this AfD. So here's a challenge for the ARS - don't 'rescue' an article, write one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards since it passes the General Notability Guidelines, as I have easily proven. If you want it rewritten, then you have to do it yourself. Dream Focus 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has never been the sole criteria for Wikipedia content. It is necessary, but not in itself sufficient - and in any case all you've done is proved that a couple of local papers mention something or other called 'blended learning', without actually telling us what it is. Can you tell us what the subject of an article on 'blended learning' would be? AndyTheGrump (talk)
- Both explain what it is. The first one says "blended learning, which delivers course material in class and online" and the second says "synthesis of home and classroom work" and explains they gave the students laptops so they could learn at school or at home with the internet helping them talk to the teaching staff. And notability is established by meeting the requirements for an article, not based on whether you personally like it or not. The WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 09:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has never been the sole criteria for Wikipedia content. It is necessary, but not in itself sufficient - and in any case all you've done is proved that a couple of local papers mention something or other called 'blended learning', without actually telling us what it is. Can you tell us what the subject of an article on 'blended learning' would be? AndyTheGrump (talk)
- It is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards since it passes the General Notability Guidelines, as I have easily proven. If you want it rewritten, then you have to do it yourself. Dream Focus 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If 'Blended learning' is an academic subject (and what other sort of subject could it be?), shouldn't we be citing academic sources about it, rather than just local newspaper stories? You might even find some such academic sources in the references for the existing article - though it is hard to tell whether they are any use. The point is that this isn't being proposed for deletion because 'the article lacks evidence for the notability of the subject' - it is being proposed for deletion because 'it isn't an encyclopaedic article, so we can't really tell whether the subject is notable or not'. Even a stub that did little more than cite a few decent sources, and explained clearly how 'blended learning' differs from other learning/teaching methods would be better than what we have - and indeed might stand a better chance of surviving this AfD. So here's a challenge for the ARS - don't 'rescue' an article, write one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Some stuff in the middle of the article probably needs to be pruned and the whole thing should probably be more concise, but there are some secondary sources, e.g. in the criticism section. This article is likely to be mostly fluff by the nature of the topic (see criticism), but we can cover things that have lots of meanings, see biopolitics for example. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, it always amuses me that our readers would rate highly almost any page, no matter how crap it is. It's however pointless to bring such "meh" articles to AfD. Before After. Complaints/comments on talk page since the rewrite: none. (Before there were plenty.) Tijfo098 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article has appeared before the current version, although I can't recall the article title, and was basically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It's time to WP:BLOWITUP. Wikipedia is not designed as a WP:SOAP for the latest trend, and unless completely rewritten, it is not encyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For an example of a third-party encyclopedic treatment, see the Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Rewriting to this standard is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. If we were to delete the current version and its edit history, then the topic would soon be back as it is quite notable. What should happen when we get a stubbier version next time? We delete that too? Salt the article name? How exactly do you propose that we make progress with this notable topic? Warden (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for demonstrating clearly what the problem is: as that short (2 page) encyclopaedia entry illustrates, there are multiple meanings of the term 'blended learning'. From what I can see from the encyclopaedia, one "combines face-to-face with technology-based learning and instruction", while another "is the combination of tools, applications and media in a computer-based or web-based learning environment. Here, the traditional face-to-face learning and instruction is disregarded...". Yet another "definition is the combination of pedagogical approaches or learning theories". I think the key word there is 'definition'. The encyclopaedia article is suggesting that there is no agreed definition of what 'blended learning' is. Does it involve face-to-face teaching? Is it a method of teaching at all, or a combination of "learning theories" that seems to have no stated connection with technology at all? If the term has multiple meanings, and no agreed definition, what is are article supposed to be about? Everything that has ever been called 'blended learning'? Learning (teaching, surely?) that combines 'pedagogical approaches'? Technology-based learning that includes face-to-face teaching? Technology-based learning that doesn't include face-to-face teaching? I suspect that what we are actually dealing with here is buzz-words, rather than anything in of itself unique. Buzz-words may belong in dictionaries, but do they belong on Wikipedia? And incidentally, before someone raises the obvious objection - that another encyclopaedia thinks it is a fit subject for an article, Colonel Warden should know by now that we don't use encyclopaedias that cite Wikipedia as a source. Find an academic secondary source (not a useless tertiary one) that explains clearly what the subject of an article on 'blended learning' might be, and we'd be getting somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The encyclopedic article given as an example above lists its sources and I don't notice Wikipedia among them. They are works such as the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology which seem quite acceptable for our purpose. Warden (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the time it took you to write that here, you could have stubbed the article with that info. That source also says "The most accepted definition of blended learning is ..." so it's not as hopeless as you present it. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure who you're talking to but this discussion is certainly a good example of WP:LIGHTBULB and WP:NOTFORUM. Warden (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a reply to AndyTheGrump's long post. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, stub down and rebuild. However much rubbish the article is attracting, this is a well recognised concept in education. What it means is "distance education combined with face-to-face education". Note, for starters, "International Blended Learning Conference 2012. The University of Hertfordshire’s Learning and Teaching Institute in partnership with JISC are delighted to announce: The Seventh International Blended Learning Conference. "Reflecting on our achievements - What's next for technology-enhanced learning and teaching?" If the term meant nothing at all, the "in partnership with JISC" wouldn't be there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article on E-learning. How is 'blended learning' not the same thing with a different title? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we need a term for courses that mix e-learning and face-to-face. Think Open University. Look, I'm not particularly a fan of it, and some people have a vested interest in dressing up their proprietary packages as breakthrough innovations. But it's around and will stay for a while. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article on E-learning. How is 'blended learning' not the same thing with a different title? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Has ARS resulted to stealth canvassing where they now don't even notify people that a discussion has been listed? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly object to this accusation of "stealth canvassing" and demand that you retract it, IRWolfie-. The fact that the tag occasionally may get missed is not a conspiracy. The Rescue list is not hidden nor intended to be. Now that you're here, however, please note that blended learning is clearly a notable subject, but the article needs major improvement. Please join us by devoting a few hours' work to its improvement. Cheers!--Milowent • hasspoken 17:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is perfectly well-sourced. Yes, it needs a lot of work, but not so much that it requires blowing up. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 8 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hipocritisizer (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)
neologism →AzaToth 22:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I should note that I have removed the speedy tag added before the article was nominated for AfD, but personally it truly seems that this may be a hoax. Google News and Books found nothing and Google search engine results, unsurprisingly, show unreliable sources including Urban Dictionary and YouTube videos. If other users truly feel this should be speedy tagged, feel free to restore the tag, but I thought I would allow AfD to run its course. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm the one who put the speedy delete tag on, and having the conversation is perfectly okay with me. The article is a neologism at best and even if valid, is non-notable and unverifiable. --Lockley (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is just a dictionary definition of a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there is such a word, it should go in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia; as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 2 October 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 Procedural close. Arguments for keeping or deleting the page are lacking. Closing on procedural grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PBS idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I feel that now, more than ever, this article should be put to rest. It appeals to a really minor audience - logo fans - that already have a Wiki focused exclusively on this niche subject. Several editors of said page are also members of this niche Wiki. As a result, I find that the omission of this page will be more reasonable. Freshh (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has survived 5 Afd's, and anyone who votes to delete must explain how it's different now that makes it so that it won't survive this one. Georgia guy (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nomination does not articulate a valid ground for deletion. The potentially valid ones have all been discussed exhaustively in prior AfDs.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Largely OR about a minor subject; anything worth noting about PBS logos or idents can be put in the main PBS article. Trivialist (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Five previous AfDs failed to delete it. With enough tries, anything can be deleted. Not just keep, but since this AfD is less than 6 months after the last one, establish a 2 or 3 year moratorium before another bite at the apple. (The nomination is defective, giving no valid reason for deletion except that it appeals to only a niche audience. So does most of the encyclopedia-- different niches, of course. This is essentially IDONTLIKEIT, in the variant, ITINTERESTSONLYOTHERPEOPLE. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion. While in cases where an article is facially defective, that can be overlooked and the AFD community can piece together what an argument for deletion should have been, this article is a five-time AFD survivor. At that point, the burden is clearly on the nominator to explain why the weight of previous consensus is defective, but no such burden is met here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - No policy-based rationale for deletion has been presented in the nomination. See also: WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:46, 5 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nazih Assaad (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)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The claim that he has played for the Lebanese national team is not supported by reliable sources. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to transfermarkt and other sources I find that 1 appearance came for the Lebanon national football team but against the Qatar U23 team in what was probably a practice match. Lebanon does not have a fully-pro league so basically fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - according to transfermarkt, he played for Lebanon U23 against Qatar U23, so that doesn't make him pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I have really tried to find out if this guy has played a match for Lebanon, and I have not found any proof for the claim and did not play for Lebanon in the 2011 AFC Asian Cup qualification. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does not meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:27, 8 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Geiger (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)
An article on this person was deleted at AfD in July 2010. However, rather than put forward this article as a CSD G4, I am noting that the subject's newspaper column subsequently received a South West England award and got into the Guinness Book of Records in 2011. I have therefore tidied its references and am bringing it back to AfD to check whether the 2010 consensus still holds. My own view is that the subject still falls short of the Notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Although he did get listed in the Guinness record book (the first thing I did was confirm that listing since it was referenced only to his own column, but it checks out), he seems to have gotten exactly zero publicity for that listing. The only things found at Google News Archive are his own column in his own paper, the Bristol Evening Post. The award won seems exceedingly minor. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per Melanie N, pretty much took the words out of my mouth--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should not delete; factual page, Have removed AfD. Have checked facts, they look correct.
- The above comment was added by the article author, User talk:Optimus495. The removed AfD notice has subsequently been reinstated by another editor. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 6 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Summer Rayne Oakes (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)
WP:SPIP WP:NOTABILITY - Entirely a puff piece/resume. I attempted to fact check the stated accomplishments and quickly realized there was no long term projects, notability, etc. Please note the edits by: 71.246.118.132, Gemin-Eye, Dblazeskater, 71.249.188.7 - I believe these to be edits by the subject of the article. PeterWesco (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - am inclined to agree. She does also seem to be a blogger for the Huffington Post (see this bio), but I'm not sure that counts for much. I think this is actually a blog but it's not clear. There seems to be a couple of non-English articles (see GoogleNews) but I can't tell if these are passing mentions or significant coverage. She seems to have received a whole bunch of coverage from various eco-blogs and the like but I'm not sure any of it contributes to meeting WP:GNG. Like this, this and this. The second one might be edging toward what we're looking for but I'm not really convinced. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, most of the 54 "sources" cited in the article aren't actually sources at all. Few (if any) give the subject "significant coverage" (mostly one-off mentions in lists of people) and others are clearly written by the subject, who is herself a "writer". Coverage of yourself is not coverage. Many, still, are duplications. If you removed all iterations of the unreliable, non-independent sources from the article you would be lucky to have one or two left. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 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) 17:00, 24 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pure pr, for a pr based career. The sources, as might be expected all essentially all pr -based. It's time we stopped this sort of thing. I think we need an increased level of scrutiny for anyone claimed in the lede paragraph to be a social entrepreneur DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Agreed. I have been prod/afd them as I find them. In reality, this one should have been prod'd but I err'd on the side of caution and did an AFD. Clearly with the amount of relistings... there is not a lot of dispute :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very tricky article. Does have some genuine references but on blogs and IMDB site. The other references don't speak about this model so fails WP:Verify. -Wikishagnik 02:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Qiu Xiaofei (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)
Is this artist sufficiently notable? Nothing I see in the article or in a quick Google search suggests so. Delete unless notability shown. ---Nlu (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added several references to the article, though I think more are needed to be sure on Notability. According to Art News his works sell for $50K-$100K. Note also that the Google News link above turns up his presence in various articles. Also note that the Google Books link turns up various snippet views of discussions of his work, including what looks like a substantial review in Flash Art. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 17 September 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) 17:00, 24 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep sufficient sourcing, though i would like evidence of a work actually being in a major museum., DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 2 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleeng (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)
Simply not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Has had a notification for adding citations since Dec. 2010. RBrideau (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Simply because the article has had a ref improve tag since December 2010 isn't a reasonable case to delete the article. From experience, I have seen articles with ref improve tags since 2006 or 2007 and incomparable to this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 17 September 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) 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. I could not find any significant independent coverage of this company or product at Google News Archive. What appeared to be coverage turned out to be press releases or items from the "comments" section of a newspaper's blog. The Reliable Source links provided in the article do not mention Cleeng. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe it could seem a bit improper to delete this article since this company is the main partner of almost all the bigger video hoster of the web:brightcove, twistage. Its solutions are also used by big players such as livestream that organizes big event like the Organo Gold Convention. Cleeng is also one of the main partner of the european press with partners like the French newspaper La Tribune. Also, you can observe that dailymotion Premium Offer is handled by Cleeng. --Baptiste90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A press release,[5] another press release,[6] and a US trademark.[7] That's about all the published info. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:22, 10 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Puna (wind) (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)
While there are no doubt cold winds in this region, I've listed the "wind" sense of wikt:puna on Wiktionary's verification forum, because I haven't found any literature which refers to the cold winds of this region by this name (i.e. "Puna" never means "a cold wind which, or such as the one which, blows through the Puna region of South America" AFAICT), nor do the Puna region's winds seem noteworthily distinct from the general phenomenon of wind. -sche (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article coud be renamed Puna wind, as "Puna wind" is mentioned in some older (1800s) works as one of several cold South American winds... but is it notable? -sche (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 17 September 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) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article — a single sentence about a non-notable subject — has been an uncited orphan since early 2009. -sche (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This wind does not appear to be even notable enough to transwiki, and I couldn't find a suitable redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaitanya Maharaj Deglurkar (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 enough secondary sources. Article reads like advertisement. TheMandarin (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As he is a spiritual guru with mass appeal in rural areas of Indian state of Maharashtra, not many ENGLISH articles are available as sources. Many MARATHI(language spoken in Maharashtra) websites have number of articles & news items about him. User:Advaitchothave talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources. Please cite Marathi reliable if available. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject has sufficient coverage on online Marathi newspaper editions. Loksatta, Sakal, Lokmat, Dainik Ekmat, Marathwada Neta, Tarun Bharat. These examples are all non-trivial mentions of his. There are many trivial mentions also where he has been present in some kinda ceremonies, etc. I am sure many offline sources of other brands of newspapers or same brands but other editions are also available. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the links. Still does not satisfy WP:GNG: "Significant coverage". IMO, all are trivial mentions. He is an author of spirituality/devotional articles of most, but no article goes in details about life or work. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He giving spiritual lectures at some occasions at some places and various newspapers writing on what he said there is not trivial. There might be small booklets or even books on his life and work offline. That probability is not zero. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the links. Still does not satisfy WP:GNG: "Significant coverage". IMO, all are trivial mentions. He is an author of spirituality/devotional articles of most, but no article goes in details about life or work. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:03, 18 September 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) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:59, 26 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - fails WP:NOTE and is most probably self-published. Wikidas© 13:33, 2 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Electrowonderland Vol. 2 Murder At The Discotech (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 WP:NALBUMS. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 17 September 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) 16:36, 24 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 1 October 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. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cap Torque Tester (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)
Being used to promote a product. I do not see that this is a standalone article, and it could be adequately contained within torque tester — billinghurst sDrewth 16:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep The nominator is actually suggesting a merge (and I agree with this suggestion). Please consider merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. -—Kvng 03:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We have torque tester and its readers can probably take a good guess what a cap torque tester does without footnotes to a sales page and an article marketing page. Kilopi (talk) 04:21, 29 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge with redirect. This topic is a wobbler. Yes, it is a specialized torque meter, so it could merge there. Apparently Pellett wrote a journal article in 1949 describing the instrument, and just about everybody refers to that article. Today, there are several manufacturers of these instruments (just google "cap torque tester"; $1500 price tag). Some models look like soda bottles and have LED displays. Others have jaws that grip a bottle so the cap torque can be measured. It sounds like they are needed in the bottling industry and are commonplace there. The article could have a few pictures and some decent text. The topic goes beyond just measuring torque: there could be discussions about torque for a proper seal or strength of materials. Consequently, it could be too much of a tangent at torque meter. Glrx (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep - A merge can be discussed on this article's talk page. AfD is typically for deletion, rather than merge discussions, although merge results do sometimes occur. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:58, 5 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tekena Harry (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)
Was dePRODed by creator. Concen was: Research fails to produce independent, reliable 3rd party sources in number, depth, and scope to assert notability per WP:ACADEMIC. (This has been changed from BLPPROD to PROD because a link was added). With the exception of one university staff profile, none of the sources appear to contain any biographical information pertaining to the subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, reluctantly. He is a scientist with multiple publications about AIDS [8], but he is always one of a long string of authors, and the publications do not appear to be heavily cited. I could not find any information about his government positions. This may be mostly due to a lack of online information about Nigeria rather than to a lack of notability of the subject. I would gladly change my opinion if shown evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 24 September 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) 16:19, 24 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:40, 1 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Qais Al-Khonji (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 COI bio. Well written, but the few "reliable sources" are about his industry, not him, a common but not so clever way to pad an article. Good grammar doesn't make someone pass GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the person who wrote this article, I am voting to keep it. Although I respect the rules of Wikipedia and the deletion discussion process, my opinion is contrary to those who want it deleted. I do have a slight conflict of interest as I personally met the man. Not sure if this is a true conflict or not as I do not associate with him and only met him once.
- First, I added an additional source to Business Today Magazine. This article is not dedicated to him 100% as it talks about other entrepreneurs, but it contains a large section dedicated to him and it more than meets the Golden Rule.
- It is my opinion that he meets ANYBIO as a diplomat. “Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required.” 1. He was assigned as a Diplomat to meet with former Indian President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. 2. The talks were of significant importance as part of the talks were negotiations on the 2,000 KM pipeline that is covered in the Wikipedia article India-Oman relations. It is also covered in reliable secondary sources such as these: [9] (that is Qais in the photograph actually), [10], & [11] 3. His role is sufficiently documented in the above references.
- As a final comment/question, I have plenty of references for him but they are all in Arabic. Can I post these as well? I am sure that they can be pasted into Google translate for anyone who wishes to verify them. I also put a couple of subheadings into the article to split up his board appointments. I would accept any advice from someone who can tell me how to make the article read better and not get deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiddleMan2127 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources in Arabic are fine, as long as they are reliable. Google translate from Arabic to English is pretty poor, but I'm sure that there are plenty of editors of the English Wikipedia who can read Arabic. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 18 September 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) 15:42, 24 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor businessman. Relatively unimportant member of an important family & most of the article is about his family connections.. Positions on numerous boards without anything amounting to actual business experience as an executive are not notability. The only company of his own, is a very minor one indeed, apparently sells only shower-head filters & there is no evidence of having made a success at it. . The BuisnessTodayOman article being relied on was written "with input by "Nimit Ramaiya, Vision Management Consultancy" -- in other words, a pr piece, placed by a press agent. This is the opposite of a reliable source, but is clearly the best one obtainable. I respect the right of people to do PR for a living, and accept that part of their job is trying to magnify the perceived importance of non-notable people-- but not on Wikipedia. If it wer not here already, I'd consider speedy G11, irredeemably promotional DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 2 October 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 Born This Way. WP:NSONG points to merging, not deletion. Content can also be merged to Lady Gaga discography. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuck_on_fuckin'_you_(lady_gaga_song) (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)
Only an infobox!Müdigkeit (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no encyclopedic information. JIP | Talk 05:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No even worthy of a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GNews search for this awesome title generates 40+ hits[12], including an article from Rolling Stone[13]. (I've added a sentence of context and a link to this source.) According to that source, the song is a legitimate (albeit free) release, and as such, this information deserves a home somewhere in Gaga's Wikipedia coverage, whether that may be a separate article or as part of some other appropriate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant info to Lady Gaga discography. Most things Gaga touches seem to become notable but, in this instance, I can only see the Rolling Stone article online. This is clear evidence the track exists and is of some note, though not sufficient for its own article. Sionk (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the article title space was correctly capitalized I would concur. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge verifiable content to Born This Way and Lady Gaga discography, then redirect to Born This Way. A search for the song on Billboard.com turned up nothing, so I assume it hasn't charted. That, combined with a dearth of significant coverage means it fails WP:NSONG IMO. I think the Rolling Stone source can support a couple sentences, and I agree that the information deserves a home somewhere. Braincricket (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge verifiable content to Born This Way and redirect there per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" and "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This does not warrant a stand-alone article, but is a probable search term. It is mentioned at Lady Gaga discography, but the album it is an outtake from seems like a more proper redirect target. Cliff Smith 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an outtake. All information that would be useful could be added to Born This Way and the article deleted. No need for a redirect. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:27, 8 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- East Stroudsburg High School South Science Olympiad (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)
A local science competition is not notable. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A Google search gives nothing that shows the notability of this competition. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article references a wiki, and the only part of the article on the team is that "one of these two schools ... has recently had a very successful Science Olympiad program." There is no content here, and high school teams come a dime a dozen. The school articles have more content than this does, though with the same sourcing. Nothing to merge. Chris857 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Not much else to add, every high school in the country probably has some sort of academic competition such as this and this does nothing to satisfy WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable local event. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 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 List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Karen. There is a clear consensus for a merge, but it is not so clear what the merge target should be. Material may be merged to both List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters and Plankton (SpongeBob SquarePants), and the redirect target may be changed as a result of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen (SpongeBob SquarePants) (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)
another minor character, suggest redirecting/merging with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Karen, per prior consensus in the SpongeBob SquarePants work group where it was decided that only the 6 major characters should have independent articles (see also recent related AfDs for Potty the Parrot and Fred) Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters as not notable. Not a central character (although the Spongebob Wiki claims 43 appearances, only 5 are what the site calls a major role in the episode[14]). More importantly, lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources. This sort of stuff belongs on the Spongebob wiki, where instead of reliable sources they have eagle-eyed super-fans. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. Agree per Colapeninsula (talk · contribs) and Frietjes (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh Karen! Please, just be merged to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. Poor Plankton's wife. Not enough reliable coverage to have her own article. Wait... Karen?!. Here we go again... Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge it with the Plankton article since it's most relevant there. Do not merge with the list of characters. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 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 List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Mrs. Puff. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mrs. Puff (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)
another minor character, suggest redirecting/merging with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Mrs. Puff, per prior consensus in the SpongeBob SquarePants work group where it was decided that only the 6 major characters should have independent articles (see also recent related AfDs for Potty the Parrot and Fred) Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SpongeBob_SquarePants_characters#Mrs._Puff. Too minor of a character to have an entire page. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as nominator is not calling for deletion so this isn't an AFD. Merging can be discussed at the relevant article talk pages or, if consensus already exists as is stated, done immediately. Keresaspa (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reject speedy close as merge or redirect are legitimate possible outcomes of an AfD. Reyk YO! 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator has not asked for deletion so there is no reason for an AFD. Of course it is a valid outcome but only where somebody has asked for deletion. I quote the initial nomination - "suggest redirecting/merging". Therefore no request has been made for deletion, therefore no need for an AFD. Speedy close and go ahead with the merger based on consensus already quoted in the same nomination. Keresaspa (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the close is "speedy enforce merge consensus" and not "speedy procedural close and do nothing", I think we're actually in good agreement. Reyk YO! 00:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We definitely agree on the merge - she's just a supporting character and an individual article serves little purpose but it is a plausible search term for a redirect. As consensus has previously been reached a mandate for merger already exists so I just don't feel this process is needed and rather merger can be completed right away. Keresaspa (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the close is "speedy enforce merge consensus" and not "speedy procedural close and do nothing", I think we're actually in good agreement. Reyk YO! 00:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator has not asked for deletion so there is no reason for an AFD. Of course it is a valid outcome but only where somebody has asked for deletion. I quote the initial nomination - "suggest redirecting/merging". Therefore no request has been made for deletion, therefore no need for an AFD. Speedy close and go ahead with the merger based on consensus already quoted in the same nomination. Keresaspa (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reject speedy close as merge or redirect are legitimate possible outcomes of an AfD. Reyk YO! 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go back to boating school, I mean Merge. I am quite amused by Mrs. Puff and her difficulties with SpongeBob, but there isn't enough third-party coverage of her at all. Too bad. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! She has been the main focus in certain Spongebob episodes to a point where the episode where she goes to jail is all about her are barely about Spongebob!
- Is Mrs. Puff the subject of several, independent, real-world coverage? Even if she's an important character, if she lacks coverage, then this article will merely be prone to, well, puffery. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 7 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Moss Cider Project (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:CLUB. Local group that had limited coverage around its founding, which was the source of the last AfD no consensus. But looking at it after some time has passed it still appears to fail both WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE, as well as WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:ORG. the best people could come up with was 2 sources. We don't create articles for entities that hinge on 2 sources after all that searching. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. Per the article, they made 35 litres of cider. To put that into perspective, that's about 9 gallons, enough for a couple dozen thirsty people. 35 litres is also a common size for those drink backpacks hikers sometimes wear as well as a very small aquarium. While I'm sure it was delicious, that's no more notable than a kids' lemonade stand, a church bake sale, or a family picnic. Not every fun activity is suitable for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endless World Infinite Possibilities (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 book, PROD removed by author GILO A&E⇑ 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The book was self-published through CreateSpace, and while that doesn't automatically mean no notability, it does seem to in this case. I can not find a single reference for this book, and not one review. The only places that the book even comes up are various social media sites, such as Facebook. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I agree that self-published doesn't automatically mean non-notable. The Wool series is a great example of how big a self-published series or novel can become, as is the Amy Fisher book. However it cannot be denied that self-publishing also makes it less likely for the books to be covered, which is what the case is here. There's no coverage of the book in independent and reliable sources. If the book ever does gain that notability, it can be re-added but at this point it just doesn't pass WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 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 I speedily deleted it --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Freshersdirect (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)
Blatant promotion. {{db-spam}} tag removed by IP editor different than the article's creator. Take to AFD for definitive removal. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SalesRoads (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:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company in any independent sources. (PROD removed by IP with no explanation). SmartSE (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable commercial entity. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly as a WP:CSD A7 as I can see no claim of notability. AllyD (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:42, 2 October 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 Brand New Heavies. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We Won't Stop (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 musical release. No evidence of in depth coverage. No evidence of awards. No evidence of charting. Lots of database-entry only references. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge: In the context of The Brand New Heavies' discography, We Won't Stop is an important bridge between two major phases in the career of a band with well-established international acclaim. In transitioning from the end of a long tenure with a major label FFRR Records to their rebirth as independent artists, We Won't Stop documents a marked shift in personnel and musical style. These elements are apparent from easily accessible credits and sound samples of the now-widely-available catalog release. As well, it documents the genesis of 4 songs that would appear on the band's next two releases Allabouthefunk and Get Used to It in new configurations; you may consider merging the album into either of those articles to preserve this link.
If the album were, for instance, only hand-printed and distributed in a small quantity at a run of live shows, I could understand the notability objection. However, it did receive a proper release and distribution through legitimate channels in 2002, and is now available worldwide digitally. Moreover, it includes contributions from singers N'Dea Davenport and Sy Smith who are notable in their own right. The combined significance to the careers of multiple independently notable artists lends the album notability.
Removing this info entirely would unnecessarily break continuity in all of their documented histories. There is, however, difficulty finding coverage on the album due to its initial release exclusively in Japan and Korea 10 years ago. It is very likely that there exists significant coverage in independent sources, but they may be neither readily available online nor available in English. This should not indicate a lack of notability. This entry should be kept and not deleted. Souldier77 (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 September 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) 14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to band article as apparently non-notable release by a notable artist. Unless someone can find more sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Brand New Heavies. I'm unable to find significant coverage (at least in English) in reliable sources for this album, but some material (e.g., the songs that popped up on later releases) would be nice to have in the band's main article. Gongshow Talk 05:59, 9 October 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 all. There is some concern here bacause this debate was so lightly attended and the bundled in derivative articles were not tagged as being listed here. Nevertheless, since nobody has stepped up in two weeks to comment in favor of keeping the band article it seems appropriate to delete it and the derivative articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuser (band) (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 band, no source to support only charted single. I went through the New Zealand Top 40 archives for the charts of the years 2005 and 2006 and found nothing regarding this band's "single". Their only entry on Discogs is being included in a compilation released outside of New Zealand given out for free by a British magazine. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if this gets deleted, the related articles Fuser (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The EP (Fuser EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will have to go too.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete has nothing to merit keeping, not notable at this stage NealeFamily (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 September 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) 14:47, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan Raynham III (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)
Promotional (auto?)bio lacking a good claim to notability. Leads with him being the front man of Kings Cross (band) but they were deemed non notable at afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Cross (band)) so no notability from that. Article claims his bands were charting but no evidence of this being on a good national chart (the afd for Kings Cross demostrated a claim of charting to be fake). TV appearences are not significant roles in multiple notable productions so doesn't pass WP:ENT. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. There was a little local interest about one of his bands putting on a concert on a mountain bu nothing substantial. Like the Kings Cross article by the same author mentions multiple "rumoured" thing, suggesting original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - when you take out all the unreferenced stuff, stuff cited to unreliable sources or sources that don't mention him, you're left with a guy who played on top of Ben Nevis once. If I took a guitar up to the top of Snowdon, could I have a Wikipedia article? No, not really. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 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) 14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article says he's the frontman for band Kings Cross, this band appears to be so insignificant that their Wiki page has been deleted. No proof for his claimed modelling work. No proof for his 'expert pyrotechni'c claims, other than a poorly filmed video that does not appear to show any professional skills. No proof for any TV projects. Claims to be a partner and co-porudcer at Eager Beaver productions - they appear to be a genuine company, but have no reference to him anywhere on their site or in the descriptions for any of their videos. Claims one of their songs was used as a backing track for an interview on The Jonathan Ross Show - do interviews on chatshows have a musical backing track? I've never known it. There are several articles relating to their gig on top of Ben Nevis, however this does not justify a Wikipedia entry. No proof for the documentary about Afghanistan soldiers. No proof for claims of being a biologist other than on the subject's LinkedIn page. His roles as Lysander in A Midsummer Night's Dream and Faust in Faust II are for a community on line audio book service - he has apparently not been hired to undertake these roles - he has purely chosen to record them himself and submit them to the site. Proof for The Pete and Dan Radio Show seems to consist of two short audio clips uploaded to YouTube by Dan Raynham III, or certainly his company. His own personal website no longer appears to be in action. The article says he was born in 1980 and is 32 - the subject's LinkedIn page says he was at university in 1993, which would have made him 13 - possibly he's a genius, possibly the article is incorrect. In summary, this entry is littered with inaccuracies, speculation and unfounded claims and from the way it reads, I would not be surprised if it was written by the subject himself. --BarnseyP (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While we wait for the conclusion of this AfD, I have removed the flamethrower comments. They do not appear in the sources cited, so per WP:BLP, being contentious and relating to a living person, they must be removed immediately. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 5 October 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. I'm willing to undelete this if anyone can point me to sources that show the subject passes WP:GNG. At the moment, sources don't seem to be forthcoming, and Cirt's WP:SOURCESEARCH argument is a bit too elusive to sway me from closing as delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Homokaasu (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)
Long running article, but I'm doubtful about it. So was a CSD tagger. The references are useless, and there doesn't seem to be an article on the Finnish Wikipedia. An article about The Sect of Homokaasu was deleted in 2007 - this was about the website cited in this article, and which now seems to consist of seagulls and clocks. If this not a hoax, I think it to be non-notable. Possibly, both. Peridon (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I (speaking native Finnish) personally understand this to bee just crazy humour, not meant to be a serious article. --Höyhens (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a keep or a delete? Peridon (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Open to WP:HEY keep if enough sourcing to ensure we meet verifiability. We have other articles on Usenet memes so there is a possibility here, likely the Finnish sources are needed to ensure we aren't engaging in original research. Certainly no objection to recreation if sources are found. Insomesia (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I was easily able to find secondary sources in simple searches through (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell us what these reliable sources were! I'd like to save this but at the moment there's not enough references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 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) 14:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Let's just call this a non-notable Finnish meme. Or a hoax article about a Finnish meme. Or something. Regardless, this is a GNG fail and there should be a high bar on something this sketchy. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 1 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- James Markey (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)
WP:NOTABILITY - closest to notability claimed in article is two game-of-the-week awards from The Daily Click, a weekly award from a website only granted to website members. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article never indicates his significance aside from the normal jobs he has had. Although a modelling career may have suggested notability, there is nothing to support this and Google News provided zero relevant results. Honestly, I believe this article may be a slight hoax and vanity page aside from the one book at Amazon.com, I searched "Jupiter James James Markey" at Google News and only found this forum link. If he is starting a career as a writer, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. His book is self-published an utterly non-notable. Qworty (talk) 04:55, 10 October 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. A lot of the arguments in this discussion have been ones that aren't relevant to deletion discussions. After disregarding these arguments, however, there is still a weak consensus to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew_C._Stone (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)
Apparently non-notable; the only source I can find is the one in the article, which isn't enough per WP:BIO.
EDIT: After the new sources that have been added due to the (now hatted) discussion below, I'm changing my implicit delete to a weak keep, though I'd like to keep the AfD open to get other opinions, as I think it's a borderline case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended conversation with article author
|
---|
What constitutes notability? - gjp. I had understood it to mean any meaningful contribution to a field of knowledge or endeavor. Is a one million plus units sold for an application not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryptm (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added sources from Business Week, Mac Week and Wired UK. How notable is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryptm (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 September 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) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - FWIW, I've known Andy Stone since 1991. Andy influenced my NextStep programming and ultimately led to my creation of Mesa (a spreadsheet for NextStep and the worlds first real-time spreadsheet). I'm not sure why there is any quibbling at all about Andy's Bio. It all seems right to me and it seems nasty and petty to try to take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearfeeder (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi mate, you need to understand that an AFD discussion is about whether or not a a subject meets the criteria listed at WP:GNG and is therefore "notable" by Wikipedia standards. A discussion about notability should not be considered a personal attack on the subject or their work. It is not an attempt at being "nasty". Wikipedia has standards about what should be included and what should not - editors enforce standards by encouraging discussion about different articles if they think those articles do not meet those standards. Think of it like qualifying for the Olympics - if they didn't have a qualifying standard, everyone (everyone!) would be allowed to run at the Olympics. That would obviously just be silly. A nomination doesn't mean that someone thinks Andrew C. Stone can't run at all or that he doesn't have a nice running style - just that he might not be fast enough to run at the Olympics. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi dude... and what you "need to understand" is that without Andy Stone, it's likely that OS X, iOS, the iPhone and the iPad would not exist. He has been quietly influencing the direction of Next, Steve Jobs, NextStep, OS X, iOS and their related developer communities for more than a generation. The simple fact that he doesn't crave the press so there's not much written about him does not diminish the fact that Stone Design products helped close early NextStep customers (I've got old copies of NextWorld magazine that attest to that... sadly they are not online) and without those customers, there would be no Next and there would not have been an Apple purchase of Next nor a return of Steve Jobs. Andy was a constant voice of reason to Steve Jobs. How do I know? I observed the two interacting on numerous occasions including when Andy and Stone Design were early adopters of OS X and helped Steve close Adobe and others to port their software to OS X. Wikipedia allows an entry for Bill Fernandez that only has one cite. Why? Isn't that a violation of sacred policy? How do you know that Forbes got it right? Why not Andy Stone as well? These guys both were incredible, quiet, behind the scenes influences on Apple and Steve Jobs. Deleting Andy's page is simply and clearly petty. Now is it nasty? Yeah... everything I've seen of the issues around Wikipedia and corrections and the editorial standards leads me to believe that the editors are volunteers who wield power and use that power unwisely... that, in my opinion, goes beyond simply being petty to downright nasty. Put another way, you're hassling someone who is a but-for cause of the computer and phone you are using today because over his 20+ year technology career, he hasn't sought a lot of press, so there are fewer cites that you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearfeeder (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really sure where you're going with a lot of this, but I've left some thoughts on User talk:Bearfeeder. I don't know what other experiences you've had on Wikipedia, but I for one can tell you that I have no horse in this race; I don't know the guy, have no reason to hassle him, and indeed don't really know why this would be a hassle to him in the first place. After all, if he avoids press, why does he care if he has a Wikipedia article? (Also, the discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, so I double don't get it...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, mate, I tried to be nice about it and explain that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't really good arguments to make when someone has nominated an article for deletion. No-one here has anything against the person in question. It's just that, on balance, the article (as written) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. But even that isn't enough to see it deleted. There still has to be a community consensus that the article should be deleted. You are welcome to contribute to that consensus (with more civility than you have so far, I would suggest) or you can contribute to the article by adding sources to verify that the subject is notable. Otherwise, Wikipedia would just be about every guy who ever had an idea or every employee of every company. That's just silly. But showing up here, telling "volunteers" that they are "nasty" doesn't help your cause, or the subject's cause. If fact, you do him a great disservice - this conversation (keep, delete or otherwise) gets added to the history of the article in question for everyone to see forever. Getting aggressive on behalf of the subject has the potential to make the subject look bad. For a long time. That's why conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really sure where you're going with a lot of this, but I've left some thoughts on User talk:Bearfeeder. I don't know what other experiences you've had on Wikipedia, but I for one can tell you that I have no horse in this race; I don't know the guy, have no reason to hassle him, and indeed don't really know why this would be a hassle to him in the first place. After all, if he avoids press, why does he care if he has a Wikipedia article? (Also, the discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, so I double don't get it...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi dude... and what you "need to understand" is that without Andy Stone, it's likely that OS X, iOS, the iPhone and the iPad would not exist. He has been quietly influencing the direction of Next, Steve Jobs, NextStep, OS X, iOS and their related developer communities for more than a generation. The simple fact that he doesn't crave the press so there's not much written about him does not diminish the fact that Stone Design products helped close early NextStep customers (I've got old copies of NextWorld magazine that attest to that... sadly they are not online) and without those customers, there would be no Next and there would not have been an Apple purchase of Next nor a return of Steve Jobs. Andy was a constant voice of reason to Steve Jobs. How do I know? I observed the two interacting on numerous occasions including when Andy and Stone Design were early adopters of OS X and helped Steve close Adobe and others to port their software to OS X. Wikipedia allows an entry for Bill Fernandez that only has one cite. Why? Isn't that a violation of sacred policy? How do you know that Forbes got it right? Why not Andy Stone as well? These guys both were incredible, quiet, behind the scenes influences on Apple and Steve Jobs. Deleting Andy's page is simply and clearly petty. Now is it nasty? Yeah... everything I've seen of the issues around Wikipedia and corrections and the editorial standards leads me to believe that the editors are volunteers who wield power and use that power unwisely... that, in my opinion, goes beyond simply being petty to downright nasty. Put another way, you're hassling someone who is a but-for cause of the computer and phone you are using today because over his 20+ year technology career, he hasn't sought a lot of press, so there are fewer cites that you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearfeeder (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi mate, you need to understand that an AFD discussion is about whether or not a a subject meets the criteria listed at WP:GNG and is therefore "notable" by Wikipedia standards. A discussion about notability should not be considered a personal attack on the subject or their work. It is not an attempt at being "nasty". Wikipedia has standards about what should be included and what should not - editors enforce standards by encouraging discussion about different articles if they think those articles do not meet those standards. Think of it like qualifying for the Olympics - if they didn't have a qualifying standard, everyone (everyone!) would be allowed to run at the Olympics. That would obviously just be silly. A nomination doesn't mean that someone thinks Andrew C. Stone can't run at all or that he doesn't have a nice running style - just that he might not be fast enough to run at the Olympics. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - agree with the nominator's altered position that the subject might just meet WP:GNG, based on the sources provided above. Definitely borderline but I'm inclined to keep on the basis that coverage is likely to be ongoing given his product is still being sold. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - Hey, this is the author of the original article - many citations have been added and the article is no longer an orphan, with an inbound link from Rick Strassman's page and perhaps others. While I do not fully understand the ins and outs of the WP:GNG, I will say that there is a community for whom Andrew C. Stone's contributions to personal computing do warrant inclusion into Wikipedia, but that's just an opinion.
- In the past, I have made other Wikipedia contributions that have not generated nearly so much controversy and I'm a little surprised by this level of editorial involvement, though I certainly don't begrudge it. My experience as a wiki-writer has been that when I find out that people who have notability within their fields, however narrow and off beat, (see my article on birch bark biting for example, I create a page. I am not a "pro" wiki editor and don't spend a great deal of time here knowing every bit of minutiae regarding WP rules, but I have created enough pages for others (Mark Pesce, Allan Houser, Peter Sarkisian, and others to feel like this subject, Andrew C. Stone met criteria for notability within his field.
- That's great, and you should be encouraged to contribute. Those articles are looking good (though the last could do with a few sources). It's a matter of verifying things, as opposed to just "knowing" things. You opinion (above) is entirely valid, and there are plenty of things on Wikipedia which would be considered to have "niche" notability (my words). Unfortunately, though, we do need to apply the same standards across the board to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a horrible mish-mash of everything that ever existed. As I said, I think this subject now probably does (just) meet the criteria at WP:GNG. It's just a matter of being careful to ensure future articles do as well. (I also "voted" for you - assume that is your position. If not, please feel free to amend). Stalwart111 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Andrew Stone was one of the first developers out of the gate for the NeXT operating system. For years, while NeXTs flourished in very niche, vertical, specific enterprise markets, Stone worked to provide applications targeted at not just those users but at all users. I personally made use of his Create! and DigiPhile applications, and was thrilled to discover that he'd made the transition to OS X and iOS. His efforts not only encouraged other developers in the NeXTSTEP arena, but also provided examples to new converts to the platform as OS X reached market and increased in popularity. Furthermore, he's not "just a developer," as a few minutes with google will tell you. He's also known for his gardening hobbies and the adobe tower shaped like a chess piece. He's notable for the breadth and diversity of his interests, as well as his products, and the efforts he's put in to help bring more developers into the OS X world. (see for example this recent article describing "The Cocoa Conspiracy": http://www.santafenewmexican.com/localnews/092212techbytes Thanks! Dschuetz (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kyau & Albert (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 meeting WP:MUSICBIO. No WP:reliable sources. Only reference is to a directory listing and an external link to an interview. Google searches not finding substantial coverage - most hits seem to be on youtube. noq (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The duo have made the Top 100 DJs poll in DJ Magazine at least four consecutive years (2007-10), with online coverage here [15][16][17][18]. Here's a brief album review [19]. At least three of their singles have charted in Germany [20][21]. These findings should be enough to satisfy criteria #1 and #2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 05:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 September 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) 15:37, 24 September 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) 14:31, 1 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Imago Therapy (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)
Article has been tagged for improvement for years. It expounds a relationship theory outlined in a book. In effect it seems to be an advertisement for the book. I can't see any evidence the theory is widely practised or written about outside of the book. I can't see anything online to suggest it meets WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 18 September 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) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain but possible keep - Google News found this The Jewish Press article and Google News archives found several mentions and multiple mentioning Harville Hendrix, suggesting that these articles are relevant. If the article is kept, the article would need to be rewritten especially the POV sections. Unfortunately, nearly of all of them (aside from two press releases and one iffy reliable source) are payment required so I wouldn't know how detailed the articles are. The Google News archives results continue at the second page. Google Books also found several mentions. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I have to say I agree with you. Maybe someone with access to these sources can add some citations. To be honest, many of the Google links are to listings/adverts/anouncements from counsellors and others are brief mentions. But there are strong indications Imago Therapy is widely practised, not just something in a single book. I'll consider withdrawing this nom when I've had a closer look. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 25 September 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) 14:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found references going back to 1986. There's plenty of others. I added references to the article and deleted the unsupported details. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:12, 10 October 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 to delete or merge at this time. If editors still think there are notability issues in a few months' time then they can be renominated. If WP:FOOTYN was a Wikipedia-wide guideline, I would have probably closed this AfD as "keep", as the teams all seem to pass it; participants in the Football WikiProject might want to have a discussion about whether the wording of the guideline is appropriate or not. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- De Abasin Sape F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Also nominating the other following pages for deletion:
- Shaheen Asmayee F.C.
- Toofaan Harirod F.C.
- Simorgh Alborz F.C.
- Oqaban Hindukush F.C.
- Mawjhai Amu F.C.
- De Maiwand Atalan F.C.
- De Spin Ghar Bazan F.C.
Clubs that play in the 2012 Afghan Premier League which is a first year league for Afghanistan which is only 1 month long and all these clubs easily fail GNG. The club articles should not be made yet, we should wait for the league to develop, gets longer, and gathers enough media attention within clubs before making 8 super stubs. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 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 October 1. Snotbot t • c » 14:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Afghan Premier League - little information can be found about these clubs and they do not deserve seperate articles in their current states. GiantSnowman 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Afghan Premier League per GiantSnowman – no indication of notability yet, but they are all very probable search terms. – Kosm1fent 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Afghan Premier League - WP:TOOSOON, considering that the clubs were only recently founded and thus unlikely to gain notability. Using Google News, I searched all of the teams listed and found nothing. However, with De Maiwand Atalan F.C., I found a brief mention at a BBC News article here. It is likely that additional sources may not be English and possibly Pashto and Dari, but I doubt it because there would be little to talk about aside from that the club was recently founded and probably future games. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (possibly Incubate) - yes, the league has only just started but the launch of the league got plenty of press coverage like this, this, this and this (Spanish). Most of those give "coverage" to a couple of the teams, based on which played in the first games that "launched" the new league. They might not meet WP:GNG now (or WP:ORGDEPTH as it may) but surely it can't be long. First-division teams in major leagues (especially new ones in countries where there is plenty of "Western" media coverage, generally, because of other matters) are not likely to fail WP:GNG for long. Is there any point deleting them (or even redirecting them) if we're only going to be recreating them in a matter of months (or even weeks or days). I would understand individual players, sure, but the teams themselves? Even without international press coverage (which will obviously slow down) the teams themselves are likely to get local sports-media coverage when they start playing regular weekly games (week 2 is on now, yeah?). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - just had a quick go at fixing the De Abasin Sape F.C. article. The refs, at present, are not great but there's more than enough, I think, to create a stub while the season pans out and each team is covered in more detail. If there's a strong consensus to delete I won't fight it, but I just can't see the value in deleting them. Conversely, if someone wants to have a go at fixing each of them, let me know - I'll help. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After more looking - the teams are already starting to get local coverage like this and this - week-by-week coverage of De Abasin Sape games against other teams. And the same is there for each team. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would still like to say that this is still only a month long competition. I know where your coming from but common sense would say that these clubs are not ready yet. Until more club specific profiles comes out or club websites with history etc in it then I dont see how these clubs are notable yet. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, fair enough, just can't see the logic in deleting something as WP:TOOSOON when the week-by-week coverage of each team will likely mean they all pass WP:GNG within a matter of weeks, if not sooner. I would suggest some of them (especially those involved in the first games, for which there was extensive international media coverage) probably pass WP:GNG already. I understand the want to delete things that aren't yet notable but I reckon there's a chance some of these will meet WP:GNG by the time this 7-day AFD has run its course. We're not talking about a youtube "star" who may or may not receive future coverage, or even a young soccer player who might or might not one day play for a top-level club. We're talking about national-level sporting clubs that (collectively) have already been the subject of significant coverage and will individually (surely) be the subject of ongoing national, if not international, coverage. They created a nationally-broadcast reality TV show to find players for each team! If nothing else, we could almost assume the teams each received sufficient mention during the course of that show to substantiate "significant coverage". Besides which, while club websites might be useful to us in building the articles, they wouldn't have an impact on WP:GNG as they wouldn't be considered independent of the subject. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If I put these clubs to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST I get this result:
- 1. Has the clubs played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
- 2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? YES
- Final question
- Do the completed articles generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? NO
- Yeah, fair enough, just can't see the logic in deleting something as WP:TOOSOON when the week-by-week coverage of each team will likely mean they all pass WP:GNG within a matter of weeks, if not sooner. I would suggest some of them (especially those involved in the first games, for which there was extensive international media coverage) probably pass WP:GNG already. I understand the want to delete things that aren't yet notable but I reckon there's a chance some of these will meet WP:GNG by the time this 7-day AFD has run its course. We're not talking about a youtube "star" who may or may not receive future coverage, or even a young soccer player who might or might not one day play for a top-level club. We're talking about national-level sporting clubs that (collectively) have already been the subject of significant coverage and will individually (surely) be the subject of ongoing national, if not international, coverage. They created a nationally-broadcast reality TV show to find players for each team! If nothing else, we could almost assume the teams each received sufficient mention during the course of that show to substantiate "significant coverage". Besides which, while club websites might be useful to us in building the articles, they wouldn't have an impact on WP:GNG as they wouldn't be considered independent of the subject. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would still like to say that this is still only a month long competition. I know where your coming from but common sense would say that these clubs are not ready yet. Until more club specific profiles comes out or club websites with history etc in it then I dont see how these clubs are notable yet. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After more looking - the teams are already starting to get local coverage like this and this - week-by-week coverage of De Abasin Sape games against other teams. And the same is there for each team. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further - just had a quick go at fixing the De Abasin Sape F.C. article. The refs, at present, are not great but there's more than enough, I think, to create a stub while the season pans out and each team is covered in more detail. If there's a strong consensus to delete I won't fight it, but I just can't see the value in deleting them. Conversely, if someone wants to have a go at fixing each of them, let me know - I'll help. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's ask some further questions:
- Should we be looking to delete the articles? POSSIBLY
- Have we given enough time for preparation of reasonable articles? NO
- Is more material likely to be generated in good quality media sources in the coming weeks? YES
- From my brief observations I am coming up with useful material using Google tools. I am also intrigued comparing the the number of Ghits I am getting when I make a comparison with the local language terms:
- Sources for Shaheen Asmayee:
- I urge that more time is allowed for the preparation of reasonable articles - say until the end of the Roshan Afghan Premier League season. We can then properly assess them. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Okay then, if we can then lets wait it out because honestly I feel that once the Roshan Premier League finishes then the coverage will stop. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case, but if by then the teams have received "significant coverage" then the whole thing becomes a moot argument because notability is not temporary. Once they pass WP:GNG they are notable - they don't then become not-notable once ongoing coverage stops. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, if we can then lets wait it out because honestly I feel that once the Roshan Premier League finishes then the coverage will stop. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge that more time is allowed for the preparation of reasonable articles - say until the end of the Roshan Afghan Premier League season. We can then properly assess them. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Hey Wikipedians, After reading all your discussions and comments on whether to Keep the created articles of the teams or to merge or to delete, I would strongly oppose those who is in favor of deletion. What is the problem in the article, Is it because of being a new team which is hardly having two months of past or not having sufficient reference. All of you who thinks so just go to Google and type name of each team then you will get thousands of reference from Google. On the other hand let me tell you that Afghan Premier League is airing live of Tolo Tv and Lemar Tv of Afghanistan as well as Youtube provide live matches. Click here to watch past matches and current ongoing live matches http://www.youtube.com/user/afghanpremierleague. --Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a Strong keep even: these articles are about clubs playing in the 2012 Afghan Premier League, it's not like they haven't started playing yet. Yes, the articles will probably be stub for a while, but does it matter? I don't think there is a very large chance for finding online sources to make the article pass WP:GNG, but all of these articles passes the WP:FOOTYN: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. and we should assume that there are enough coverage in offline sources to make these articles pass WP:GNG. Might be too soon to create the articles, but I would also say that it too soon to delete the articles. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that we are trying to encourage an improvement in standards so that new articles get somewhere near meeting WP:GNG - see the recent debate Club articles that meet WP:FOOTYN but fail WP:GNG. For 7 of these articles no attempt at all has been made to meet WP:GNG. Why not? It is not as if there are no relevant sources. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- While it might be true that the articles haven't been well-developed, that's something that falls squarely into WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. If a subject notionally meets WP:GNG but that's not verified in the article, it may well be that the person who created the article hasn't lived up to their end of WP:BURDEN and we should either encourage them to do so or help by contributing to the article to make it better (as I tried to do to De Abasin Sape F.C. as a demonstration of what could be done). See both WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 8 articles (now 7 following additional work De Abasin Sape) make a mockery of WP:GNG. They represent "duplicate content" and were uploaded over a 23 minute period on 29 September 2012. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Your analysis is probably not far from the mark. But where something has been added, does not meet guidelines but could be considered to meet them, we are generally called on to assume good faith (in the sense that we should assume the person who added the content was trying to add meaningful content) and to fix the problem where we can. But it would also be naive to think all things can be fixed. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 8 articles (now 7 following additional work De Abasin Sape) make a mockery of WP:GNG. They represent "duplicate content" and were uploaded over a 23 minute period on 29 September 2012. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- While it might be true that the articles haven't been well-developed, that's something that falls squarely into WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. If a subject notionally meets WP:GNG but that's not verified in the article, it may well be that the person who created the article hasn't lived up to their end of WP:BURDEN and we should either encourage them to do so or help by contributing to the article to make it better (as I tried to do to De Abasin Sape F.C. as a demonstration of what could be done). See both WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that we are trying to encourage an improvement in standards so that new articles get somewhere near meeting WP:GNG - see the recent debate Club articles that meet WP:FOOTYN but fail WP:GNG. For 7 of these articles no attempt at all has been made to meet WP:GNG. Why not? It is not as if there are no relevant sources. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Nominators Comment: I am willing to drop the nomination for De Abasin Sape F.C. for deletion. The page has enough to pass for now. Hopefully more can be added soon. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have missed my point - I tried to fix that particular one to demonstrate that they could all be fixed in the same way and to make the point that I would be willing to put the same amount of work into the others if there was a community consensus that they should be kept. I didn't want to spend time trying to fix each one if they were just going to be deleted anyway. I wasn't trying to save that one in particular. If the consensus is that they should be deleted then they should all be deleted. Otherwise we'll just end up with futile WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments as a result. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood exactly what you said. The reason I nominated for deletion because there was nothing on the pages but now on this one there is. Now at this moment if no one is around to fix them then let it be. That one article will survive and the others will get merged till someone decides to recreate and add more to the article (I would hope the original creator would do that). Anyway if these articles are still around by say Wednesday then I will jump in and individually help and I now know that there is a way to prove them to pass for now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood - no worries at all mate! I'll try to help out. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I understood exactly what you said. The reason I nominated for deletion because there was nothing on the pages but now on this one there is. Now at this moment if no one is around to fix them then let it be. That one article will survive and the others will get merged till someone decides to recreate and add more to the article (I would hope the original creator would do that). Anyway if these articles are still around by say Wednesday then I will jump in and individually help and I now know that there is a way to prove them to pass for now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have missed my point - I tried to fix that particular one to demonstrate that they could all be fixed in the same way and to make the point that I would be willing to put the same amount of work into the others if there was a community consensus that they should be kept. I didn't want to spend time trying to fix each one if they were just going to be deleted anyway. I wasn't trying to save that one in particular. If the consensus is that they should be deleted then they should all be deleted. Otherwise we'll just end up with futile WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments as a result. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 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. Please wait another month before renominating. It seems that consensus for deleting the article is still away, and reasons to keep are strong enough. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indian century (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)
Article was nominated some time ago based on concerns of notability. The discussion was closed as no consensus. The article is still in poor form and has the same issues raised in the previous AfD. I propose deleting this as there is nothing here that cannot be discussed at Asian Century. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just today two editors have added references, the notability of the term and concept was well established in the previous AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the notability nor the concept was "well established" in that discussion. Most of the keep arguments were loose WP:SYNTHESIS. The discussion was tilted more towards a merge or delete. Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the same reasons that I presented in another elimination vote. Hallel (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really just a dictionary definition of the expression. There must be an article where notable predictions about India's future can be discussed in a objective way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Asian Century, that is where the topic should be covered if at all. Mar4d (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oh! Not Again! As many as 17 references were cited in the previous AfD. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we go again. How many of those references were actually useful? Just having a couple references here and there is not good enough. Mar4d (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep OMG! The references says it all, it is clearly a notable term. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article, as it stands, is original research and synthesis. It seems noone has noticed yet that many of the sources cited do not even use the term "Indian century" once, much less explain what it means. In the current version, the footnoted articles no. 1, 3, 4 and 7 do not mention once an "Indian century". This leaves considerable doubt whether the others which I did not check do. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This, this and this should be good enough to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – In the context of India as an emerging superpower, the term/neologism itself has seen usage in reliable sources. Some source examples include:
- Delete At best, this is a neologism and neologisms are not generally ready for articles on Wikipedia. WP:NEO is quite clear that for an article on a neologism we need to see reliable secondary sources that say something about the term, not merely use it and specifically asks us to exclude personal observations. Unfortunately, the english language references provided are all personal observations (or don't use the term at all) and none are secondary. --regentspark (comment) 03:09, 7 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Washington Initiative 957 (2007) (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 initiative was never a serious initiative - it was merely a stunt to attempt to make opponents of gay marriage look like fools. And, of course, it never made it on the ballot. While the notability guideline states that it's not temporary, in this case, the initiative was clearly never notable in the first place. There are usually several stunt initiatives like this with no chance of reaching the ballot every year in Washington. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous AfD for this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initiative 957 Ego White Tray (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Initiative 957 was indeed serious: it was filed with the Washington Secretary of State, it was approved for gathering signatures, and petitions were circulated. The ballot measure made headlines around the world. And, as was noted in the previous effort to wipe this article from the Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. I-957 was notable when it was filed in 2007, and thus remains sufficiently notable today. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that it was notable when it was filed. Lots of initiatives get filed in Washington and never go anywhere. Being filed does not confer notability, and I would say that in almost every case, actually appearing on the ballot is required for notability, at least in the state of Washington (not sure about other state's laws). Contrary to your opinion, I-957 wasn't notable in 2007 and is even less notable today. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, do you have any evidence that this received worldwide coverage? The footnoted refs are all primary sources, and the external links include news articles that are mostly in-state (one from MSNBC where Tri-Cities, WA appears on the top of the dead link, suggesting that MSNBC includes some local coverage). Do you have any sources from other countries on this? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Five and a half years after the fact, many of the news sites that previously had articles about I-957 have expired them. I can provide YouTube recordings of interviews and discussion on CNN, MSNBC and FOX, but YouTube is not considered a reliable source. What would satisfy you? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a link (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/11/sm.02.html) of a transcript for the February 11, 2007 edition of CNN Sunday Morning where initiative frontman, Gregory Gadow, was interviewed about I-957. I'm sure that more such reliable sources can be found. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And an article on Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJbisyCDNZ.o&refer=us. I will work on including more of the extant sources this weekend. Will that make everyone happy? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and recall that there was a discussion to delete the article in August, 2007, a month after the initiative had been withdrawn by its sponsors. A discussion initiated by me, it should be noted. The consensus then was to keep the article, with some minor revisions. This article was sufficient notable then, and notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Five and a half years after the fact, many of the news sites that previously had articles about I-957 have expired them. I can provide YouTube recordings of interviews and discussion on CNN, MSNBC and FOX, but YouTube is not considered a reliable source. What would satisfy you? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sourcing sucks. In the event this doesn't close a keep, I propose LGBT rights in Washington as a potential merge target. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- * The sourcing could be better, yes. But that falls under the rubric of improving the article, not deleting it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong opinion one way or the other about that, but it seems like this referendum was the political equivalent of WP:POINT and therefore might be better covered in the context of the broader gay and lesbian liberation movement than as a stand-alone page. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant discussion in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was national news and reliable sources are available to verify content and context. Insomesia (talk) 23:03, 2 October 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. Deleted as a combination of G5 and G7. Only meaningful edits besides those by the indef-blocked editor and their socks/meats were by Qworty, who advocated deletion. See discussion at bottom of AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Phillip Nelson (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)
Note: Comments by trolling sockpuppets of one user have been struck out: see below for further details. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite repeated unsuccessful attempts to create an article on this subject, he still appears not to be notable.
All of his music was released on a label called "Fireburst Entertainment". A Google search reveals that this "label" is only associated with this individual. That is, it appears to be self-published/released. The music does not appear to pass the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO.
The acting appears to be: 1) a self-made TV documentary about himself about LGBT issues, 2) a role in a non-notable television series (no article, no imdb entry, nothing), 3) a role in a non-notable short film, and 4) productions that have not even be released yet. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. (Correction: I made a mistake about the nature of the documentary when I was looking up info on this subject. It does not change my nomination position, though. Singularity42 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references are mostly built upon the subject's own website, imdb entries, amazon.com and other related websites, facebook, press releases, and websites anyone can edit.
Simply put, Mr. Nelson's repeated attempts to use Wikipedia to promote himself should finally be put to rest. Singularity42 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Blatantly promotional, reliant on primary and unacceptable sources. If this has indeed been persistently recreated, perhaps it's time to salt. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, fails WP:BIO; and SALT. ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article's creator keeps trying to make his opinions known on my talk page rather than here. I've pointed him to this page, but in case he doesn't comment here, I would ask the reviewing admin to not ignore the creating editor's opinon. It can be found at User talk:Singularity42#Phillip Nelson. Singularity42 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSIC, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:ADVERT, WP:RS.--the list goes on and on and on. It just all-around fails everything. Qworty (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to comment on the deletion page, but until now, I was unaware of how to post it. Also, I am a female. I represent Phillip Nelson through my modeling agency. You can delete this page to your liking, but facts indicate that is more than enough proof and links about his careers and accomplishments. I have also added more links to the article. It is clear that you have a grudge against my client. I would like to thank you for showing me exactly how Wikipedia I can informof my current and future clients about your "standards." Also, I have submitted the comments (on the deletion forum) to my lawyer revolving the defamation of character on Phillip Nelson (all of Phillip Nelson's endeavors/careers are legit and real). I even tried to added the reference number from his pending titles on IMDb, which will post within a few days. I will inform Phillip Nelson about these issues, since he had no knowledge of this Wikipedia page being created. With that said, you (Wikipedia) does not have permission to use any of the images and signatures that were displayed on the Wikipedia page. If you do I will proceed against you with legal action. I do not condone Wikipedia, nor will I allow the mockery of my client. I request that you take opinionated judgments elsewhere. --Wm55 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* KEEPit shows that his and this page is legit with some reliable sources. I say keep because there will be more citations and sources added as his coming stuff is released. He is notable.
- I have added many citations and reviewed numerous Wikipedia article on other celebrities pages. For example: Mandisa contain a total of 5 links (references), my client contains 34, yet her page is not being deleted or targeted? It is clear that there is a biased opinion and accusation about "Phillip Nelson." What kind of service monitors Wikipedia. They should indicate whether to not the page meets the criteria. No service should pass opinionated judgments. One of the previous reason this page was deleted was because op copyright issues. I then I re-wrote the article and submitted it only to have another "new" error conflict the page. Why is there always a different reason on each deletion. The moderators indicated it is written in a promotional tone, but look at Mariah Carey's page, I wrote the page in the same format and style. --Wm55 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that is a legal threat, so under our no legal threats policy, you may be blocked. You are also stating the subject as your client. You are not allowed to write articles for your clients under WP:COI. These are not opinionated arguments, the people here are pointing to policies, something every article must pass.
- You claim that we are not allowed to use any of the images and signatures that were on the page; actually, when you upload pictures, you do so with the intent to share. You do not own articles. As far as I know, we don't have a grudge against your client. Despite what you think, we aren't some cabal of people who deleted with bad intent. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's no guideline prohibiting writing an article about one's client, associate, or relative--it's just strongly discouraged, and articles like this are textbook examples on why WP:COI is so rarely transcended, all the more so because they're usually written by new WP:SPA accounts. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that we are not allowed to use any of the images and signatures that were on the page; actually, when you upload pictures, you do so with the intent to share. You do not own articles. As far as I know, we don't have a grudge against your client. Despite what you think, we aren't some cabal of people who deleted with bad intent. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not in favor of salting, as this person may meet guidelines in the future. The article as it stands is an atrocity, but I could see the possibility of something decent. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any evidence that the TV series has been shown anywhere. Modelling for Calvin Klein is a nice addition to a C.V., but not enough to establish notability. Bielle (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Call me a sourpuss but some (not all but some) of these sources seem legitimate. I think that there are a few reliable sources on here and there could easily be more.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a sourpuss at all. Perhaps you can identify the sources that are both reliable and establish notability per guidelines, and elaborate as to what suggests that there could easily be more reliable sources. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one thing he has an IMDB account. Isn't imdb one of the most important sources for actors and models? If I'm wrong I will gladly step down especially since I do not know much about the guy.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm sorry, but having an IMDB account doesn't mean anything. Anybody can get one and then start posting things, true or not, about himself on it. It does not constitute a reliable source--WP:RS--for our purposes on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, per WP:IMDB. I think some users are trying to invoke future notability, that phantom condition addressed at WP:CRYSTAL. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is a useful source for movie and TV fans, but it's typically only considered reliable (with some degree of wariness) for cast lists... and being in IMDB is not a ticket to notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay well for my final attempt what about the vast amount of news sources about his life especially the hate crime incident and his film (or films I couldn't tell if there was more than one)? If that dosn't work I'm withdrawing my keep.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to influence a change of mind--rather, I'm batting this around so newer users can better understand how this works--but this circles back to my previous question: which sources are reliable and establish notability? Most of the ones provided are WP:PRIMARY, or establish only existence, not notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a vast number of news stories about him. I see one story about his being gay-bashed in college, but that is not sufficient, because of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think it is made clear that he is not only notable for that one event but also his roles in some of his work although some seems to be impossible to find.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know this might not be a good reason but I think I'm going to keep mine as a keep because I think there is a possibility all other keeps might be made invalid because they seem to be WP:SPA and I do want this article to have a chance. I stand by support for the (incredibly few) reliable sources.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing here to substantiate that his presence in any of these productions was noteworthy, i.e., not a bit of coverage from reliable sources, no newspaper, magazine, or credible e-zine coverage. This is smoke and mirrors, propagated by a publicist. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you promise me this article won't be salted incase this man does become famous I'll change my vote to delete.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither I nor anyone else can make such a promise--that's the decision of the closing administrator. Nor do I think it's appropriate to suggest such a quid pro quo. And as I said earlier, I've no interest in swaying a 'vote'. We're just discussing the status of the article, and whether or not it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Like a number of editors who've weighed in here, I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of these, and have a better than average sense of their qualities or lack thereof. Keep this in mind: the closing admin will not be tallying yes and no votes, but reviewing the article and the discussion here on their own merits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you promise me this article won't be salted incase this man does become famous I'll change my vote to delete.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think it is made clear that he is not only notable for that one event but also his roles in some of his work although some seems to be impossible to find.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a vast number of news stories about him. I see one story about his being gay-bashed in college, but that is not sufficient, because of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to influence a change of mind--rather, I'm batting this around so newer users can better understand how this works--but this circles back to my previous question: which sources are reliable and establish notability? Most of the ones provided are WP:PRIMARY, or establish only existence, not notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay well for my final attempt what about the vast amount of news sources about his life especially the hate crime incident and his film (or films I couldn't tell if there was more than one)? If that dosn't work I'm withdrawing my keep.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is a useful source for movie and TV fans, but it's typically only considered reliable (with some degree of wariness) for cast lists... and being in IMDB is not a ticket to notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, per WP:IMDB. I think some users are trying to invoke future notability, that phantom condition addressed at WP:CRYSTAL. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm sorry, but having an IMDB account doesn't mean anything. Anybody can get one and then start posting things, true or not, about himself on it. It does not constitute a reliable source--WP:RS--for our purposes on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one thing he has an IMDB account. Isn't imdb one of the most important sources for actors and models? If I'm wrong I will gladly step down especially since I do not know much about the guy.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a sourpuss at all. Perhaps you can identify the sources that are both reliable and establish notability per guidelines, and elaborate as to what suggests that there could easily be more reliable sources. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is not whether he exists, but whether he's considered "notable" by wikipedia standards. That usually has to do with, "Who else is talking about them?" And that question may be answered by the time Qworty (talk · contribs) is done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Bulleted list item'. keep' I have seen worse pages with less sources. This page has. Numerous reliable. Sources. It states that there is movies coming out in the future. Logitc states that those citations will be added with the other reliable sources on this page. I and I am sure many others would consider this notable. Plus his following/ fans would possibly agree since. I assume hey purchase his releases. --Smurfvillage (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)— Smurfvillage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You're a WP:SPA that has suddenly popped-up here. Care to explain that? As for the rest of it, you are utterly wrong. We are not concerned with what might be happening in the future--please read WP:CRYSTAL. Also please thoroughly read WP:RS, since you need further guidance in this area as well. Qworty (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*KEEP- IMDb IS. Reliable source. Every entry in the IMDb database has to be reviewed and accepted. Other wiki pages on actors use their IMDb accounts as sources. And it states by the page creator that there are 2 reference codes that show proof that IMDb is adding the discussed titles. There are many interviews, and audio interviews that show the notablity.— Credibility1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- NOTE: I have inquired at ANI if a CU can have a look at what's going on here. Editors, keep your cool; these matters will be dealt with in the proper manner. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. On both counts, you are quite right. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - of course. Article is boostrapping promo of non-notable person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI is here [22]. Qworty (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's about the coolest photo ever — very 3D. If that's a Photoshop filter, me wants... No opinion about notability. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, photographing well does not lead to notability. Qworty (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like WP:vanispamcruftisement. --Nouniquenames 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, article not sourced at all. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE THAT THERE WERE 35 RELIABLE SOURCED BEFORE MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM DELETED THE BIOGRAPHY, ALONG WITH, SOURCE LINKS!!!! THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GOTTEN ON A PERSONAL LEVEL TO SOME. THE CU NEEDS TO SEE THE HISTORY WHERE THE SOURCES HAVE BEEN DELETED!!!
- Delete this article is an exercise in promotion by someone affiliated with the subject, who is not notable. Facebook, IMDB etc are not reliable sources, and sources written by the subject do not confer notability. Bizarrely the best sources concern the subject's role on the receiving end of homophobic violence[23][24], but that doesn't confer notability per WP:NOTNEWS. To rebut some of the concerns raised above: we do not have a grudge against the subject and would apply the same standards to anyone else in the same position, speculations that the subject might be notable in the future aren't good enough, and the raw number of citations is not a metric of notability - what counts is the quality of those citations. Hut 8.5 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the uninitiated, here's a link to a version with 34 footnotes [25]. Read WP:RELIABLE, then go through the sources and their content individually. Wikipedia has guidelines, thank goodness, and those who strive to subvert them and make accusations of personal conspiracy usually are concerned with a single agenda, not the integrity of the encyclopedia. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:
- I have struck out comments by Credibilty1981, Smurfvillage, and Movieuk. They have been found by checkuser to be sockpuppets of one user, and they have vandalised other editors' comments on this page. Their contributions seem to be substantially trolling.
- The creator of this article, Wm55, has been found by checkuser to be a sockpuppet of another editor who had repeatedly created the same article, and who had eventually been warned of a likely block if she created it yet again. The article would have qualified for speedy deletion as created by a blocked user in violation of their block (G5) had it not been for the fact that Qworty has done considerable clean up work on the article, so it no longer qualifies as having "no substantial edits by others". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that kind of sucks. No good deed goes unpunished, but since I'm clear out of trouts I'l platypus Qworty. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on thar, Baba Looey. If Qworty were to revert his own edits, would that re-qualify the article for speedy deletion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question. As a professional antfucker, I'm inclined to say 'no' since they are part of the edit history, and by reverting they're even more part of it. What if their edits are rev-deleted, or oversighted? And then we say that a platypus ate them? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Qworty did endorse deletion of the page above, so I think you could reasonably delete it as a combination of G5 and G7. Hut 8.5 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Well, it occurred to me that since Qworty voted for deletion and posted various counter-arguments to those who wanted it kept (trolls or otherwise), he might be willing to revert his article edits. Not that it matters very much, as the article will almost certainly get deleted (again) and this time should be salted and peppered in order to prevent Betty's pal from re-creating it yet again. But I just wondered about the rules. I'm guessing Qworty wasn't aware of these technicalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So ordered: deleted and salted. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question. As a professional antfucker, I'm inclined to say 'no' since they are part of the edit history, and by reverting they're even more part of it. What if their edits are rev-deleted, or oversighted? And then we say that a platypus ate them? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on thar, Baba Looey. If Qworty were to revert his own edits, would that re-qualify the article for speedy deletion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin Ratushniak (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 attempted to merge the Colin Ratushniak article with List of Dancing on Ice professional skaters because the skater does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. He never won his senior national title or any senior international medals. He won provincial novice titles and perhaps some national pre-novice medals but there is no reference for this. In any case, he is a long way from being notable. Karen Dawes disputed my merge and undid it, saying:
- You have recently merged my page with that of another. I dispute your reasons for doing this. Colin Ratushniak has a significant following on Twitter and Facebook, and has appeared in Dancing on Ice, Holiday on Ice and is about to appear in Kyran Bracken's Ice party show. His notoriety in the professional ice skating world is sufficient, I believe, to warrant this individual page being published. The page itself was reviewed initially and passed as a grade C page. It has since been edited and improved. Please can you undo the edit the did so that the page is reinstated or give me very good reasons why you took the page and merged it without giving prior indication that you were going to do this so that it could have been discussed. Karendawes (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but having a following on Twitter and Facebook and appearing in ice shows are not listed as sufficient to have a separate Wiki article. Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. He does not have notoriety in the professional skating world because he is not regularly invited to events with Olympic and World medalists. He appears mainly in shows with lower-level skaters. Even if he did get invited to more important shows, he would still need to meet some other criteria. Having his own subsection on the listing of Dancing on Ice professionals is sufficient given his record. Hergilei (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Ratushniak has been the subject of multiple idependent newspaper articles that focus on him, not just on his role as a Dancing on Ice cast member. That suffices to make him satisfy the general notability guideline even if he fails the more specific WikiProject guidelines. Huon (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some local newspapers, yes. In that case many minor skaters would be notable. British papers mention him only in passing. He has no notable achievements. He ended his competitive career on the novice level and played a supporting role in one Dancing On Ice series, where the focus is on the celebrity, not the "pro skater". Hergilei (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Surely a compromise could be reached here, he certainly meets the criteria general notability guidelineand I would dispute that the pro skaters on Dancing on Ice are not perceived by the public as being just as integral to the show as the celebrity. When appearing in Holiday on Ice, the press sought to interview Ratushniak not other skaters in the show, even those "world and olympic" skaters who appeared in the show with him. This would indicate that the press see him as notable in his own right. --Karendawes (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added a further reference to the article which is an interview Ratushniak did with the national publication Theatre and Performance magazine to counter the claim that media interest is only at a local level. --Karendawes (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [26], [27], [28]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My understanding is that Wikipedia's approach is that, on notability issues, a topic that passes any set of guidelines is adequately notable, even though they may fail on another set. I originally accepted this article on AfC because I felt it met the general notability guidelines. Furthermore, the contributor is still working to develop and improve the article. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:32, 7 October 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Racism in the LGBT community (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 WP:COATRACK for anything that editors can infer is linked to this topic. For example, the sources in the section Antisemitism aren't explicitly about this topic. The article has been constructed by cherry picking any sources that seem to indicate that LGBT communities are racist and then an article was constructed around that. As the article already indicates: "There is no evidence that LGBT people are more racist than cisgender heterosexual people", so this article is essentially a non-notable non-issue. Wikipedia isn't wikinews WP:NOT#NEWS. An indication of the lack of notability or WP:WEIGHT is that not even one sentence is given to it in LGBT community. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you stateing you don't believe antisemitism to be a form of racism? I provided sources that exclusively call the incidents either antisemitism or racism. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you but I have reliable sources and I will back them up.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reliable source says there is an issue of racism in the LGBT community with regard to anti-Semitism, or even mentions the concept. The sources in the article that I looked at, didn't.IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- http://books.google.com/books?id=nvt8el4QtPwC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Antisemitism+LGBT+community&source=bl&ots=m9ud-LTpus&sig=b_KpMTjH8apkGYGHPPi5ox6Z7bM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1ZhbUO3ZJMWfiAL8w4GgBw&ved=0CKwBEOgBMBc#v=onepage&q=Antisemitism%20LGBT%20community&f=false This one is the main one. It states very clearly that there is anti-semitism in the lesbian community.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say there is antisemitism in the lesbia community. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, it was already been nominated three more times and always kept, the last discussion was closed as keep just one week ago. Nothing changed since then. If you have found something inappropriate in the last closure, a deletion review would be the appropriate move, not really a fourth deletion discussion four days later. Cavarrone (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, I can't believe I just said that but researching for the antisemitism section and now the new anti-arabism section has taught me alot about where I stand in the LGBT community. The sources on this site are reliable and the topic is notable.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can I clarify something? Wasn't this article just at AfD and closed as keep without a single delete vote four days ago? Yet the nominating statement doesn't even mention this? How is this possible?--Milowent • hasspoken 12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention the previous nominator, thats me has changed sides and wants to keep the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is being expanded as a WP:COATRACK with sources that aren't explicitly about the topic. Where does this source talk about racism in the LGBT community: [29]? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph? "racism and stereotyping within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community." Since uou apparently ignored the prior AfD, its not a shock that you ignored the sources as well. I'd suggest you consider withdrawing the AfD, as you don't seem to have been aware of the history at the time. There's nothing wrong in a withdrawal, we all make mistakes.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is being expanded as a WP:COATRACK with sources that aren't explicitly about the topic. Where does this source talk about racism in the LGBT community: [29]? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - This just closed as a keep on Sept. 27, 2012. Notability is not temporary, nor did community standards change in the last few days. Bad faith nomination or a huge blunder, trout for the nominator either way... Carrite (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take the trout, I didn't notice the previous AfD's because I saw how new the article was. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - For the reasons cited above. Am86 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 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 Glossary_of_baseball#Q. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick pitch (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)
Totally unnecessary minor article for a single definition, violates WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:NOTDIC. Basically the same as what's listed here - Baseball_terminology#Q. RoadView (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Baseball_terminology#Q. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Rlendog. AutomaticStrikeout 21:35, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aimee Ayingcha Cowell (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)
Article about an actress and model. One source given, few on the net, but all seem to be primary sources. Per WP:BASIC. Ben Ben (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The reference currently listed is not reliable, I haven't found any appropriate sources so it is possible that they may be Thai. Honestly, the article hardly reads like an encyclopedia article and never significantly mentions her modelling career. This is a case of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in the way of useful sources, it's been edited primarily by a fan and doesn't measure up to BLP. I'm ambivalent about notability, but this article isn't really satisfactory and needs to be deleted and done over eventually when sources exist. In effect, this is a formalized BLPPROD. Acroterion (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiki (Artist) (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)
Unclear references; web searches produce some hits, but seemingly not to the extent that they constitute reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Prod contested. Zujua (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Similar concerns with Emil Kazaz and Sam Zumian, all written by same account, all stronger on promotional tone than references. Perhaps motivated by the same gallery representing each artist.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've formalised the reference and sought more but the Angela Harutyunyan article is the most substantial that I can find, and is effectively a passing reference, not enough to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is some effort going into suppressing this AfD: by blanking this page, removing it from the AfD log, removing the AfD notices from the article itself. I've warned on User talk:Amuradyan12. AllyD (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Listing of gallery shows alone doesn't establish notability, and the unsourced descriptions of work and process read like gallery p.r. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Qworty (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added more sources on the Kiki page; There is no "promoting" any artists, it is simply providing information to notable Armenian artists. As far as deleting the tags, it was my mistake. --Amuradyan12 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like a mistake at all, especially since you immediately deleted the discussion from the AFD log, too [30]. I'm also struck by the parallel edit history of 76.93.69.4 (talk · contribs), complete with an identical deletion to one of yours [31]. Providing acceptable sources is mandatory, per WP:RELIABLE. Eventually, too, the articles will need to be edited for WP:NOR. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Like I said there are now more sources on the article. There are a total of three credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.69.4 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's address what you said. The only reliable source of the several provided appears to be the paper by Angela Harutyunyan, and perhaps I missed something, but so far as I could see Kiki's name was cited once, as one of a group of Armenian artists. Is there a separate passage devoted to him that I missed? The most promising indication I found was the exhibition listing from his gallery page, which claims multiple museum shows--if those exhibitions can be confirmed by objective sources, say published reviews, it would be most helpful. As for your tacit acknowledgement that you're editing on the same articles as both a registered account and an IP, that's troubling, especially since you removed templates as an IP after receiving a level 3 warning as Amuradyan12 [32]. That looks like editing as a WP:SOCKPUPPET in order to evade a block. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 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 Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships#Officials. I can see where Mayumashu is coming from in the argument that tennis umpires should be assumed notable in a similar way that they are for baseball and referees are for (association) football; however, the guidelines at WP:NSPORT are decided by wide community consensus and I don't think we can easily go against that, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. No-one has argued that the subject passes WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, and so the only conclusion that I can come to is that he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. (The other "keep" voters are variations on WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT.) After this, a redirect seems the best choice of close for this AfD, but I don't see a clear consensus as to which article this page should redirect to. Further discussion would best be undertaken at WP:RFD. My choice of redirecting to the match article is purely because when I looked at the page's history that was the first place it was redirected to. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohamed Lahyani (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 needs to be redirected as per tennis project discussions here and here, and recent Mohamed Lahyani reverts. It should be redirected to the article List of tennis umpires as we do with other umpires. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be a better home for this. Or a WP:RFC or WP:3O. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're trying to bully your way around with an AfD? Without addressing my concerns on the talk page? I'll copy that content here:
This article went from an article to a redirect back to a (worse than before) article, and now we're back at redirect. It had been redirect to the Isner-Mahut I, and that was changed to List of tennis umpires. I have reverted that because I don't like it. First of all, Lahyani does seem to be notable for just this one thing, and redirecting him to the one thing is appropriate; if his name ever comes up, it's likely to be in the context of that match. Second, that list is not a very good article: it's the kind of list we shouldn't have since it lists names, not article. That such umpires with such badges would be notable remains to be seen, and as long as they're not notable it's not in agreement with our guidelines and practice to list them. In other words, I disagree with the very existence of the list in the form in which it is cast. Either you have a list of notables or likely notables, or you don't have a list at all.
I stand by that. As to the comments in your nomination--those two brief discussions were hardly community-wide, and if they involved a significant number of Tennis editors then it's a pretty small project. The question was asked what the broader community might think and that's a good idea; I hope we get some more involvement. I note, for instance, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Alves really wasn't anything of a discussion at all. But besides all that, to reiterate what I said on that talk page: this umpire is mostly significant for one particular match, and your List of tennis umpires is the kind of list that we really shouldn't have--WP:CSC seems to support that. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I previously closed this as more appropriate for an RFD, but it was pointed out on my talk page that someone has recently opined that this should actually remain an article, so this is more than just a discussion on what the target of a redirect should be. Technically no one is arguing for actual deletion of the page, but it's been pointed out to me by an AFD regular that discussions about article vs redirect #1 vs redirect #2 are not uncommon at AFD, and this doesn't seem an unreasonable place to have that discussion. So, I've re-opened the discussion. I'll let people that have already commented here know, and also I'm going to canvas the one person who has said it should remain an article to make sure that side is heard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - FWIW - I had originally redirected this to the List of tennis umpires because the list was discussed and agreed to at Tennis project when it was created by another editor. Umpire articles had been put up for deletion (some I believe before the list was created) and were either deleted or redirected to the list. I later noticed two other umpire articles that had been missed, and simply redirected them to the umpire list; as all others had been successful I assumed we'd keep things consistent. This was the first week of August. This past week a different editor brought back the full article which I then reverted back to the redirect to the umpires list. He reverted back to a full article at which time I was going to put it up for AFD to get it deleted or preferably redirected to the Umpire list. Before I could do the dirty details another editor reverted the full article but redirected it to a famous tennis match. I still put it up for afd as I thought this was the best place to resolve the issue, and here we are. My preference is to redirect it to the list of gold badge umpires. I feel that 99% of readers are not going to search for this relatively unknown umpire's name but rather see her listed at that famous tennis match's article, click and have it lead to a list of gold badge umpires. A list we can expand on by writing a sentence or two about each umpire if they ever get even a smidgen of press. And if perchance they get a whole bunch of press, mutiple times, then an article might be appropriate for that particular gold badge umpire. I'm not saying that a redirect to the the Isner match is bad, i just feel that the gold badge list is better. And I'm not saying that complete deletion is bad, I just think that redirecting to the umpire list is much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A gold badge ITF chair umpire, the highest tier of umpire for the sport, the equivalent of a FIFA referee, MLB umpire, etc., all of whom pass WP:Notability (sports). WP:NTENNIS needs to be editted to mention chair umpires. Mayumashu (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they are the highest tier of something doesn't make them notable. Certain Baseball umpires are talked about on the tv all the time. When we look at wikipedia and the list of Snooker refs or NFL refs we see mostly blanks. And just because they have articles doesn't mean they should have articles. The NFL and snooker projects might be way to lax in what they think is notable while if wikipedia at large looked at it they might delete 90% of the articles. In tennis the umps are pretty much a tiny blip on the radar who only get any press at all if there is a single controversy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:NBASEBALL any umpire who has umpired a MLB game is notable, regardless of much the ump in question may or may not be talked about on tv, and the same goes for football referees - see WP:NSOCCER. (Even if you want to measure notability by media exposure and ignore WP:NSPORTS, Lahyani is frequently mentioned on TV by announcers, when he is in the chair. And these mentions are very rarely because of he umped the Isner-Mahut match. He likes the spotlight as we know and umpires many of the top of the top matches. But this should all be irrelevent, given he's one of only a dozen or so top tier umps, gold-badged.) Mayumashu (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they are the highest tier of something doesn't make them notable. Certain Baseball umpires are talked about on the tv all the time. When we look at wikipedia and the list of Snooker refs or NFL refs we see mostly blanks. And just because they have articles doesn't mean they should have articles. The NFL and snooker projects might be way to lax in what they think is notable while if wikipedia at large looked at it they might delete 90% of the articles. In tennis the umps are pretty much a tiny blip on the radar who only get any press at all if there is a single controversy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect to the match--my earlier comments are copied above; this is just to make matters clear. This should not be an article (it has no potential), it's a valid redirect (useful search term), and it should only have one goal, the match. List of tennis umpires is not a valid target or a useful article, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is frequently seen on TV and named by announcers, not because he umped Isner-Mahut, but because he umpires a lot of the biggest matches and that he likes the spotlight, tends to smile when the camera is on him, and gets added exposure and mention because of this. He is very much a valid subject for a WP article. But this is only a secondary reason why. All gold-badge umpires should be WP notable as all MLB umpires, FIFA top tier referees, etc. are. Mayumashu (talk) 18:20, 21 September 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, Michig (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! And add info to the article, seems too short.Naki (talk) 17:28, 25 September 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, WilyD 08:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitely, I feel he's an important figure in the current tour. Asmazif (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2012 (GMT)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Three C's of Selling (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)
Contested PROD with no rationale for tag removal. An essay on marketing wholly inapproprite for inclusion in encyclopedia. TheLongTone (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are lots of 'C' in selling, including confuse (the buyer), criticise (rival products), and corrupt (as in bribe). For an article title such as this to work in Wikipedia, the title does not just have to be notable in the sense that others have used it, it has to be sufficiently established to have a clear and recognised meaning as in Three Kingdoms. Otherwise it could just as well be two, or four, or any other number, and any word could just as well be substituted for one of the others depending on the point of view of the editor. In any case, Wikipedia is not a guide on how to do something. --AJHingston (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Three C’s of Selling(Informal Method) (also created by User:Absorbin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) "convince, Confuse and Confess" this time, has been PRODed. -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete – This does not meet notability requirements at all and is someone’s opinion/original way of making marketing easier for the masses. The style of writing is completely un-encyclopaedic and would be better suited to a “Marketing for Dummies” book. Furthermore, the article is based around a single source from a very low-key marketing consultancy website and could be in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. BarkingNigel (talk) 16:26, 3 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ewan Watt (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)
user User:Paul.Madden123 and User:Trident13 are heavily involved in edits of Ewan Watts and Roi.com.au, a company owned by him. It's fairly clear that these are self published self promoting articles. The article is currently supported by numerous sources that mentions him, but no reputable sources ABOUT him. I don't find this person to meet WP:GNG Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No attempt at establishing notability, nothing special about being an entrepreneur or founding a mildly successful website. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real evidence that this person meets WP:BIO, and the article appears to have been written for promotional purposes. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 7 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roi.com.au (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)
Searched Google.au and Wombat and I failed to locate WP:GNG for this business. There's nothing special about this start up that distinguish from other small businesses. The article is written like an ad and sourced almost entirely from its own contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article contains nothing to distinguish it from many other similar companies and verges on being too promotional. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete plain WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be spam. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 7 October 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 Blasphemy law#Germany. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Manfred van H. (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)
notable for single minor crime long ago Jason from nyc (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Seemingly a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Alternatively, a merge might be a solution per WP:CRIMINAL. -- BenTels (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge to Blasphemy law#Germany. Agreed that this is a BLP1E, but it is mostly about the application of German blasphemy law. Sandstein 15:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but further anonymize the article. the previous conviction should be mentioned, but not the occupational details. Sufficiently a matter of public interest. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 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, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Blasphemy law#Germany or could use it as start of a separate article on German blasphemy law. As an article on the individual who is only known for one event it falls under WP:BLP1E. I wondered if the event might be notable, but a brief internet search (including German sources) suggests not: coverage is from around the time of his conviction with a lack of long-term interest aside from a few brief mentions. Finally, arguing against his notability as an individual, some newspaper stories don't even give his name, e.g.[33]. German Wikipedia covers it in their article on blasphemy law, de:Beschimpfung von Bekenntnissen, Religionsgesellschaften und Weltanschauungsvereinigungen, which isn't a deciding factor as different wikis have different policies, but may indicate its lack of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Blasphemy law#Germany per WP:BLP1E, due to lack of persistent coverage. The person and his actions were a flash in the pan. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:14, 3 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaspid (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 organization lacks notability to satisfy our guideline for inclusion. WP:GNG Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NCORP. -- Trevj (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 2 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, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My news searches provided nothing useful aside from another press release. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 7 October 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) BusterD (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Hazewinkel (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)
Wrestler whose biggest claim to fame was wrestling at one U.S. Olympic trial. Fails WP:ATHLETE, specifically he has not been to "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." SalHamton (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "will compete at the 2012 Olympics" it says. How can I know that he didn't? --Mentoz86 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It took me less than two minutes to find out that he did compete in the 2012 Olympics[34], which means that the nominator got no case. --Mentoz86 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I updated the article with his Olympic information. It took two minutes to edit. So two minutes for Mentoz86 to find the article and two minutes for me to edit the article. I suggest future deletions follow what is found at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations - "Before nominating an article for AFD...first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template..." Seems like a simple Google search could have solved this (searching 'Sam Hazewinkel 2012 olympics' in Google, the article found by Mentoz86 shows up 4th.) RonSigPi (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:NOLYMPICS, participation at the Olympics sufficient for any athlete to be notable. Churn and change (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - clearly should not have been nominated. All good, but should now be withdrawn/closed. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep because this individual passes the first point of WP:NOLYMPICS. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:30, 5 October 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. Will userfy on request. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Build Brighton Hackspace (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:GNG. nothing in gnews. could not find any reliable sources eg in bbc LibStar (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed, I found nothing with Google US, Google UK news or Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This is one of the more prominent UK hackspaces, having organised two Maker faires Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- do you have sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should keep an eye on article histories after you've nom'ed them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 2 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) 01:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - had a look for some sources (don't think those in the article are great) and couldn't find much. All I could find was a google groups rallying cry from the original author calling on other subject group members to add to the WP article. Obviously COI, and created as WP:PROMO. They are clearly not being sneaky about it (commendable) but we need to be careful about the genesis. Am on the fence as to whether it meets WP:CORPDEPTH - probably not at the moment... Stalwart111 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:ORGDEPTH. (Declaration per WP:COI: I've attended Bristol Hackspace on one occasion, and have exchanged words with members there who attended/exhibited at the 2012 Brighton Mini Maker Faire.) Userfication should be granted if there is a subsequent claim of further sources demonstrating notability. There is a discussion about including such local information within Hackerspace at Talk:Hackerspace#List of hackspaces is WAY too long. -- Trevj (talk) 10:58, 1 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Battle Cry Campaign (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 sub-project Teen Mania Ministries. No substantiation of notability apart from parent organization. GrapedApe (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They had substantial press coverage, and controversy, back in 2006-2008, when they were holding big rallies. They seem to have dropped out of the news in recent years, though. --John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me that those articles are more about the parent group Teen Mania Ministries, not this sub-project.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep edited version I have just transferred the section on Coalition Activities to the Teen Mania Ministries page where it belongs and eliminated some other references to this latter organization. The remainder seems to be focussed on a coherent group of event which are sufficiently notable and have enough reliable sources to stand alone. It is a balanced "description-criticism" article about events which were supported by a wideish range of known figures and organizations. Perhaps a certain amount of linking to other articles is still called for. Jpacobb (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Keep or Merge back to Teen Mania Ministries. Do not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:04, 6 October 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dante Micheli (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)
Football player stub which lacks notability, verifiability and has no benefit to wikipedia. Monkeymanman (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - According to playerhistory.com, this guy played in Serie A for nine straight seasons in the 1960's and played a lot of matches which means that the article passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs improvement, not deleting. --Mentoz86 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep - He played in a major international final. Clearly notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs bringing up to meet WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Played in a winning European Cup-Winners Cup side, which is about as highly notable as could be. I added a reference on this (see also this lovely high-boot picture from that final: [35]). AllyD (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is a very odd nomination indeed; perhaps another time, the nominator should consider the requirements of WP:BEFORE. Subject has played on the winning side in a European final, as noted above, and has more than 250 appearances in the Italian Serie A, one of the world's strongest football leagues. The it.wiki version is well developed and very well sourced, making the subject's notability abundantly clear. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as a clearly pointy nomination. Monkeymanman's editing history shows that he is familiar with the subject matter, so this isn't a case of a merely ignorant nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep and speedy close, bad faith nomination. Cavarrone (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I should add some detail as to why I nominated this article for deletion. The original article had a solitary line of information which could clearly be interpreted from the 1961 CWC final article (the sentence basically stated he played in the final) therefore it was irrelevant and in no way informative for Wikipedia. There were also no sources. At least now a helpful editor has rectified the problem. In light of the new sourced material I would not have nominated the article for deletion. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Hmmmmmm... See above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:48, 3 October 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.