Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 25
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ''Aarppoyi'' (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)
It takes more than gumption, more than gall, and more than . . . a word I cannot say . . . to write and then de-prod an article like this: It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo of the souvenir pamphlet's editor. Let me say this: WP:42. Let us also say that it fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and, just quite possibly (although I hate to think so), WP:COI Qworty (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11 or A7. Oh my aching head. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Non-notable publication, no sources out there at all, Google returns a big 3 hits, two of them WP and one of them seemingly a blog on Malaysian cinema or something. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with above. I have no idea who wrote it, i just randomly came across it in Special:UncategorizedPages. I tried my best to decode the (obviously Indian guy's) pseudo-English and fix the formatting/shrink the picture to save his hard work, but yes agreed, the subject is definitely Non-Notable. I'm sure it's probably of cultural signifigance to the town this guy is from, but nobody else has even heard of it probably. This should probably not be on Wikipedia, but again, I am no deletionist and don't have the heart to delete much of anything. I definitely support somebody else doing that, however.--██████ 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, where reasonable attempts at identifying reliable, secondary material have failed. Although the article did satisfy G11, the subsequent contributions render that criterion inapplicable. Since the subject of the article is not an individual, organisation, or online publication, the A7 criterion is similarly inapplicable. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced. It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo. . . . . . !!!! -Rayabhari (talk) 16:15, 29 September 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cox's Bazar Govt. High School (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 verifiable reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cited a verifiable reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary school whose existence has been verified. A few independent reliable sources have been added, and there may be more local Bangladeshi sources that are not available via the internet. Braincricket (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verified secondary schools are usually considered to be notable. Needs renaming though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs work but with the recent additions it meets the minimal requirements \for secondary schools. Meters (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a student of this secondary school and i verify that all the information are correct.Sazeed76 Sazeed76 (talk) • 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but article needs serious improvement and more sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepof course per well established precedent. New Page Patrollers need to be made aware of this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 29 September 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) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Projective (financial company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable company with no assertion of notability Biker Biker (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete company with 60 workers and no notablity. SalHamton (talk) 18:24, 28 September 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. Ultimately, "fails WP:N" is a very difficult argument to get around, and the humming and hawing about maybe possibly meeting a criterion or two of WP:ACADEMIC is not supported by consensus (even its advocates don't seem to really believe it). WilyD 09:02, 4 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}} . |
— ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Pbenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 109.154.26.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Africangenesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Even if we assume, rather broadly, that the "single topic" that User:IRWolfie had in mind was anything related to global warming, I have edited on 29 other topics since 2007:
- Chaos theory
- Che Guevara
- Conscription in Germany
- Counterpoint
- Denialism
- Enumerative induction
- Ericsson cycle
- Evolution
- Fallacy
- False dilemma
- File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png
- Fluid ounce
- Health effects of tea
- Intelligent design
- Kaempferol
- Low-energy vehicle
- MDMA
- Melatonin
- Near-Earth object
- New Zealand
- Novel
- Ozone depletion
- Plug-in hybrid
- Postmodernity
- Russell Humphreys
- Sodium benzoate
- Solar variation
- Specified complexity
- Tea
- So I hardly qualify as a single purpose account. Given that are large number of my edits are in the global warming subject area, still these criteria would apply:
- "Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include
- Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.
- An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA."
- I demand that IRWolfie withdraw this dismissive personal attack.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I've been editing at wikipedia extensively during my "absences". When I'm editing non-AGW topics I don't have to login but can edit anonymously.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 95% of your contributions are to edits about global warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And it would probably been about 20% of my edits, if it hadn't been for a certain infamous cadre. You are abusing the single purpose account template, I suggest to retract it to retain some credibility.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 95% of your contributions are to edits about global warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I've been editing at wikipedia extensively during my "absences". When I'm editing non-AGW topics I don't have to login but can edit anonymously.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Cliff482 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Marcel Leroux (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 couldn't find significant coverage in google scholar or books. Google news returns various hits to various individuals. More specifically to the scientist I only found a good amount of passing mentions in the news sources (some of which were comments) but nothing providing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could find over 30 citations of his 1998 text in books and journal articles. [1]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"[2]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 [3] --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74[4]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More works in which he is the primary author:
- "Analyse météorologique des pluies torrentielles des 12 et 13 novembre 1999 dans le Languedoc-Roussillon./Meteorological analysis of the torrential rains of …"M LEROUX - Géocarrefour, 2000 - persee.fr
- "Les climats subtropicaux dits" méditerranéens" et les climats de la Méditerranée (2e partie)" M Leroux - L'Information géographique, 2002 - armand-colin.com
- " La dynamique des situations météorologiques des 21-22 et 26-27 septembre 1992 dans le sud du couloir rhodanien / The dynamics of the meteorological patterns of 21-22 and 26-27 September 1992 in the southern Rhône corridor" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1993 lien Volume 68 lien Issue 68-2 lien pp. 139-152
- "Paléométéorologie de la région de Taoudenni" M Leroux - 1991 - cat.inist.fr
- "Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France: autopsie des agglutinations anticycloniques des hivers de 1988 à 1992" M Leroux, S Aubert, J Comby, V Mollica… - Science et changements
- "Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France : autopsie de la situation anticyclonique du 19 décembre 1989 au 25 janvier 1990 / The winter rainfall deficiency in France : autopsy of the anticyclonic situation from the 19 December 1989 to the 25 January 1990" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1991 lien Volume 66 lien Issue 66-3 lien pp. 197-206
- Works in which he is not the primary author, I will keep adding them here:
- "Are There Solar Signals in the African Monsoon and Rainfall?" H Faure, M Leroux - Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions …, 1990
- "Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the Last Glacial Maximum" AM Lezine, JP Tastet, M Leroux - Quaternary Research, 1994 - Elsevier
- "Relationships Between Polar Highs Activity and Air Temperature Anomalies in the North Pacific Region" A Favre, M Leroux, A Gershunov - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2003
- "POSTER: Relationships between the Features Variationsof Highs and Lows in the North Atlantic Region and North Atlantic Oscillationfrom 1950 to 2000" A Pommier, M Leroux - 1st International CLIVAR Science Conference, 2004
- --Africangenesis (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More works in which he is the primary author:
- His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74[4]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 30-100 citations for a book is pretty standard in academia, it's not a sign of notability. Here is a standard book [5] by someone else which has 1000 citations. There are articles and books with several hundreds citations by individuals who aren't notable. That he wrote books doesn't necessarily contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a citation for that not being notable? You are sticking to this even though you initially thought a negative finding on a google scholar search was significant. We now find it is far from negative. BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. [6][7][8][9]--Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to repeat it again, having a few citations doesn't help with notability. These citations are all routine for an experienced academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you don't have a citation, it is just your opinion.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to repeat it again, having a few citations doesn't help with notability. These citations are all routine for an experienced academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a citation for that not being notable? You are sticking to this even though you initially thought a negative finding on a google scholar search was significant. We now find it is far from negative. BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. [6][7][8][9]--Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 [3] --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"[2]--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The first poster who suggested deletion on Sept. 7 claimed "him writing a PhDthesis on the subject, for instance, does not show his views are accepted or rue, as the article claims". Yet this comment was ignorant of the fact that Leroux PhD was republished by the WMO and distributed to all member countries. If the work had no significance, one cannot imagine why the WMO would do that!
2) Leroux was Professor Emeritus of Universities, Former Director of the Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine, CRCTA (dakar), former Director of the LCRE in Lyon France, Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques (teaching excellence).
3) Since when Google is an arbiter of scientific excellence? Many often cited papers are unfortunately terrible science...
4) Leroux university textbook has been very successful and seen 2 French editions (1996 and 2000 with a 2004 reprinting in France) and 2 editions in English (Wiley and Springer), the latest in 2010 two years after he passed away. Lamont Doherty scientist Dr. George Kukla figures among those acknowledged in the last one. Are the deletion supporters knowledgeable in meteorology, climatology? Or is it a witchhunt based on differing scientific opinion?
In any case none of the arguments presented by the supporters of deletion amount to any scientific or biographical knowledge of this French climatologist. In consequence I support the page be left alone and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 1. The WMO seems to host a lot of theses, that's not really something that shows notability. 2. Being a professur emeritus doesn't help with notability, having an award for good teaching in your country doesn't show notability. The Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine isn't notable. 3. I don't care whether he is a good scientist or not, just whether he is notable or not, that is a different question. 4. This isn't an AfD argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is no evidence that the WMO did indeed distribute his thesis William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously Connolley never read Leroux "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" Springer 2001 in which it is written: Based on original French edition, "Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale" published by Champion/Slatkine, Paris/Geneve 1983!!! Therefore Connolley's post is uninformed and misleading. ShowTimeAgain
- Pardon? How does that demonstrate that the WMO distributed his thesis? But you're partly right, I've never read it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Bibliography: http://lcre.univ-lyon3.fr/climato/Marcel_Leroux_biblio.pdf ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, is that what you're relying on? I presume you mean "Publié et diffusé par l'Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM), Genève, subventions de l'Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), Paris, du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) et du Ministère de la Coopération, Paris". But that refers to the 1983 book (is that the same as his thesis? I suppose it might be. But again, there is no evidence for that). Also, that is definitely not the same thing as "His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states" which is what the article said, until I removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leroux: "In 1983, my book Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale (published by Champion-Slatkine) appeared: it was two volumes, the first (22x30cm) of 636 pages, with 349 figures, and the second (31x46cm) of 24 pages of notes and an atlas of 250 charts. This was a condensed version of a state doctoral thesis in climatology undertaken in 1980. This publication was supported, principally by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, and by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)..." If the formulation needed precision, why don't you modify, correct it instead of deleting Mr. Connolley? May I suggest you go to the Stanford University Library to read it first hand http://searchworks.stanford.edu/?q=%22Leroux%2C+Marcel.%22&search_field=search_author
- Ah, is that what you're relying on? I presume you mean "Publié et diffusé par l'Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM), Genève, subventions de l'Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), Paris, du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) et du Ministère de la Coopération, Paris". But that refers to the 1983 book (is that the same as his thesis? I suppose it might be. But again, there is no evidence for that). Also, that is definitely not the same thing as "His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states" which is what the article said, until I removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Bibliography: http://lcre.univ-lyon3.fr/climato/Marcel_Leroux_biblio.pdf ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? How does that demonstrate that the WMO distributed his thesis? But you're partly right, I've never read it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously Connolley never read Leroux "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" Springer 2001 in which it is written: Based on original French edition, "Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale" published by Champion/Slatkine, Paris/Geneve 1983!!! Therefore Connolley's post is uninformed and misleading. ShowTimeAgain
- Also, there is no evidence that the WMO did indeed distribute his thesis William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, great, so we're getting somewhere: its now clear that the original His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states to which I objected was, indeed, quite wrong. As to why I deleted it: it is exactly as I said: because there was no evidence for it. And no, I'm not obliged to scour the web for it, you're obliged to provide refs if you want to keep material in. And once again notice that we have no secondary sources at all; we're still relying entirely on him (and who is Mr Connolley?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1983 Leroux book in question is in the best universities librairies (see Stanford University Librairies link). Furthermore, page xviii of the Foreword of the Second English Edition of "Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate" Springer 2010, Leroux writes: " ... my 1980 thesis, was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO/OMM, Geneva), and was distributed within all member states." Unfortunately, Professor Leroux died in 2008 and thus cannot defend his reputation or does William M. Connolley demand to see the inhumation permit too? ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, great, so we're getting somewhere: its now clear that the original His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states to which I objected was, indeed, quite wrong. As to why I deleted it: it is exactly as I said: because there was no evidence for it. And no, I'm not obliged to scour the web for it, you're obliged to provide refs if you want to keep material in. And once again notice that we have no secondary sources at all; we're still relying entirely on him (and who is Mr Connolley?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your latest: So do un-notable scientists publish successful university textbook that warranted a second edition and a second printing of the second edition? How about receiving two editions in English? It is therefore logical that his name would have an entry in Wikipedia. This one you carefully skirted. If not an AfD debate, what is it? This looks more and more like a witchhunt against a scientist whose research does not confirm the so called consensus. This is history rewriting disguised under the pretext of your narrow criteria defining what's notable or not. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Not notable. Oh, and STA, the fact that nobody seems to know much about him is certainly not an argument in favor of his notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maintain Steven J Anderson, "nobody" who? I guess with criteria such as yours, Lady Gaga has more chance to be added to the climate science roster... Thank you for stopping by this year. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autochthony writes: *Maintain* - there are not so many simple articles about scientists - as against pop-phenomena - that we can afford for one to be deleted. Is it significant that Leroux appears to have not wholly endorsed the currently popular (not necessarily right - cf Manchester United FC) view on climate alarmism? I would not want, say, George Monbiot removed - because he seemingly differs from Leroux. Autochthony wrote: 1950 Z, 27th September 2012. 109.154.26.60 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maintain A scientist whose texts continue to be publish internationally after his death is notable. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC) [Update: in fact that's not quite accurate: the article was originally created [10] purely to support his inclusion in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming; see [11] and User:Mariojalves contributions around then William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sound like a good reason to create an article, there is no doubt he was a mainstream scientist, he could have been listed without an article, but go ahead an create a wikilink, and then the article.--Africangenesis (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is apparently no negative manifestation of such a hijacking. The scientists views are fairly presented as his views and not for the truth of the matter. What do you find objectionable? --Africangenesis (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn't notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His global warming book was published in several countries and is probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him. It is something he evidently cared deeply about. The remedy would seem to be to put it in its own section if it is inappropriate for the lead. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him - I know nothing about him. That of itself doesn't prove he's non-notable, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know who he is either, I was responding to a report at FTN, and I noticed the subject appears to be non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His global warming book was published in several countries and is probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him. It is something he evidently cared deeply about. The remedy would seem to be to put it in its own section if it is inappropriate for the lead. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn't notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know they are fairly represented according to reliable secondary sources? We have seen no reliable sources which give coverage of any aspect about this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, his book is a primary not secondary source of his opinions. It should be easy enough to verify that there is a second poshumous edition of his textbooks. These sound like reasons to participate on the article, not delete it.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misunderstood the notability requirements (and my previous sentence). Primary sources don't contribute to notability, only independent sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have failed to understand, that a publisher is a secondary source and every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field are secondary sources of notability. If the text was only being used in courses he taught as so many professors do, we might question his notability. This posthumous publication of a second edition in another language is obviously not a vanity press. Have you got something personal against the late Marcel Leroux? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And suddenly, William Connolley appears! LOL When the little soldiers attack meets with opposition, the general shows up. Of course this bunch has a vested interest to see the page on Marcel Leroux deleted. He explained in a convincing manner the working of atmospheric circulation. And anyone who read his books can see that what he predicted is happening unlike the claims of others...ShowTimeAgain
- Someone had a google scholar fail. His 1998 textbook has been cited in over 30 other books and journal articles. Presumably his recent 2nd addition will continue to be consulted as an authority. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have failed to understand, that a publisher is a secondary source and every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field are secondary sources of notability. If the text was only being used in courses he taught as so many professors do, we might question his notability. This posthumous publication of a second edition in another language is obviously not a vanity press. Have you got something personal against the late Marcel Leroux? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misunderstood the notability requirements (and my previous sentence). Primary sources don't contribute to notability, only independent sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, his book is a primary not secondary source of his opinions. It should be easy enough to verify that there is a second poshumous edition of his textbooks. These sound like reasons to participate on the article, not delete it.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know they are fairly represented according to reliable secondary sources? We have seen no reliable sources which give coverage of any aspect about this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A publisher isn't a source. The book is the source, he wrote the book, therefore it's primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence for "every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. STA and Africangenesis, the biggest problem here is the lack of referenced third party coverage of Dr. Leroux in his article. Per the general notability guidelines, inclusion in Wikipedia generally implies that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Right now every reference in the article aside from the link to his obituary goes to a work that he wrote himself. This is fine for establishing what he believes, but we generally also need references to third-party coverage of his work in order to show that his work / life was significant enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Every academic writes papers, and many write books; however, we expect academics with Wikipedia pages to be more notable than the average professor. Without references to third-party coverage of Dr. Leroux, it is hard to know whether his career was highly notable or merely average for an academic. Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the WMC article be a good comparison? There are lots of blog references to Leroux as well, and his academic credentials are far superior.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense to WMC, but the William Connolley article is also pretty weak on notability. That said, if you look at the 28 references, about 40% were written by people other than Dr. Connolley. That's a lot better starting position from which to judge notability than the current article on Dr. Leroux. If, like Dr. Connolley, there are books, newspapers, and academic journals that discuss Dr. Leroux, then that would go a long way towards establishing his notability. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: the WMO and Leroux Thesis. Wikipedia is built on improving articles. William Connolley could have corrected the initial wording. Instead he simply deleted any mention about the WMO. In doing so he obfuscated information relevant to Leroux prestige: why would a Swiss based editor undertake publishing a French thesis if it was not for the financial support of the WMO. Considering the size of the publication, one imagine that no doctoral student would have the means to do so by himself. This was therefore a significant show of consideration for his scientific work. In fact the 20:07 Sept. 28, 2012 by Connolley shows the true motive behind the deletion: Leroux scientific position against Global Warming. This is a shameful witch hunt. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense to WMC, but the William Connolley article is also pretty weak on notability. That said, if you look at the 28 references, about 40% were written by people other than Dr. Connolley. That's a lot better starting position from which to judge notability than the current article on Dr. Leroux. If, like Dr. Connolley, there are books, newspapers, and academic journals that discuss Dr. Leroux, then that would go a long way towards establishing his notability. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the WMC article be a good comparison? There are lots of blog references to Leroux as well, and his academic credentials are far superior.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: I thought William Connolley had been suspended or banned from editing technical content because of lack of technical knowledge. Just because some of Leroux findings based on actual data differ from other so-called climate scientists (such as (Dr) Gavin Schmidt, who does not know about the Schmidt number and I suggest neither does Connolley) is no reason to delete information about Leroux and his substantial work. § pbenken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbenken (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - About History: User 54.240.197.33 from Seattle who on September 7, 2012 suggested deletion had not posted on Leroux before or any other climatology related article. In fact his first post was on Java Framework on August 27. He posted only once on Leroux and has since then stopped posting under his IP after Sept. 23. On Sept. 25, poster IR Wolfie took over on the deletion nomination after having issued a notability review on Aug. 31. On sept. 28 8:11, William M. Connolley appears with a tirade about "global warming deniers"... ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Objection is raised to the removal of this article. The only reason for such removal on its face is to limit references to those who do not support the Global Man-made Climate Change Agenda. This is part and parcel of Connolley's previous procedures in modifying articles in the past to suit his agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliff482 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Appears to fail WP:GNG as there is not much coverage in reliable news sources, however, if a reliable source can be found to confirm "He was made a chevalier (knight) in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002", I believe that would be a pass for WP:ACADEMIC #2 or #3. FurrySings (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the lowest grade of the award. No citation is present. Let me quote WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I think we have such a lack. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Working in conjunction with Connolley hey IRWolfie, each one taking a page? French Republic Official Journal web archives does not go back further than 2004. Yet Leroux was made a chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002 and the nomination was signed by Hervé Célestin, Secretary of the Order Council and Luc Ferry, Minister of Youth, National Education and Research as written on the certificate.ShowtimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence at all that he has the award. Requests for a citation have been met with removal of the request and an implausible citation to a 1983 book [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is evidence of Marcel Leroux being awarded the title of Chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes Academiques: here is the proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leroux_2002_Palmes.jpg
- As for the so called "implausible citation": the confusion was the result of my lacking clarity in writing a brief description of an edit, mixing two issues the OMM and the Palmes. To make a mountain out of a molehill of this mixup is petty. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the lowest grade of the award. No citation is present. Let me quote WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I think we have such a lack. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The image isn't proof as we have no way to determine if it is genuine, where did you get that image? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IRWolfie, are you a "birther" or what? Can't you suddenly read Wikipedia pages? I requested proof of Leroux award to Leroux Estate to which I am not related. I received the scan from which I first described the signatories. Connolley and you denied my word. I thus requested written permission from the Estate to post it and received it from his own daughter. Except among "birthers", the fact Professor Leroux is a Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques is well known and this certificate is authentic as any recipient of the Order can attest. Your counterclaim is ridiculous. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The education award does not confer notability, it is the lowest grade of award of this type and does not necessarily contribute to notability. It seems to be a standard education award for an academic, and lots of them appear to be given out (judging from google, I can't find the specifics because they have a bad website which can't load the pages I want: [13]). Secondly, we have a complete lack of independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "it seems"? That's your personal appreciation not an objective criteria. Palmes Academiques are given to recognized academics. I am glad you too find the "www.amopa.asso.fr" website lacking convenience. Same with the Journal Officiel of the French Republic where such nominations are published and which web archives do not go further back than 2004. As I already said, the authenticity of this document is obvious since the risk of displaying it so publicly should it be faked would overwhelm the inconvenience of the deletion of some wikipedia page. I understand that the Leroux Estate would have rather kept this certificate off the web but they felt it was their duty to protect the reputation of the late professor from your (Personal attack removed).ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some reference material: Michael A Fortune (January 1, 2007). "Global Warming: Myth Or Reality?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 88 (1): 89. Retrieved October 2, 2012.; U.S. Senate Report. There's more in the French language. Plus the less popular reliable sources that might cover this topic and it adds up to passing WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [14] is a mention of his book. [15] is a review of said book. How does this contribute to his notability rather than the books? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And its not a Senate report; its lying William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [14] is a mention of his book. [15] is a review of said book. How does this contribute to his notability rather than the books? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:32, 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) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mud Bowl (Green Bay Packers) (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: Lack of reliable sources in the article Richiekim (talk) 19:58, 25 September 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 September 25. Snotbot t • c » 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, fails GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only thing I can find for it being "notable" is that it was a NFC Divisional Playoff game, that the field was muddy due to conditions, and that it helped the Packers win Super Bowl XXXI. Since there are other games that likely fit this, I would say goodbye to the article. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. I don't believe I'd ever heard of it before seeing this AfD. AutomaticStrikeout 18:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably Delete no reliable sources...doesn't distinguish itself from any other playoff game per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:17, 30 September 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) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PappaRoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Only one significant ref which reads like a press release. Others merely confirm the existence of the company. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Read like an advertisement Velella Velella Talk 11:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Several of the English sources I have found are insufficient including this and this (the latter is extremely promotional and would provide little for Wikipedia). There is a press release here and this article only mentions them three times as a "sales drop". The only article I have found that isn't promotional, insufficient or a press release is this Korea Times news article where PappaRoti was sued. I found two other small mentions that aren't worth listing here. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 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) 21:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 25 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following the Voice of Blood (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't appeared in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full length studio album released on a notable record label. See previous AfD for other reasons of course. The Undead Never Die (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 13 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) 02:20, 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) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:40, 25 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Immortal Pride (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full length studio album released on a notable record label. Also, see review [16].The Undead Never Die (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 13 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) 02:19, 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) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to article on band. Lack of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 26 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spears of Heaven (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Another full length studio album released on a notable record label, with multiple reviews from third party sources. Lords of Metal Review Hierophant Nox Review. The Undead Never Die (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 13 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) 02:19, 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) 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge WP:NMUSIC says track-listing-style articles on non-notable albums should normally be merged to the band article, here Graveland. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 26 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Impaler's Wolves (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:07, 12 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) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable release which was released on a notable label. (Osmose) Appears in 3rd party reviews.The Undead Never Die (talk) 02:49, 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) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If you say it fails a certain aspect of Wikipedia, you need to say which part and why. Just a blanket "fails this etc..." isn't really good enough. The Undead Never Die (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes, it is. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 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 redirect to Graveland#Discography. Merging as appropriate can be done from history with proper attribution. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Raise Your Sword! (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)
cannot be established to be Wikipedia notable - e.g. is not covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 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) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 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) 21:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:NMUSIC. No in-depth coverage.--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Graveland#Discography. The album does not seem to have garnered enough notice to be independently notable, but a redirect to the band's discography seems an appropirate solution. Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 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) 01:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wotan Mit Mir (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 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) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 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) 21:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:43, 25 September 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 Graveland#Discography. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carpathian Wolves (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 and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:GNG. Potential RSs:[17][18], (SPSs:[19][20][21]). Otherwise, merge to Graveland, per WP:NALBUMS, because the current version of the article is little more than a track listing. There is some encyclopedic content to be gleaned from the reviews, which warrants inclusion. -- Trevj (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 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) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 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) 21:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to article on band. Lack of notability. I don't think SSMT Reviews is a reliable source, as it appears to be a one-man operation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 26 September 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) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Poo-Pourri (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-time orphan, long-time no references, appears to be largely promotional, there is barely a page on Febreze, let alone a minor air freshening product. Spicyitalianmeatball (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nom. Francl (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable product at this time. Google News found this newspaper blog that would provide nothing for Wikipedia. Google News archives also found nothing significant for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 11 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I would like to hear more about whether there are reliable sources available that would prove the subject passes the general notability guideline. This is addressed in SwisterTwister's comment, but not in the nomination or in Francl's comment. It might also be worth seeing if there is a company article or another broader-scope article that this can be merged into, per the notability guidelines for products. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's quite a bit of press coverage though most of the articles are quite short[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] or pay-to-view[30][31]. There's also a bit of coverage of Karoma including this substantial article[32]. Merging into a company-article might be better as I'm not quite sure if the Poo-Pourri articles constitute substantial coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I wouldn't disagree with a merge but there hasn't been any evidence that the product is owned by a company but rather by Suzy Batiz. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Certainly an article fully meeting WP:V can be constructed here with available sourcing. As to whether that meets WP:GNG is a subjective question and the prospects are borderline at best, and its certainly no Committee to End Pay Toilets in America, but it would be a shame to flush this.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:26, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, reads like an ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The whole article is based on a single, primary source, and isn't particularly encylopaedic either. The brand's notability is very dubious, with a quick look on a search engine producing little other than pages from the company itself and blog posts.--Donkey1989 - talk 22:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as blatant WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:26, 26 September 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) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Skjend Hans Lik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
subject cannot be found to be notable/have been featured in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 13 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) 12:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No outside sources and no claims for notability. FurrySings (talk) 15:08, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:46, 25 September 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. If someone wants a userfied copy contact me. No prejudice against recreation after the award starts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brunel University African Poetry Prize (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 minor award. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a minor award. It is sponsored by Commonwealth Writers (one of the world's major literary organizations), it includes notable people on the jury, is pan-African in scope. The award was announced on the Poetry Foundation's website (it's a PR). Poetry Foundation's announcement shows this is not a minor award. Poetry Foundation is the world's biggest/richest poetry group, in the world of poetry there is nothing bigger. I agree that there could be better sourcing, but once the first award is announced in April 2013 there will be even more. Given the evidence above I would ask the courtesy this article remain for now and revisit after April 2013, with appropriate tagging for better sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- poetry foundation website is not third party, if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BooksLive article. Also concern about WP:SYSTEMIC, calling it "minor" is a value judgement about a topic related to a third world country (continent) which naturally will have fewer sources than normal. It's remarkable this award has 2000+ hits on Google, unusual for an African literary award, much less one that has yet to even start yet. I think the sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. AfD was your first choice in this issue with no previous discussion and perhaps too strong a tool. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- poetry foundation website is not third party, if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a measure of notability. bookslive article is a blog and not considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BooksLive is an online publication with editorial oversight that just happens to call itself a "blog", it's reliable. Given the normal SYSTEMIC lack of sources on African topics (and subsequent WP:SYSTEMIC bias against African topics on Wikipedia), the number of Google hits is worth pointing out in deciding to keep the article until April 13 for additional sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if the award starts April 2013, you are assuming future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the article and cited here and on Google are enough to consider keeping the article for now until April 13 when additional sources will either make or break it. Until then a top hat "more sources needed" can be used. Given the weight of evidence in total and WP:SYSTEMIC issues the article should be given some time, don't understand the rush to delete. Asked for courtesy of extra time, none given by nominator who didn't use "more sources" template, went straight to AfD with personal opinion of "minor award" on a topic that is dead center of the systemic bias problems on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the find sources template yields just one gnews hit [33]. therefore this fails WP:GNG. not sure why you keep persisting about this article's notability. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Relevant to the above discussion, from WP:AFD: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." That is what I am asking for. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I do not see the independent significant coverage for this prize which has yet to actually happen. No prejudice to recreation in the future if coverage becomes available then. -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG at present. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. Kudos to GC for putting in the effort to create a stub. At the moment, even making allowances for systemic bias, there is just not enough independent, meaty coverage to support an article (WP:GNG). Creator wishes for 7 months time to work on it, including after the first award is made. That's rather longer than we generally mean in terms of "allow contributors more time to develop the article", but there is no reason to vaporize the content GC has created. Move it to his/her user space to incubate while waiting for more sources, without prejudice to moving back to article space once expanded if indeed the notability pans out. Martinp (talk) 15:11, 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 no consensus. Essentially a lack of discussion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Innovation journalism (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 a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism. OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Further research indicates that no only is David Nordfors, the self-proclaimed creator of this neologism one of the main authors, the IP creator of the article comes from Stanford University, the workplace of Mr Nordfors. It's hard to see this article as something else than an attempt to popularize the neologism. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but stub I get enough GBook hits mentioning this to be convinced that people in the field hold it to be a real thing. The problem is that our article was clearly written partly by Nordfors and more so by a Finnish IP with a clear connection to another work in the field. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 10 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) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge the one key point into Innovation communication systems if you must. As much as I read, I quickly came to the conclusion this article is a fancy name for Yellow journalism. Innovation journalism could be cited there as the modern day version. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Editors - Yes, I participated in writing these articles, but more people were involved than me. The Innovation Journalism initiative started in 2004 and has had many participants and several national programs. A quick search on the web should be enough for you to confirm this fact. How OpenFuture comes to the conclusion that innovation journalism is yellow journalism is a mystery. Please show evidence for this theory. OpenFuture seems to be a native Swede. A large number of journalists in Sweden have been part of this initiative, it is a well known initiative among journalists. I suggest you read this 2010 press release from the journalism department of the Linne University, saying explicitly that they have an innovation journalism project. Here is a recent conference where the Linne University again present innovation journalism. It is also know among journalists in other countries. I can share more links if you wish. I happen to be Swedish, like OpenFuture. Perhaps we even know each other, although I don't know because OpenMind does not reveal his/her name. There seems to be a personal disliking involved in this discussion. The 'oh no, not another one of Nordfors vanity articles' is an insulting comment. I'd appreciate an apology. Perhaps that kind of comment comes easier when writing under pseudonym. --dnordfors (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute resolution Let's have a dispute resolution in this matter.--dnordfors (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Innovation Journalism Finnish Wikipedia entry There is also a finnish wikipedia entry http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovaatiojournalismi --dnordfors (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, you have not read what I wrote particularly carefully, you mix me up with somebody else and you seem to think that this somehow is an issue about you personally. No, I don't know you and have never met you. This is not about you, it is about the article. I've noticed that there are several articles about you and your topics, that are to a large part edited by you. These articles, like the article about you that was recently deleted, are to a significant aspect edited by you, and sourced by you to your own publications. The articles seem self-serving and aimed at increasing the spread and usage of the neologisms in question. (You can hardly deny that InJo and Innovation Journalism are neologisms, the article clearly states that you suggested the concepts yourself). The evidence that these articles should continue to exist is far between.
- It is also completely obvious that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing ANY of these articles, and despite being notified of this, you continue to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it this is not a personal topic, why are you discussing me and not Innovation Journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnordfors (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me you want to delete the Innovation Journalism page, regardless the standing of the topic. It's all about my participation in editing it. It has been edited by several people. --dnordfors (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not discussion you. A part of this topic is the fact that you edit these pages despite the conflict of interest. That is not about you. It is about the articles. You need to understand that neither this AfD, nor these articles, nor Wikipedia in general is about you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is not about me, what do you mean by saying "Oh no! Not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles"? This is not about me? --dnordfors (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about you. It's about the articles. If you create a vanity article, then it's still not about you, it's still about the article. There are a lot of articles about more or less the same topic, edited to significant extend by you, all claiming you as the inventor of the term and using mostly you as a source. I think the term "vanity article" is fitting. And that's a description of the article (as evidenced by the term vanity *article*) and not a description of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity article gets no hits on Wikipedia. It seems to allude to vanity press which is pejorative. The exclamation "Oh no! *not another*" is not nice. I am insulted by it. I don't understand what is achieved by using such language.Now, I am putting my real name on this discussion. What is your real name? --dnordfors (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about you. It's about the articles. If you create a vanity article, then it's still not about you, it's still about the article. There are a lot of articles about more or less the same topic, edited to significant extend by you, all claiming you as the inventor of the term and using mostly you as a source. I think the term "vanity article" is fitting. And that's a description of the article (as evidenced by the term vanity *article*) and not a description of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is not about me, what do you mean by saying "Oh no! Not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles"? This is not about me? --dnordfors (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not discussion you. A part of this topic is the fact that you edit these pages despite the conflict of interest. That is not about you. It is about the articles. You need to understand that neither this AfD, nor these articles, nor Wikipedia in general is about you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute Resolution Initiated To stop this from escalating, I have requested a dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Innovation_Journalism --dnordfors (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Focus on Content The page on Dispute Resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution suggests to focus on content. Sounds like a good idea. OpenFuture - I suggest we discuss Innovation Journalism as a topic. Thereafter we may discuss who should be doing what. Please look at the article and say what you think about the Innovation Journalism as content. What - contentwise - is missing, if anything? If the content is OK, we can address the allegated conflict of interest. In nothing else, someone (not me) might rework the article. That should solve any conflict of interest considerations. --dnordfors (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so discussing Innovation journalism is pointless. The discussions are about the articles. This is always what I have discussed, and nothing else, and I will not discuss anything else. What, contentwise, is missing is stated in the AfD: "This is a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism." Hence, what is needed is third-party sources showing notability. Is there for example any reliable sources from major news outlets about this topic?
- You need to remember that as the originator of the term this is likely to be a very personal issue close to your heart. For Wikipedia it is not. You need to try to step outside of yourself and see this objectively.
- For example, of the current sources, three are by you. Those are obviously not third-party sources. One is published by "Innovation Journalism", a publication I can't find any information about, but whose website now turns out to be your blog. This is clearly not a third-party source. One is about a pilot course on Innovation Journalism, a course which you according to the paper visited, was held by somebody you worked with at Stanford and who has as one of three aims to "establish international co-operation in InJo education between The Department of Communication (University of Jyväskylä) and SCIL (Stanford University)". This is also obviously no an independent source.
- None of the above sources therefor help to establish notability. One of the last two sources is a dead link, so it doesn't help either.
- That leaves one source. Unfortunately, it's in German, so it's very hard to judge it if you don't speak German.
- I really don't think this establishes the notability of this term very well at all. Would you think differently if this was another topic? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - I will respond to matters relating to notability here. The matters you bring up about conflict of interest are addressed under "Disclosure / Conflict of Interest". Let's please separate between these two issues.
- Examples of third party sources:
- World Economic Forum - one of the seven listed topics setting the agenda for the future of media: https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GAC/issue_descriptions/FutureofMedia.pdf
- SAAMA TV Pakistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1BkuX6AwE
- Voice of America News (in Urdu) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTIZO0RdrI
- PBS feature - http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/12/stanford-program-breaks-down-walls-between-business-tech-journalism344.html
- Fojo - Linnaeus University in Kalmar - http://lnu.se/1.32367/fojo-focus-on-innovation-journalism?l=en
- Venturebeat: http://venturebeat.com/2008/03/29/qa-with-david-nordfors-on-innovation-journalism-audio/
- European Journalism Centre http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/innovation_journalism_copyright_and_commons/
- NDTV Profit India http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPBz9ET0-k
- I can give more examples if requested.
- The innovation journalism journal was started by me in 2004.It is indexed by Google Scholar.The managing editor is Kirsten Mogensen at Roskilde University in Denmark. IJ has a panel of reviewers: http://journal.innovationjournalism.org/p/review-committee.html
- --dnordfors (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't have time right now, and since I've already been forced to waste hours on nonsense, I can't look at these sources in any depth now, nor for several days. It is obvious even at a brief glance that they at the minimum are vast improvements to what you have provided so far, in that the at least are one step removed from you, where the previous sources where not. I can't say anything about how they fulfill wp:rs at the moment. Youtube videos generally make poor sources, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - I will respond to matters relating to notability here. The matters you bring up about conflict of interest are addressed under "Disclosure / Conflict of Interest". Let's please separate between these two issues.
- Disclosure / Conflict of Interest Noleanders comments on the dispute resolution page are helpful. The originator has the right to edit the article as long as the statements are supported by a valid source. It is reasonable to ask for disclosure. I am willing to provide that. Does this solve the Conflict of Interest issue? We need to separate the discussions around alleged conflict of interest and notability. Lets discuss notability under "Focus on Content". Let's discuss conflict of interest issues here. --dnordfors (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - You bring up some issues relating to conflict of interest in your comment posted 19:33.
- Your comment on how the originator should think is off-topic unless you are referring to me. Since you are saying this discussion is not about me I will not comment.
- You ask if I would think differently if this was another topic? This is again about me, but I will answer. The answer is no. I would think the same.I would appreciate disclosure, but as long as the references are OK, it really doesn't matter who wrote it.--dnordfors (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let's not discuss it here. This article is called "Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism". The topic is if the article Innovation journalism should be deleted. A topic that has been notably absent in most of your comments here. Discuss conflicts of interest on your page, the article page or on the relevant noticeboard, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - I understand you are saying that the allegations of "conflict of interest" are no longer on the agenda. This is only about "notability". Correct? --dnordfors (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see what I wrote that is unclear. I'm sorry, I really don't have the time to waste on this, I've already wasted my whole evening on it, and will not respond to anything that is not strictly on topic from now on. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very simple. Just confirm that "conflict of interest" is no longer being discussed. A simple 'yes' is enough. --dnordfors (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see what I wrote that is unclear. I'm sorry, I really don't have the time to waste on this, I've already wasted my whole evening on it, and will not respond to anything that is not strictly on topic from now on. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - I understand you are saying that the allegations of "conflict of interest" are no longer on the agenda. This is only about "notability". Correct? --dnordfors (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let's not discuss it here. This article is called "Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism". The topic is if the article Innovation journalism should be deleted. A topic that has been notably absent in most of your comments here. Discuss conflicts of interest on your page, the article page or on the relevant noticeboard, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The term "innovation journalism" is mentioned by quite a few secondary sources. I see 51,000 hits on google; between 100 and 200 on Google Books; and 341 on Google Scholar. One writes "Lately, she has been a visiting scholar at the Innovation Journalism program at Stanford University, California. .." indicating the Standford University has some interest in this (as well as the European connections that are more predominant). Granted this is a very recent field of study, and the term was only invented in 2004. If the term were used only by blogs & children, maybe it would not meet notability requirements, but - to the contrary - it is used primarily by academic sources which are precisely the high-quality sources WP prefers. Turning to conflict-of-interest issues: the WP:PRIMARY guideline suggests that we should emphasize sources other than those written by the originator of the term to help make the decision. Google seems to indicate that the majority of the sources are not by the originator (see secondary). As for the content of the article: the WP:Original research policy suggests that the sources used as a basis for the article should primarily be sources that are not by a founder/advocate of the field, but rather sources written by journalists or other academics that are more impartial. --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - this is fine by me, I will insert the references in the article. Can the deletion-banner be removed thereafter, or is there a specified procedure for doing it? --dnordfors (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute Resolved To summarize: It has been suggested that Innovation Journalism is a non-notable neologism. However, the discussion has concluded that the concept is prevalent in searches on the web, Google Scholar and Google Books. Notable institutions are among the sources, which are to a large part academic. The article has been re-edited, including additional third party sources. This resolves the dispute. I suggest to remove the marked-for-deletion tag after 48 hours from the posting of this comment if there is no opposition until then. --dnordfors (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You, as not only involved in this, but having a personal interest in the retaining of that article, can not declare this AfD closed single-handedly. That you even attempt to do so is quite astonishing. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - you are talking about me again. Please talk about the article. We have discussed your initial claim that the article should be deleted since it is a non-noteable neologism. Information has been added. If you still are of the opinion that the article should be deleted for this reason, please argue for it right now. Both of us have spent a lot of time, it can be a good time to round this off. --dnordfors (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenFuture - I have initiated another Dispute Resolution since it seems we still may be in dispute. I suggest keeping the resolution alive until we settled this AfD --dnordfors (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your weird attempts of wikilawyering and trying to ignore normal Wikipedia processes are not going to do you any good. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the new Dispute Resolution constructive. This is the first time I am going through these procedures, the volunteers in the Dispute Resolution have so far been kind and helpful in informing about possible ways to proceed. I have learned that neither of us can close this discussion or remove the banner for deletion, we need a site administrator for that. You and I seem to have said what we have to say in the factual matter - i.e. non-notable neologism. We lack mutual trust, I don't see our discussion getting any better by going on like this. So if you have no more arguments supporting the case for deletion, perhaps it is a good time to call for the attention of a site administrator to judge. It has gone two weeks since the case was filed. What do you say? --dnordfors (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to cool down and follow normal Wikipedia procedures and policies. There's no point in being all panicky about it now, it's been tagged as not being notable for more than a year. You could have done something about it then. If you want to save this article, rewrite it based on reliable-third-party sources. You can probably still use yourself as a source when you have to, but you need a reliable third-party source to claim you coined the term, and you need reliable third-party sources for most of the stuff in the article. That means not your papers, and not articles written by people you work with. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I has been substantially rewritten and now contains third party sources on top of the original publications. There are several contributing editors involved in writing the article. Are there any specifics you wish to comment on after these revisions? --68.65.164.205 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC) --dnordfors (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not having so much time right now. I did a quick read through and tagged the blatantly obvious problems anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I has been substantially rewritten and now contains third party sources on top of the original publications. There are several contributing editors involved in writing the article. Are there any specifics you wish to comment on after these revisions? --68.65.164.205 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC) --dnordfors (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to cool down and follow normal Wikipedia procedures and policies. There's no point in being all panicky about it now, it's been tagged as not being notable for more than a year. You could have done something about it then. If you want to save this article, rewrite it based on reliable-third-party sources. You can probably still use yourself as a source when you have to, but you need a reliable third-party source to claim you coined the term, and you need reliable third-party sources for most of the stuff in the article. That means not your papers, and not articles written by people you work with. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the new Dispute Resolution constructive. This is the first time I am going through these procedures, the volunteers in the Dispute Resolution have so far been kind and helpful in informing about possible ways to proceed. I have learned that neither of us can close this discussion or remove the banner for deletion, we need a site administrator for that. You and I seem to have said what we have to say in the factual matter - i.e. non-notable neologism. We lack mutual trust, I don't see our discussion getting any better by going on like this. So if you have no more arguments supporting the case for deletion, perhaps it is a good time to call for the attention of a site administrator to judge. It has gone two weeks since the case was filed. What do you say? --dnordfors (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your weird attempts of wikilawyering and trying to ignore normal Wikipedia processes are not going to do you any good. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You, as not only involved in this, but having a personal interest in the retaining of that article, can not declare this AfD closed single-handedly. That you even attempt to do so is quite astonishing. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:03, 22 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:39, 25 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stu Maddux (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 article, seems a COI. The one independent film he produced *might* be notable, but the sources seem to be talking round him, or in most cases, don't pass WP:RS Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at pushing at WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Rather than being thought a BLP1E, we do not have just one film. He produced 2, directed 3, and wrote & edited two. Short career, yes... but coverage for more than one thing. In their lengthy article, Edge writes "Director Stu Maddux has made some compelling documentaries". And toward FILMMAKER, his work Gen Silent has been itself the recpient of in-depth commentary and analysis in multiple secondary sources... sources which also offer decent information about Maddux as a filmmker. Third Coast Digest After Elton Gayapolis Hartford Courant Qnotes Pride Source and Houston Chronicle to share but a few. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette calls him "Six-time Emmy award winner Stu Maddux..." and we have many others available through searches. Article needs some work, certainly... but when a filmmaker or his works recieve enough coverage, we have notability enough for Wikiedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is enough notability for the article.Vincelord (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 23:29, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:32, 25 September 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 all to 22nd Century Media. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Northbrook Tower, and others
[edit]- The Northbrook Tower (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 "hyper-local" newspaper that doesn't have any apparent notability. Google searches appear to be almost all primary sources, and I don't find anything relevant in google news either. Worth a mention in either the newspaper's parent company's article, or the Northbrook, IL article, but not a standalone article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding the following to this nomination as well as they're all drawn from the same sort of template. If one is particularly different please indicate and this can change.
- The Frankfort Station
- The Homer Horizon
- The Mokena Messenger
- The New Lenox Patriot
- The Orland Park Prairie
- The Tinley Junction
- The Lockport Legend
- The Glenview Lantern
- The Winnetka Current
- The Wilmette Beacon
They are all local papers by a parent company 22nd Century Media. They all follow roughly the same layout and style. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 11 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) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge each paper to the article or articles about the community or communities it serves, if references do not exist to satisfy notability for the particular paper. It is normal in the article about a town to mention the major papers serving the town. Edison (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with mentioning it in the town articles, and perhaps even merging these to the paper's primary company, but they're not "major" by any stretch. The papers are even self-described as "hyper-local". I also think there may be some COI editing here, since two editors (if memory serves) created all of these and they all follow almost identical formatting. Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If any of the content was supported by reliable sources that would be one thing, but as is all I can see are brief mentions elsewhere which do little more than confirm their existence, so that's really the only piece of information worth merging. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 19 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all of them for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no COI editing here in any of the articles. The old editor left the company and the Wiki page was left un-updated for a very long time. We also change our masthead logos(which you deleted for unknown reasons). These papers all have a reputation in their particular towns and deserve to be on Wikipedia. Let us know what we should do so that you people don't delete our Wiki content. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmony (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 22nd Century Media. For the most part these papers have no distinct content of their own. They generally reprint the same articles, just with a different title. Occasionally articles are omitted or included based on their location within the Chicagoland area. -Drdisque (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 22nd Century Media or delete. These are free advertising throwaways, all for the Chicago area, and not individually notable. --John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to 22nd Century Media or delete. The common effort to create the articles was based on a lack of interest in developing the articles from Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of 22nd Century Media as required by WP:GNG. That makes it likely that no Wikipedia reliable sources independent of 22nd Century Media is interested in writing about these topics such that the topics do not meet WP:GNG. Merge for now and if there is a basis to write an article from Wikipedia reliable sources independent of 22nd Century Media, then that can be done. As for the merge, you only need to merge the information that is verifiable to a Wikipedia reliable sources independent of 22nd Century Media. The rest can be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drdisque : Did you ever read the newspapers to say that we reprint the same articles, with different titles. Please verify and confirm before making such statements. Every single of 11 publications both newspapers and prints, are different. Except for some stories occasionally that share the same town. The following are our current websites. Please see it for yourselves. northbrooktower.com , winnetkacurrent.com , wilmettebeacon.com , glenviewlantern.com , opprairie.com , frankfortstation.com , newlenoxpatriot.com , tinleyjunction.com , mokenamessenger.com , homerhorizon.com , lockportlegend.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmony (talk • contribs) 18:26, 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. G3 Hoax v/r - TP 14:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tribeco (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 think neighborhoods are where we have to draw the line with regards to notability, and this one simply doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Googling for "tribeco" fort worth texas turned up nothing on Google Books, News, or News archives, save for a passing mention in a catalog from the US Patent Office. CtP (t • c) 23:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because, for a long time, the neighborhood was actually called "Tribeca". That's because Copley used to be called Calhoun, after former Vice President John C. Calhoun. Google Tribeca Texas and you'll get plenty of results. I will note the history of the name in the article as soon as I get the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Smith, Defender of Freedom (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 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) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I searched as recommended by Gary, and I found nothing of relevance (except for Plano, TX). A search for "Fort Worth" +Tribeca discovers only car advertisements. Unless Gary can actually produce these sources, I can't see a way of keeping. A reasonable search finds nothing. BusterD (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Keep'". I will get around to providing the sources very soon, I promise. I've just got a lot of shit going on in my life right now. Gary Smith, Defender of Freedom
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If such a neighborhood existed in any notable way, plenty of WP:RS would be available. Fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no relevant reliable sources to show that this neighborhood is notable enough for an encyclopedia. --Kinu t/c 05:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Look, I've got plenty of sources, trust me. I just can't put them up right now because I'm busy taking care of some shit in my private life. Things should be back to normal by the new year, at which time I'll start devising a comprehensive strategy for putting up my sources. Gary Smith, Defender of Freedom
- You only get one !vote, so I've slashed your second, but please feel free to make additional comments. CtP (t • c) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm one of Gary's friends. I've known him since first grade, and the guy's solid. He's really going through some shit right now, so cut him some slack. He just may surprise you with some of those sources he's got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.130.34 (talk • contribs)
Keep I'm Gary's sister, Margaret. You are all being too hard on Gary, especially in light of all the shit he's got going on in his personal life right now. His information comes straight from our neighborhood broadsheet, The Tribeco Torchlight. You can get a copy by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to: Tribeco Torchlight, c/o Ms. Virginia Morris, 2894 Kremer Street, apartment 6A, Fort Worth, Texas, 76106. They've been trying to put the paper online, but they've been targeted by hackers for criticizing certain individuals (e.g. Jason Smith). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.130.34 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. This is beginning to look like a hoax. A search for "Tribeco Torchlight" results in zero hits. BusterD (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note I've struck both IPs who are claiming to be different people, primarily because that is meatpuppetry, and possibly sockpuppetry. I've also blocked that IP one week for the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google maps reveals no "Kremer Street", "Copley Avenue" or "Philip Street" in Fort Worth. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 30 September 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) 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Apple Branch (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 very minor, relatively recent, Wiccan group. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing this group that would help establish any sort of notability. The only source present in the article is the group's official website, and doing the usual searches is giving me nothing that could be used to demonstrate notability. I'm only finding mentions of the group as a listing in directories of Wicca sects. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 11 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) 22:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not reaching WP:GNG. Searches are hampered for me by 'the apple branch' being a common phrase but none the less, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain but possible delete - Granted, Wiccan traditions are not going to appear through your average news sources and useful sources may not be available for the Internet and possibly kept to Wiccan members. However, Google Books found one relevant result for The Apple Branch here, but it never provides a preview. The article should be kept as it may be significant for Wiccans but it desperately needs attention from Wiccan experts. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on that link, the book is from Books LLC, which merely pulls content from Wikipedia — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that most Wiccan traditions lack citable coverage. Open traditions lost in a sea of traditions on one hand and secretive traditions avoiding attention on the other make things hard even with proper expert attention. Thankfully, Wikipedia does have established guidelines for such cases.
—Sowlos (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:42. Qworty (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile. The single source mentioned by SwisterTwister is a Google book that "primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." First Light (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move It clearly fails WP:GNG. Topics need 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' to be considered for stand-alone article coverage. However, 'Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.' The topic covered in The Apple Branch should be considered for inclusion in a new article dedicated to the topic of Wiccan traditions or in the traditions section of the already existing Contemporary Witchcraft article.
—Sowlos (talk) 03:25, 29 September 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. Its clear that consensus is we should have at least some of the information currently in the article. Whether this should be merged, and to where, is something for another venue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 3 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}} . |
- 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game (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)
- Merge: I don't think this page meets WP:N guidelines. While this game was exciting and the last play was controversial, the game itself doesn't seem to warrant its own article. EDIT: After reading comments below I am switching from "Delete" to "Merge" since the article does contain encyclopedic material. EDIT2: Specifically, I think this (and all other controversial officiating incidents) should be added to a new article at 2012 NFL referee lockout. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: SGMD1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is being suggested to be merge to. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to anyone reading the posts immediately preceding and immediately following this note: Y2kcrazyjoker4's opening comment below, "There's way more than 2", which appears to be coming out of nowhere (more than two what?) is actually an important reply, one which deflated SGMD1's claim above (since deleted by SGMD1 himself) that there are only two articles on Wikipedia dealing with single games. SGMD1 has since backed down from this claim, as can be seen in his comments below, but apparently did not recognize that by deleting his own words (instead of the more standard Wikipedia practice of striking them out) that he would have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of making a fellow editor look incoherent.HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's way more than 2: Miracle at the Meadowlands, Miracle at the New Meadowlands, Holy Roller (American football), River City Relay, Snowball Game, Snowplow Game, Clock Play... if you can't see this game joining the echelon of famous NFL endings, I question whether you have been paying attention to the coverage of this game. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, you're right, there are are 14. I know you created the article so you're obviously biased towards keeping it but there's no need to personally attack me. I'm just stating my opinion that it's presumptive, less than 20 hours after the conclusion of this game, to suggest that it has any lasting notability. I agree with Arxiloxos that some of the material in the article is certainly encyclopedic but probably belongs in 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. The only really notable event about this game is that the final call was disputed. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't meant as an attack, I'm just trying to say that having paid attention to this game throughout the news cycle today, it's making its rounds outside of sports, too, and seems to be quite notable. I mean, a NJ state senator wants to introduce legislation banning replacement officials in NJ. That's nuts. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is the wrong result here: at least some of the material is unquestionably appropriate for the encyclopedia, although perhaps not ultimately in this separate article. I'd suggest a keep for now, with an possible eye toward merging this into 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute or (if that section becomes too unwieldy) a spin-off article focused on the lockout. Unfortunately, there's every possibility of an even worse-officiated game next weekend. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now it is less likely that there will be "an even worse-officiated game" since the lockout has now ended. It is possible, just less likely. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to[reply]2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute2012 NFL referee lockout. It's always good to WP:PRESERVE. The main reason this game is notable is because of the referee dispute. Other details that are team-specific can be merged to 2012 Green Bay Packers season and 2012 Seattle Seahawks season.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)I've updated the merge destination based on the recent spinout.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both this and The monday night controversy into the aforementioned labor dispute article. This doesn't have stand-alone notability. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the reaction and responses from players, coaches, former officials and the media alone should be a good enough reason to keep this article. How is this even being debated, this game is this century's Immaculate Reception. Also the final play of the game was not the only bad call and this game is one of the NFL's most embarrasing moments. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. It is premature to speculate on the game's lasting WP:EFFECT only one day after.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now that it has been a few days, the game's lasting effect was that it was the spark that helped to end the lockout. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. It is premature to speculate on the game's lasting WP:EFFECT only one day after.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the reaction and responses from players, coaches, former officials and the media alone should be a good enough reason to keep this article. How is this even being debated, this game is this century's Immaculate Reception. Also the final play of the game was not the only bad call and this game is one of the NFL's most embarrasing moments. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. Nothing spectacular about the play itself; the bad call was the issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the monday night controversy. This is gonna go down in the history books. DodgerOfZion (talk)
- Delete or merge (but not both) — no opinion on whether we keep the content, but Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and we need to have enduring coverage before writing an article about it. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:In my opinion...There is no reason to delete this article, as it is definitely one of the most controversial games in recent memory... User: OriolesMagic
- Merge to referee controversy thing. WP does not have an article on every game, and the only thing special about this one is the controversy about the final play. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If I'm a fan of the Packers or Seahawks, I would expect this article to appear as part of the team lore in that infobox on the bottom of the page. SigKauffman (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on to your shorts; there's no reason this needs to be decided immediately. If the lockout is resolved in the next 72 hours as a result of this game's horrific ending, then yes, it will gain lasting notability. To those who think this is an overreaction, I assure you, the coverage of this event on American TV has already exceeded that of any non-Super Bowl game of the last 20 years. And perhaps we'll end up not with an article on the game, but on the play. That would not be unprecedented. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In your own words, this game has "...gain[ed] lasting notability." However, is that enough just to keep one article? 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys want to be stubborn that's fine by me, I don't want to hear the crystal ball bs that you wikipedians like to throw around. The final play was not the only bad call of the game, it was a Monday Night Football game and had the biggest reaction for a regular season game from the country in NFL history. If you would like to merge it to the 2012 NFL season article and take up a quarter of that page with this game be my guess, it's clear that this WILL be an article down the road whether or not you guys decide to keep it. Not to mention the President of the United States talked about this football game and it cost $300 million in Las Vegas. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree with the guy above me. This game and play could have serious repercussions down the line for both teams. The Seahawks could get into the playoffs because of this one game or the Packers could miss the playoffs but more likely they could end up losing home field advantage because of this call. Rarely, if ever do you ever see one play of a regular season football game get coverage on so many non sports TV networks. This article should be called "Monday Night Controversy" as its usually refereed to that on the Sports Center "coming up" ticker on the left side of the broadcast. You guys can't give any valid reason why it shouldn't be an article --Rteixeira90 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)— Rteixeira90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There are multiple issues with what you're suggesting. First, the article can't be called "Monday Night Controversy" unless there's some sort of consensus amongst secondary sources referring to it that way. Secondly, strictly speaking, the game itself wasn't notable. The final referee call WAS notable though, and has implications for the referee dispute. Any implications/repercussions for the teams can easily be added to the teams' respective Wikipedia articles. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to 2012 NFL season for now, especially the referee controversy section, since the final play was the most notable part. ZappaOMati 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With the new page 2012 NFL referee lockout page being created, I suggest a redirect to 2012 NFL referee lockout#Week 3. ZappaOMati 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although the last play is getting most of the attention, the entire last drive by the Seahawks was horribly officiated by the referees as well as the game. If you had actually watched the game you would have seen that there was a phantom roughing the passer penalty on Erik Walden where Seahawks QB Russel Wilson threw an interception that would have ended the game. Then you also have the Pass Interference penalty where CB Sam Shields was called for even though it was obviously against the Seahawks' Sidney Rice which both Jon Gruden and Mike Tirico disagreed with during the game. --Rteixeira90 (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. I saw the plays, they were egregious errors, but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post them. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude he can say what ever he wants, it's the article that you can not post personal opinions, go climb a tree. Thanks ~--Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, calm down. I was saying that personal opinions not pertaining to interpretations of Wikipedia policies probably shouldn't be considered in arguments regarding deletion and notability of articles. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you meant but he beliefs on that game are the same as the media, a lot of players, and coaches. Tirico and Gruden disagreed with a lot of calls in that game, that is not a personal opinion. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, and I was saying that Wikipedia is/should be based primarily on facts, not opinions. I apologize if my comments implied otherwise. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you meant but he beliefs on that game are the same as the media, a lot of players, and coaches. Tirico and Gruden disagreed with a lot of calls in that game, that is not a personal opinion. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, calm down. I was saying that personal opinions not pertaining to interpretations of Wikipedia policies probably shouldn't be considered in arguments regarding deletion and notability of articles. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude he can say what ever he wants, it's the article that you can not post personal opinions, go climb a tree. Thanks ~--Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. I saw the plays, they were egregious errors, but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post them. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest keep possible This game has created a huge uproar regarding the replacement refs. It's generated a ton of media coverage. I fail to see how this could possibly fail to be notable. AutomaticStrikeout 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the game has not created a huge uproar. The call at the end of the game has created a huge uproar. This is a very important distinction. If this article is about the game itself, it requires a lot of information that simply isn't notable (i.e. the description of the first 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the game.) SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an honest question not meant to troll, etc.: How do you get around WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which states that Wikipedia assesses the enduring notability of a subject? Do you think that solely this play will be remembered, or the collection of bad officiating? Personally, I'd say it's the collection and that's why I support merging it. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my position, there needs to be some kind of article directly dealing with at least the ending of this game. Perhaps it would be best to rename the article and focus it on the final play. However, having information about the earlier part of the game is beneficial in the sense that it would give the readers some context. AutomaticStrikeout 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree with your assessment, Go Phightins! SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an honest question not meant to troll, etc.: How do you get around WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which states that Wikipedia assesses the enduring notability of a subject? Do you think that solely this play will be remembered, or the collection of bad officiating? Personally, I'd say it's the collection and that's why I support merging it. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the game has not created a huge uproar. The call at the end of the game has created a huge uproar. This is a very important distinction. If this article is about the game itself, it requires a lot of information that simply isn't notable (i.e. the description of the first 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the game.) SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rename and Comment According to what I am reading, the problem with the article is that it is important for only one play in the game which is why it should be merged. However, this leads us to a problem over several other articles. The Music City Miracle is only important for one play, which was first ruled a touchdown, was considered inconclusive to overturn the touchdown which upheld the ruling on the field, and was controversal. Several of the articles on the games in the National Football League lore were created because of the result of a single play. The last play of the Miracle at the Meadowlands and the following reaction is why the article was given notability. As SGMD1 has suggested about the article, maybe the article should be renamed and written in a manner similar to how the Clock Play (A game in Week 12 of the 1994 season between Miami Dolphins and New York Jets) and The Helmet Catch (From Super Bowl XLII in the 2007 season) were created and then decide if that is enough for the article to stand on its own or should it still be merged. If we just merge it, we might have to evaluate several other games that are only famous for the last play of the game. In addition, this might be brought back up in future years if the game or the play become lore or ends up being notable in future seasons. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Second Comment I should have added it here instead of at the bottom, but we now have to debate if being the last game before the end of the lockout and the game that mainly helped to end the lockout are notable enough to keep this article. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, with the obvious target being the article on the current season (as well as the articles on the current Packers and Seahawks seasons). A standalone article isn't needed, but given the incredible firestorm this kicked up, it should be discussed somewhere. Just not as its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, you are saying to merge the article and the Packers and Seahawks articles with the NFL 2012 season article. If so, could you explain why the Packers and Seahawks articles need to be merged as well since I do not understand why that would be needed as well. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They seemed like a reasonable partial merge target. The main part would probably go into the article on the ref dispute, but since the game's outcome might have an effect on whether or not those two teams make the playoffs, it seems like it would be worth merging some content there. And even if it doesn't have an effect on their playoff chances, its still an important event in the narrative of their respective seasons. 03:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, you are saying to merge the article and the Packers and Seahawks articles with the NFL 2012 season article. If so, could you explain why the Packers and Seahawks articles need to be merged as well since I do not understand why that would be needed as well. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We need to create a more general article regarding the referee labor dispute, which would encompass not only the specific issues in the lockout, but all games that were affected by controversial calls made by the replacement referees. Although the end of the Packers-Seahawks game generated much media attention, it has not been the "tipping point" to end the lockout, and so the replacement officials are still continuing to work – which possibly would result in other controversial games like this one. If that happens, are we going to just create article after article about each of these games? I would say no. This is just a symptom of the overall problem with the lockout: the league hired high school and lower level college officials as replacements, with little or no experience at the professional level. This would be best served with one article. In fact, a discussion has also started on 2012 NFL season#Possible split? for this issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I'm an ardent Green Bay fan who's still stunned from the utterly retarded calls leading up to this, and I'd love for this to be deleted and forgotten about. That said, it's generated so much media attention that this genie is out of the lamp, and no amount of effort will stuff it back in. That said, I think Zzyzx11 is right above that the focus needs to be shifted a bit towards the broader dispute with the NFL officials and less on the game, as that's why there's been such an uproar (and why the Packers got the wool pulled over their eyes; can't help but vent a bit). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position: If a more broader article regarding the referee labor dispute is in fact created, then I would support a merge. As alluded to one of the quotes I added to the 2012 NFL season back in August, and several articles I saw before the regular season began, many sports writers were worried that a bad call by these inexperienced replacements might cost a team a win. And now the Packers are the first 'victims'. But since the labor dispute still continues, there is a good chance that there will be other teams who might also suffer by a controversial game-ending call, and so I do not want page after page spawning all over the place when it all relates back to the lockout. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I now change my position to Keep since this is now cited as the significant game and the play which helped to end the referee lockout. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is the first place I went to find out about this news item. Years from now, sports fans will still be talking about this. And I'm not a sports fan. — Xiong熊talk* 07:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself - this is a news item. Wikipedia is not news. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And you should doublecheck your WP:CRYSTAL ball before saying we will care about this "years from now". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really? An article for what some people believed was a bad call? There have benn plenty of bad calls in the NFL, why this one?JOJ Hutton 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The level of national media coverage make this a clearly notable game. --Falcorian (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even in just a couple days this game has already had a lasting impact on the desire of players and fans for the NFL and regular officials to end their labor dispute. Frank AnchorTalk 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I decided to be bold and spawn a new article from 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute to 2012 NFL referee lockout. As you can see there is an Officiating incidents section. I'd like to reiterate that I think the game itself is not notable; only the final play and the referees' ruling is - and only in the context of the labor dispute and use of the replacement officials. If this game wasn't using replacement officials and this had happened, I am very skeptical that anyone would think this game deserved a separate article. tl;dr I think this article should be merged into the Officiating incidents section of 2012 NFL referee lockout. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NFL and the refs are close to reaching a settlement in the lockout. Richiekim (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but I'd ask you what I asked another editor above...is it this specific game that is going to be remembered or the collection of poor officiating. I think it's the collection and therefore I support moving it to the new page SGMD1 just created. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be true, but now there is the fact that this is now notable for being the last game before the lockout ended due in part to it. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember few lockouts. I do, however, remember many notable plays in sports history. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but I'd ask you what I asked another editor above...is it this specific game that is going to be remembered or the collection of poor officiating. I think it's the collection and therefore I support moving it to the new page SGMD1 just created. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 18:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The game itself is not notable. The deciding play is important but only in the context of the referee lockout, which has its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh this article shouldn't have been created too early. Currently there is much outrage in the sports world about the result of this game, and the blown call. Probably every major NFL journalist are calling for the league to settle this mess and bring back the normal referees just because of the result of this game.
If that happens in the next few days, this game clearly deserves a separate article, or a at least a merge to 2012 NFL referee lockout as it is currently being called one of the strangest and most controversial games in NFL history, plus its going to be one of those games that is going to have a lasting impact in the league for years to come. But if they can't settle this lockout mess, and more blown games happens, then we stuck in the dilemma Zzyzx11 explains above. I'll sayMergefor now as the legacy of the game is clearly in WP:CRYSTAL territory as of this moment. Secret account 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Now that the strike has ended, Bagumba is right, unless the 2012 NFL referee lockout becomes too big to maintain, a merge is the course of action. I'm fine with everything but a delete, and we should discuss this further in the article talk page. Secret account 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that your original reply says that "If [the end to the lockout] happens in the next few days, this game clearly deserves a separate article..." and "...its going to be one of those games that is going to have a lasting impact in the league for years to come." However, your second reply seems to be different than your original message. Does that mean that you are striking out that part of your original message? 204.106.251.214 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading upon it further the legacy of this game so far is that the blown call helped ended the referee strike much quicker than earlier but anything else is very unclear and thus the WP:CRYSTAL I was talking about. If it leads to more implications, like for example like Paul said below the handling of any future strikes by officials or players and it starts getting mentioned as one of the most important games in NFL history, a separate article is clear cut. But right now, the parent page 2012 NFL referee lockout is still maintainable and merging seems like the proper call until anything else happens. Sorry for the confusion, if the article is kept I wouldn't mind it, though a separate discussion should be made in the article talk page, and not here. Honestly this is a candidate for speedy keep as the person created the AFD wanted to discuss a merge, which is improper use of the AFD policy. Secret account 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy seems clearer now Keep but rename Secret account 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the strike has ended, Bagumba is right, unless the 2012 NFL referee lockout becomes too big to maintain, a merge is the course of action. I'm fine with everything but a delete, and we should discuss this further in the article talk page. Secret account 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there will be changes to the NFL in rules and handling of strikes for years to come based on the outcome of this and other similar games. Is that a crystal ball? Nope. It's preparation for both current and future references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2012 NFL referee lockout has 10K of readable prose. WP:SPINOUT says articles may possibly need to be divided after 50K. With 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game being only 5K, there does not appear to be a reason to spinout now, especially when WP:SPINOUT says "there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another addendum from the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "If a concept can be cleanly trimmed or removed, or can be merged elsewhere on the wiki, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created."—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to mention that this game in now also notable for being the last game to be played before the lockout ended on Wednesday in the United States. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The implications and media reverberations indicate that this game was highly eventful and influential for the 2012 NFL season. For the time being, I would like to see this article develop further, as there are new pieces of information and reactions continuing to flow. DarthBotto talk•cont 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge over to the lockout article. The game itself is unremarkable but for that context - had we had normal refs, even in the face of a similarly blown call the issue would not have blown up as it did here. I would not object to a keep, honestly, but I believe a merge to be the better option. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Its fairly clear that every game is not notable and only the call itself was notable for the firestorm it ignited. If this passed AFD, I say keep all the other data, otherwise do the call and the reactions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, if an article is based only on a single call or play, then it should be deleted? (Remember the articles that are linked on NFL lore can be considered to be this and could be subjected to deletion or a merge based on the results of this AfD in some cases.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All or nothing" is not appropriate, as different plays have their own merits for being kept or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but right now the "Mud Bowl" is currently facing an AfD concurrently with this discussion due to this which I agree with. My point is that not all articles are notable, yet several are more notable than others. Currently, this article is notable for several things: A famous/infamous play (4th and 26, the Tuck Rule Game among others), a game that helped bring an end to a lockout (no other games that I know of), a game with a final play that was decided the game by the decision of a referee or a review (Immaculate Reception, Music City Miracle, etc.), and a game that will likely have consequences in the future(Currently covered by WP:CRYSTAL at the moment.) This makes at least three points of notablility at the moment which is more than some articles. In addition, I would say that there has been significant coverage by several different organizations and corporations with extensive media coverage focused on just one game. For the quality of the article, we have kepted 4th and 26 for what I would say loose reasons at the time of the creation of the article and it has been improved and expanded on since. However, the article is only notable for a famous last play and for preventing the Packers from making the NFC Championship game. I feel that the "Golden Reception," or whatever the article will be renamed IF it is kepted, has enough reasons to be kepted as it passes WP:N. Right now there is WP:NORUSH, yet the creation of this discussion might have been rushed a bit. Prior to the creation of this discussion, we did not know what would happen with the lockout and right now we do not know how this will affect the playoff system of the NFL for this season for the next few weeks. Thus, this discussion was created as it did not seem to be notable enough at the time based on the opinions of others. Looking back, it feels to myself like this might have been rushed as there was no wait to see what this would do to the lockout. However, SGMD1 was correct to put this to discussion as the article was created before its notablilty could be thought about. Despite that, I will say that this article has also met WP:N(E) as the game has had national impact and has been covered by several sources. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this game has had an impact and reaction that has gone past it. The main point of Wikipedia is not a newspaper against this article is that Wikipedia assess the importance of an event, yet as I have explain, I believe that this article has reached notability. To me, this debate seems to be an argument over WP:RECENTISM. Despite this being the first mention of it one this page, which is a bit surprising to me, the discussion as a whole has been based on how we did not know if the article would be notable enough since it has been a short period of time. However, as time has passed since the game and the event of it, we have learned more about the effects of the game on other events. At the time of the creation of the article, there was no way to know for sure that it would lead to the end of the lockout. Now, we can have a perspective view on how the play has had a lasting effect on the end of the lockout. Right now, we do not have a perspective view on how this game will affect the playoffs of the 2012 season. Yet, in a few months we will be able to see what this game did or did not do to change the results of the playoffs. Despite this lack of knowledge, does that mean the article should not exist over how we do not know how this will impact the playoffs? We may not have a full perspective view, but we do have notability. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, I would like to say sorry to Bagumba since it seems that I have taken my reply to them and turned it into an argument for why it should exist. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All or nothing" is not appropriate, as different plays have their own merits for being kept or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, if an article is based only on a single call or play, then it should be deleted? (Remember the articles that are linked on NFL lore can be considered to be this and could be subjected to deletion or a merge based on the results of this AfD in some cases.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the "Impact on referee lockout" section. If it ended the lockout, it should be notable! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many incidents at 2012 NFL referee lockout#Officiating incidents that led to this play being the tipping point. We would need to summarize/duplicate all that in this article to achieve due WP:WEIGHT and provide proper context to the play/game. This is a relative small article once all the non-notable stats (only the final play is notable) and gratuitous use of quotations are summarized per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. No prejudice to recreate if the play ends up being remembered with little connection to the lockout in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - There is nothing particularly notable about this game as a whole, just the one play at the end that highlighted the incompetence of the replacement refs. The whole incident relates to the debacle surrounding the ref lockout, so the content relating to that farcical play should be merged to an article that covers the ref lockout. – PeeJay 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my comment a few days ago[34], I said to those who questioned the lasting notability of this game that its notability would be secured if it led to a settlement within 72 hours. Well it did. The only reasonable grounds remaining for objecting to this article as a stand-alone would be to say (as some have) that it is the play itself, as opposed to the game in toto that is notable. I can be down with that. So I think we should either keep this or make it an article (such as Fail Mary pass) on the play. But this is not something to be just merged into the lockout article (or the season article, as some would apparently do). HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if this article doesn't get merged to 2012 NFL referee lockout (which I think it should), then a name change is in order, but I have strong objections with changing the name to "Fail Mary pass". While having that as a redirect is fine, making it the actual title of the article is a no-go due to its bias and lack of universal acceptance as the primary nickname for the play. But we'll come to that when the time comes. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree with SGMD's comment above that Fail Mary pass does not meet the apparent requirements for an article title. I've also seen sources using Grand Theft Football and several other names for the play. In fact, I suspect that, just as there was never a coalescence around a single name for the most amazing play of Super Bowl 42 (thus we ended with Eli Manning pass to David Tyree as a title), the same could be true here. Perhaps Golden Tate disputed touchdown reception or other some such awkward name would be best. Or, we could just keep it simple by keeping the current title, with recognition given to the fact that the single games notability comes from this single play. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I admit the article title doesn't quite fit, it's only the final play that was controversial. But the aftermath of this play ended the Referee Lockout within a few days, got the President of the United States to comment on it, and could change the entire playoff picture. This is one of the most controversial, and influential, plays in NFL history. It deserves an article (with a better title). ARSchmitz (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The fateful play will go down in football history, even more so now that it became the straw that broke the camel's back, the event that at last fed everybody up so much that the NFL finally came to their senses and ended the lockout. As stated above, if there are similar articles about single games with close/exciting/controversial endings, I see no reason why this article should not be allowed to stay, and even less do I see any ways it would potentially violate WP:Notability.
RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this was created on September 25, the day after the game. At the time, the lockout was still ongoing and other games were expected to be affected by similar decisions. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Although I will admit that the article was created too early, it is now a valuable article about a subject that is notable, as numerous public officials (including President Obama) commented on it, it is probably the worst call in NFL history, and it directly caused the NFL to end the referee lockout immediately. Many other pieces of NFL lore have their own articles, so why not this one? --HGK745 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question regarding why not this one, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a better argument would be to say that this is a combination of having WP:OSE and being WP:N. In other words, the other articles that have been listed has given a precedent that can be used for this article when combined with the notability of the article. I will redirect you to my reply to Bagumba as to why I believe this is notable. (I would rather not go off onto a lengthy comment if I can help it.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question regarding why not this one, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — I believe this is a notable article. There seems to be significant coverage as shown in the 32 sources from multiple news and other media sources. It looks like all the sources come from reliable media companies. Most of the sources come from secondary and independent source. This article is to big to put into 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. Kingjeff (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Fail Mary. This is clearly a significant play and ruling, as discussed above. The article should be refocused on what makes it notable -- the final play of the game -- and renamed to reflect that. This jibes with other team lore about well-remembered sequences and plays within single games. See The Drive and The Fumble, for example. --Batard0 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously notable and not even worth discussing. Everyking (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with your position on the article, I am reasonable enough to know that honest, intelligent people can still disagree with me on an issue, and that narrow-minded persons with the intellectual maturity of a five-year old may be found on my side of a debate. Please do not insult people who come to this page for the purpose for which it was created. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was created early (September 25) in anticipation of its impact, and the AfD was opened the same day. Since then, the 2012 NFL referee lockout ended on September 26 and a play in this game has cited as a reason. I personally would have added this to the lockout article, following WP:AVOIDSPLIT until it was time to WP:SPINOUT. One week after the game is too soon to be conclusive of it's long-term WP:EFFECT. It is likely to be notable, and the article here already exists and is reasonable sourced. While I originally supported a move, I'd probably just wait a few months to determine if anything needs to be done to this article based on its notability and size of this article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SO EVERY GAME THAT HAS A "BLOWN" REFEREE CALL SHOULD NOW GET A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.66.70 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not every "Saying that a call is blown depends on the opinion of the person. Wikipedia trys to be netural so blown is not just a valid reason for an article." gets an article. Articles are kepted if they can be proven to at least be notable along with a few case-by-case things. If you would like to you are allowed to try to prove why you think this article should not exist, as SGMD1 had originally argued, or should be merged. I would recommend looking at the "List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates" and "Arguments to make in deletion discussions." 204.106.251.214 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with no prejudice against a rename - Very clear keep at this point as it was the catalyst to end a labor dispute, and the media coverage was significant. The original intent and timing of this nomination was appropriate, but at this point notability is established.Toa Nidhiki05 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. The game is not notable outside of the labor dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 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 deletion under WP:BLP1E. I have tried to find a way to merge the article and with the way it is structured, having this merged in there would be something that would be hard to wiggle in. Also, as noted by the sources in the articles and found in this AFD, the subject wishes to remain off the radar and, under our policies, this a perfect case for evoking BLP1E. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Patricia Carroll (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)
Textbook example of WP:BLP1E, was in the news for a day or two, and no further coverage nor lasting legacy, which falls under WP:NOT#NEWS as well. Delete Secret account 19:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2012 Republican National Convention as it was a notable event during the convention and deserves a sentence or two there (though name of camerawomen need not be used). This article was created on September 2 and has served its purpose now that a few weeks has passed and greater notability has not developed.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She received international news coverage, so the WP:RS is overwhelming. This is not BLP1E, since she is still black and the racists still hate her. NONE of that changed after the event. Qworty (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The news coverage suddenly stopped a day or two after the event happened. And what does being black has to do with her meeting WP:BLP1E or not, that's just absurd. I'll accept a merge, though I prefer it to be deleted as a sensitive BLP however. Secret account 02:20, 26 September 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Naugaon (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:N Go Phightins! (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly not one of the world's biggest populated places, but a town whose existence can be confirmed and has potential encyclopaedic importance (though needing significant enhancement to the current text). I've added a couple of sources found via Google Books. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The "x is a village" entries are some of the worst content on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of them and many of them are garbled, barely coherent and unsourced; occasionally I will redirect one to its parent region if the entry seems unsalvageable. This one has been improved since the nomination, and general practice (for good or for bad) is that any populated region named on a map is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) for a discussion, (although note that it's a discussion and not policy). Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a well-referenced settlement and is therefore notable by a long-standing AfD consensus. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I would hardly call that one line article well referenced, but if you say so...Go Phightins! (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NGEOG. --Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete (A10) by User:CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) Gongshow Talk 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The monday night controversy (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)
per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; yes the play has received lots of coverage, it's probably not going to last, maybe an article entitled Replacement Referee Controversies Go Phightins! (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, at best this might be included in another article about the 2012 NFL season, but it doesn't deserve its own article. PKT(alk) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a speedy merge to 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, a better-written new article that covers the same topic, but without redirect since "The monday night controversy" is not a plausible redirect. Or just delete it. Note that the referee lockout is covered more generally at 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is more sourced details in another article about the game, 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, which is also currently an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is basically a poor copy of 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game as Bagumba stated. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; we have no need for inferior content in a dedicated article (named after a neologism, at that!) when there's better content in a broader article. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete for all of the excellent reasons already given. Qworty (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would seem to qualify under CSD A10 as it duplicates 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game —Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, I didn't know that the other article existed when I AFDed this one. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would seem to qualify under CSD A10 as it duplicates 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game —Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 26 September 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- World Domination (online game) (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 seemingly unnotable flash game. While searching, I can find places where you can play the game, however, I'm not finding any sources that actually talk about it at all. Though to be honest, its completely generic title does make searching for sources a rather difficult task. The article itself makes no assertation of any sort of notability, and I'm not finding anything that would indicate that it is. Rorshacma (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources with Google News or Google News archives, if I knew the release date, it would help broaden my search. Additionally, the article contains an "in-world view" of the game, rather than an appropriate encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 September 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Local Band Feel (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 unnotable bootleg album of the band Sebadoh. No sources can be found that discuss or review the album. I know that normally, unnotable albums are redirected to the band's article or discography article, however as this was an unlicensed album, it seems that deletion would be a better option. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No reliable sources found that provide coverage for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS. I would go for a redirect to the artist's article, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources makes me think that this would not be a likely search term. Cliff Smith 18:14, 30 September 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Beastlore (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 tabletop game that doesn't have any notability. The entire article is written like a game guide rather than an encyclopedia article, but that's not an unfixable problem. What is unfixable is that the game has no sources available at all. It seems that the game failed to be marketed in stores, and was only briefly sold directly by the game creator's website. The only place I'm finding that even mentions this game at all is just the games official Facebook page, which of course is not a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have found absolutely zero sources (aside from one Wikipedia mirror) to support this article, the game must not have received successful reception. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent sources in the article, nor was I able to find any on my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshall Junction Partners LLC (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, no GNews/Book hits, no reliable sources found in GHits. Slightly promotional by COI editor. CSD removed by page creator. GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources and the two references that the article lists never mention "Marshall Junction Partners LLC". SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised sources added. DBarnett-MJP (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)David[reply]
- Delete and salt as blatant WP:ADVERT. You can smell the WP:COI from 3000 miles away. Qworty (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be the first time that the article would be deleted therefore salting would be unnecessary. Yes, the article was promotional but, as mentioned, salting for the first time is not necessary and may prevent a proper article from starting. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commercials I Hate (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)
Message board with no evidence of notability. A few mentions in a few newspapers ("sites of the day"-style listings and such), but nothing that can be considered significant coverage in WP:RS. Kinu t/c 18:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - The article makes no claim of notability at all, and thus is able to be tagged as a Speedy Deletion as an unnotable web site under criteria A7. I've gone ahead and tagged as such to hopefully avoid having to go through the entire AFD process. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa rank is clearly a claim of importance though! (Just kidding, of course. :P) --Kinu t/c 19:32, 25 September 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) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mures (video game) (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 unnotable, unlicensed copy of Chu Chu Rocket. There are no sources discussing this game what so ever, and even the sources present in the article (none of which were reliable secondary sources to begin with) are all dead links now. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 16:50, 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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash (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:AIRCRASH for military incidents. WP:NOTNEWS also. News coverage is routine. Article was AFD, the article was recreated and padded with duplicate links, listing the people who killed. Notability hasn't changed since the last AFD.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The editor has tried to get it speedily deleted, that did not work. I explained the article has significantly changed since its previous AfD, but that wasn't paid attention to. Still, the admin who rejected the speedy deletion said specifically that the article has significantly changed. It's not correct to simply say that only a list of the people who were killed was added to this article, that's not true at all. Articles from 2011 and 2012 were added, which shows ongoing coverage, as well as the results of an official state investigation and the impact it has had. Its previous AfD was a very very close vote as well - and now, the article has significantly changed, is notable, shows ongoing coverage, is properly referenced, and should remain.
- The editor above lies. Not one single citation from 2012 is in the article. The only 2012 news he can produce that is remotely connected to this crash is the sikorskys being put back into service by Israel. WP:ROUTINE covers that. If they were taken out of service, they will be placed back into or announced they aren't being used again. Also he doesn't understand AFDs very well. They aren't counts.
- As for what was done to the article since the AFd
- The listing of those killed in the crash. Crash articles aren't memorials and this was removed from the article[35]
- Multiple links to the same articles, namely IC being placed in the external links or further reading sections. I count this being done at least seven times. 4 of which were removed per WP:ELRC.
- I can do an indepth study of what changes were done to the article between last January and this August which have no bearings on notability. It will be an extensive study. Is anyone interested?...William 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps unrelated to the AfD, as part of an attempt to get this article deleted, WilliamJE edit-warred and was blocked for 24 hours [and then attacked the blocking admins and admins in general], if that's any indication about the state of this AfD...
- Oh and the blocking editor admits to have done the block because he assumed[36] rather than check out your lies. Applying WP:ELRC isn't edit warring....William 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't waste your time, any editors who want to see the significant changes made can just look at what the article was when it was deleted here. If you think that just a list of those who were killed and "multiple links to the same articles" was all that was added, then that's rather disturbing. --Activism1234 00:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and the blocking editor admits to have done the block because he assumed[36] rather than check out your lies. Applying WP:ELRC isn't edit warring....William 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up - article is properly referenced throughout, has undergone significant changes, is notable and has had a lasting impact which has continued into 2012, and fits WP:GNG. --Activism1234 18:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as an WP:EVENT article, it appears that the editors at the article have show that the subject has passed WP:EFFECT, and meets WP:GNG. That being said, it could be argued that the coverage for this event is routine or that EFFECT was only temporary and thus this article maybe subject to future summarization and merger to an appropriate article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added 90% of the significant information to 118 Squadron (Israel) after the last time this was listed. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as stated before this article was in a much different state and there's a lot more info now, so now I don't think that level of detail is necessary on that article. It's 1 incident constituting 90% of the article on a squadron. I'd suggest trimming it down significantly, but would rather see what the result of this AfD is first. --Activism1234 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the squadron article. As this was a military incident, while tragic, it is not notable; military aircraft crash fairly often, alas. This is a run-of-the-mill military accident. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Civilian aircraft also crash "frequently," but we still have articles on them. Similarly, we have articles on military aircraft crashes (and they actually don't crash that frequently and kill in Israel). This crash occured during a joint-training exercise between two countries, had a significant impact on future exercises between the two countries and their relations, led to an official state investigation, as well as a memorial in Romania for the crash. The crash also led to the IAF upgrading their fleet of Sikorskys, something that was finished just a few months ago. --Activism1234 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I stand by my statement earlier, "The article appears to be supported by reliable sources and provides sufficient content.". SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator This comment was canvassed for here[37]....William 12:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. SwisterTwister already gave his/her opinion here, but it was removed when the action to close this was reverted, so I felt SwisterTwister may want to add it back in. That isn't at all canvassing, it wasn't some random person. --Activism1234 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator This comment was canvassed for here[37]....William 12:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Activism1234's comments. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You recreated the article that had been previously deleted. Why didn't you take it to WP:DRV as is the norm for saving articles that are deleted?...William 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Editors who want to check on the past practice regarding *articles* on military crashes might look at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). You can check how many of the listed crashes have their own articles. I don't know any obvious way to find past AfD discussions about military crashes. This is only a personal observation; I have no opinion on this AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the editor who AfD'ed this, WilliamJE was just blocked again for a period of 1 month for battleground behavior, holding and carrying out grudges, personal attacks, WP:SOAP, inappropriate use of user page, etc... --Activism1234 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable and well sourced. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per last deletion discussion which moved into user space for merging into other articles. It is really the same as the original article which was previous deleted with a bit of fluff added to it. Military aircraft crash regularly far more than commercial aircraft so they have to be pretty unusual to pass the mark, this doesnt. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with the comment above, to me that is more a rationale to redirect after mergine to the squadron article rather than delete. Redirect per Bushranger.
- Keep There are many articles about crashes on Wikipedia. --TheChampionMan1234 06:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - From the references in the article alone, the topic clearly meets WP:GNG. The other issues raised, needs to have a reliable source from 2012, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fido.net (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 unsourced stub article on a not particularly popular British ISP. On the basis of search engine results it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with only one news article about the company, when multiple sources are required. The article already has 'notability' & 'unreferenced' tags. -- Donkey1989 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete the title; i.e., keep or redirect. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but if we decide to get rid of this article, it should be converted into a redirect to FidoNet, due to the similar names. At first I thought you were asking for the deletion of the latter page. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, my recent tagging "notability" is to encourage sources to pass notability, not trigger deletion... the assertion of notability would come from being an early (rather than popular) ISP, and also the reason why there's likely few online articles about them. Additionally, according to their twitter, Awarded Best Large Business Provider 2012 @ the ISPAs, so presumably good references for those would pass notability. OTOH, I'm not in favour of redirecting to FidoNet as separate articles aids disambiguation (I came here from the DAB), but I may be persuaded otherwise. To add to the one ref already there, this promo but useful (non- WP:RS)" is one of the longest established UK internet businesses, " [38] and incidental mention [39], these should be good enough [40], [41] to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 10:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 September 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 United Airlines Flight 811. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pan Am Flight 125 (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 incident per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 17:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United Airlines Flight 811, as while the accident isn't notable on its own, the fact it suffered a similar failure to the better-known, more significant accident is worth mentioning in its article. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with a redirect to UA 811....William 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AIRCRASH. I hate to have to say this, but these passengers would have had to die or at least be seriously injured for their flight to achieve notability. Qworty (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per The Bushrangers good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectto United Airlines Flight 811, per The Bushranger's analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 12:06, 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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of countries with biodiversity articles (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)
Whatever on the Index of biodiversity articles, but a list of links to sections of articles, especially when linking to sections is discouraged because such links are easily broken, strikes me as overkill and outside the scope of WP:SALAT. - Biruitorul Talk 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be helpful information to have - the only other way I think to get at it is to add a subcategory for Countries under Category:Biodiversity, which is definitely an alternative solution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, maybe that would be several sub-categories: 1) by continent and 2) countries within each continent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be helpful information to have - the only other way I think to get at it is to add a subcategory for Countries under Category:Biodiversity, which is definitely an alternative solution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yeah. At first glance seems a little crazy. Are "List of Wikipedia articles about/with XXX" OK to have? Strikes me as though they shouldn't be. NickCT (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neutral on the subject, but if this article gets deleted, please save a copy on a userpage, I really like the lay-out and I think I could use it for something I am working on (an index to country lists for moths and butterflies), see: User:Ruigeroeland/Sandbox3 Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I've already saved a copy to my user space. It still has all the countries (taken from Template:Asian topic and so on ... continent navigation boxes). The first section of this version has some of the countries moved to a commented out place at the bottom of that section. Feel free to go for the list. I think I had to add in Republic of Ireland, though.
- I am neutral on the subject, but if this article gets deleted, please save a copy on a userpage, I really like the lay-out and I think I could use it for something I am working on (an index to country lists for moths and butterflies), see: User:Ruigeroeland/Sandbox3 Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a couple of ideas for how to display the information other than on this particular article / list page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that - I'll blank the page and ask for an author-requested removal.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:01, 26 September 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) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Diana Rosen (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)
Ms. Rosen seems to be an intern for niche publication. She also seems to have won a student award for journalism. There are no reliable third party sources and GNews brings up only an opinion column in a college newspaper. Not jack newsham (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Except *third-party. And *four opinion columns. User:Not River_Tam (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1.grammar natz (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Not jack newsham (talk) 15:15, 25 September 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 September 25. Snotbot t • c » 15:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - No indication of notability at all. Being an intern for a small publication is certainly not notable, and neither is winning what appears to be a very minor, unnotable student award. There are no sources that discuss her or the award she won that are not either first party, blogs, or both. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She is a bright 18-year-old girl with, PERHAPS, a great future ahead of her. But she has not yet done anything to merit notability on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This entry is several layers of notability below a MySpace page. Please delete quickly. Yale2010 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 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) 11:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack Harper (footballer born 1996) (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)
PROD contested by article creator back in May 2012. This player fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league) and WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) - sources are very much WP:ROUTINE and violate WP:BLP1E i.e. some bored journalist has stumbled upon the story of a young player of Scottish heritage playing for one of the world's top clubs, decided it's a bit of a novelty, dedicated 5 minutes to writing a throwaway piece, and that's it. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he's received is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - does not fail notability criteria. I've added numerous independent reliable sources. The person has been subject to wide coverage in the news. Disagree that it's a 'throwaway' piece, how can it be if its covered several times over in major publications? Also sources are not routine, the whole point of the stories are the person in question, not as included in a part of another report. He is not notable for one 'event' either, notable for belonging to such a major organisation and receiving widespread coverage therefore. Kennedy (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- all the news pieces relate to 'young Scot playing for Real Madrid' - WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE apply. There is no "widespread" coverage. GiantSnowman 16:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did of course refer to 'widespread' in relation to the number of independent sources, not the content in each one; the usual meaning of widespread... Kennedy (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it's two sources saying the same thing or fifteen. If what they're saying is trivial (and as you're citing the Daily Record and the Sun, it is) then that's all that matters. GiantSnowman 16:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't consider the Daily Record or the Sun notable? Probably the two most popular newspapers in Scotland... I don't know what could be an improvement really... Kennedy (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Reminds me of the case of "Sri Lanka footballer joins Chelsea" which is true in the end but again, like here, he failed GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who has not 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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he's received is insufficient to meet WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 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) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shyamanand Jha (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)
Mr Jha appears to be a recent graduate in Cinematography. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that support inclusion as a Biographical article. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On article talk page, article creator has claimed that he was the "DOP" (ie: Director of photography) on a Zee TV television series for three years. TV shows don't have DOPs. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Judging from the current content, it seems that he is only starting a career and is not notable at this time. Although the article never cites his age, it seems that he may be 20s-30s (although IMDb lists few films, one of them from 1996) and a probable case of WP:TOOSOON. I haven't found any relevant sources with both Google India (English) and Google US, the one reference that the article cites never produces the text because it appears that the URL wasn't completed. Either way, I'm not seeing any indication (at least English) of notability. SwisterTwister talk 14:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Qworty (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources don't establish notability --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:47, 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of AT&T U-verse channels (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)
Outright failure of WP:NOTDIR, as an electronic program guide. The channel line-ups change over time and with region, so there's little use as an encyclopedic article. The most current one can always be had via the provider's website, which can be linked to from the provider's article. There may be some cases of historical issues with certain channels not being available on certain providers, but that's better suited for articles about the channels or providers to describe the basis and resolution of the conflict.
Please note: I'm only nominating this one page, but the same logic here likely applies to all 100-some pages in Category:Lists of television channels by company. If there is agreement this one should be deleted, a followup process should be made to assure the others are deleted without having to AFD each one (making exceptions where necessary). MASEM (t) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Masem beat me to it in nominating this article for deletion. As an administrator, I was recently drawn into a running dispute between 12.153.112.21 and Neutralhomer over what the current lineup was and what the sources should be. See Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Channel lineups in Wikipedia, User talk:A. B.#12.153.112.21, and User talk:12.153.112.21 (starting at September 2012). When I last signed off, I left wondering, "Isn't this what cable system online channel listings are for?" and "how can we have these articles when my own provider requires I enter my postal code to see my lineup since it changes as you go across town?" I'm sure there are guidelines and policies both to justify keeping and to justify deleting (WP:NOT vs we're not paper and we're the sum of all knowledge). As for me, I'm basing my comment on exasperation, common sense and sheer wonder at the energy invested in fighting over this stuff. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)
Weak keepStrong keep. Incidentally, this VP AFD may or may not be related to a content dispute in which I have taken the side that historical channel changes should be included. There are many third-party sources indicating negotiations and channel disputes and changes between high-powered ISPs and high-powered content providers, and these should be aggregated rather than relegated to individual articles, in accord with the exception to NOTDIR, "historically significant program lists and schedules". The content dispute has weakened my desire to hunt down and organize and display these sources but they're very easy to find on Google News by searching by provider. I am looking forward to the discussion by established community members and am likely to go along but will reserve my right to comment on any mistaken impressions about this topic. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IP, I notice that WHOIS identifies your IP address as an AT&T address. Can you clarify any connection you may have to AT&T? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be completely honest, I have no interest in the dispute - but the word about the dispute appearing on a few talk pages that I watch brought my attention to this article. So no, this AFD is irregardless of the problems in that dispute. As to the "historically significant program lists and schedules", you'll notice it doesn't say anything about channel lists. The historical importance of programs however, such as NBC's Must See TV, or the category of articles that include season-by-season broadcast TV lists 2011–12 United States network television schedule, are what are considered under that. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - blatant and shameless violation of NOTDIR; this nomination is long overdue. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possible copyvio (channel IDs may be copyrighted). Shameless violation of NOTDIR. Historical changes of channel lineup and packages might be included in the parent article, or a different spinoff article. (Note: I found this AfD because I monitor the talk page of one of the users the IP complained to, and it was an interesting title. I was not invited.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is purely factual: what channels are carried by this provider. The list itself is not what the provider created, as if it had put together an ordered list of "favorite cable stations". So there is no copyright issue here. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: It's not a "creative" list in any sense (the threshold for copyright), so it is strictly factual and ergo non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience with cable companies, the channel IDs are the responsibility of the cable company, rather than being a purely descripive name or assigned by the cable channel. The channel names are submitted by the cable channel. Whether, for example, Animal Planet is APL, APLP, ANIM, or some other identifier is unique to the provider. Nonetheless, if this article had any benefit, we could probably claim "fair use" or "implied consent". The plan names, also, would be creative, if they weren't intended to be numeric levels (U100, U200, etc.) or descriptive (UBASIC, UFAMILY, etc.). Still, it's not important; even if it were a copyright violation, we could probably obtain permission. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: It's not a "creative" list in any sense (the threshold for copyright), so it is strictly factual and ergo non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is purely factual: what channels are carried by this provider. The list itself is not what the provider created, as if it had put together an ordered list of "favorite cable stations". So there is no copyright issue here. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just a directory listing. If there is some encyclopaedic merit to a topic on historic listings or changes to listings, this aint it anyway. (Note, I'm here because George Ho asked on my talkpage what should be done with this and similar articles) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those !voting delete, it would be helpful to comment on the approach I've suggested for the other 100-some articles of this same type as to avoid flooding AFD, or if there is a different approach that should be taken. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD should get the broadest possible attention since it will likely serve as a precedent. I encourage the closing administrator to give it sufficient time to establish a clear consensus with as many participants as possible. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've noted this AFD at VPP, I've just added a note at WT:TV. I'm not sure of any other places outside the standard deletion sorting that would be appropriate, but others should feel free to draw attention to this. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest raising your question about what to do with the other 100 articles (if there's a consensus to delete this one) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, that Village Pump thread and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There is a process to nominate multiple articles for deletion in one AfD; in the past, I've seen those go awry. If there is consensus here to delete this article, then I would consider multi-article AfDs based on tranches of 5 to 10 articles, starting with the most-obscure, least-watched, least-edited list articles. There may be a few lists for big system operators with stable lineups that are better handled with individual AfDs; the community may want to keep them. What doesn't work is a multi-article AfD where some articles end up keepers and some don't -- the discussion gets very muddled and often contentious. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this current AFD continues the trend it is going now, it doesn't seem worthwhile to even make a smaller number of AFDs for the other articles which, when I spot-check them, all are effectively the same. That's why a separate process, meant specifically to allow people time to say "hey, this one is different, it should be kept!" seems more appropriate as followup here. If it were only 5-10 more articles total in addition, sure, I'd just repeat the AFD, but I think we can avoid that with the larger number that would be affected. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest raising your question about what to do with the other 100 articles (if there's a consensus to delete this one) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, that Village Pump thread and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There is a process to nominate multiple articles for deletion in one AfD; in the past, I've seen those go awry. If there is consensus here to delete this article, then I would consider multi-article AfDs based on tranches of 5 to 10 articles, starting with the most-obscure, least-watched, least-edited list articles. There may be a few lists for big system operators with stable lineups that are better handled with individual AfDs; the community may want to keep them. What doesn't work is a multi-article AfD where some articles end up keepers and some don't -- the discussion gets very muddled and often contentious. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've noted this AFD at VPP, I've just added a note at WT:TV. I'm not sure of any other places outside the standard deletion sorting that would be appropriate, but others should feel free to draw attention to this. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD should get the broadest possible attention since it will likely serve as a precedent. I encourage the closing administrator to give it sufficient time to establish a clear consensus with as many participants as possible. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I think Masem has the right approach, that channel lineup is only interesting or encyclopedic where there are documented negotiations, contract deals or disputes or something else to make the carriage or non-carriage of a channel worthy of note in the company's history, to be described in the compay's article. Otherwise, the lineup should only be summarized in the aggregate, noting channel count where that increase has been documented ("between 2000 and 2010, CableTown increased its lineup from 250 to 400 channels..."). Otherwise, this is indiscriminate data, and an actual NOTDIR "violation". postdlf (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOT, wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information that is true and it's not a directory. The same applies to the rest in this category (if they have similar content). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I originally planned to nominate this atrocity as AFD, but I couldn't. So I first made talks in WP:VPP and WT:WPTV. Back to this list, this list itself has no encyclopedic value and is a violation of WP:NOTDIR, as Masem said. There is no need to waste time on channel lineups, cable or not, especially when schedule rapidly changes. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think moving to Wikisource solves anything. We could face multiple revisions of channel lineups. --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above comments. Wikipedia is not a directory, and is not a indiscriminate collection of information. This list verly clearly fails both of those guidelines, and should be deleted as appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I will admit a little bias since I added a lot of the information since it took a lot of digging to get some of the details from the U-Verse web site since they don't keep pdf files of the channel lineups. Like Verizon FiOS, they do have what is a national lineup where the principal variations are for local broadcast stations and regional sports networks. The telcos like the satellite companies are closer to national providers and unless you want to play a stream of zip code plug-ins on many of these sites, there really isn't a single source of these lineups that is accessible. This only became an issue because of recent vandalism which saw a user throwing in outdated information (which is not on the other lists) making the article less manageable and less reliable. Past histories of programming and contract disputes outside of current ones should be left in the provider articles and not in the list providing confusing and contradictory information. If it comes down to deleting this article, then I would say that the other channel line-ups (with the possible exception of satellite providers) also be deleted from Wikipedia as well to maintain consistency. Livingonli (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By vandalism you mean my attempts to update the article from its source, which were rejected by you and another editor in favor of these nebulous nonsources you refer to. If there is no source available that would support the deleters, sorry. The fact is that two PDFs at least have been found and that these and the media sources support a historical review. But I'm finding that the community collective is taking two different approaches, either straight deletion of 100 articles, or relying on dynamic nonsources. My approach of using sources is what Wikipedia used to be about. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the above view that this fails NOTDIR without question. Whilst Wiki is not paper, it's not a repository for every aspect of modern culture This is nothing more or less than a dump of details which can be found elsewhere. Livingonli - just because no other source provides the information doesn't mean Wikipedia should. The onus is on the correct organisation to make information available, not Wiki to step in as a catch-all. Deletion of this, and other similar articles, is a no-brainer doktorb wordsdeeds 20:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking, will add a new !vote at the bottom. - NH
Strong Keep: I just put four seperate references to this article this morning (you can find them at the very top, first sentence). This is not like a Comcast or a Charter Cable that has various channel lineups, U-verse is unique as (like DirecTV and Dish), it carries the same lineup nationwide and is bringing out the east and west coast feeds for both sides of the country. These were previously just available for their respective sides of the country. So, this is not a NOT#DIR violation as it is a unique occurence and is sourced with current (2011 and 2012) references. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I'm afraid you misunderstand; the issue isn't whether it is verifiable, so simply providing sources that verify this channel lineup isn't sufficient to overcome the criticisms above. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did provide them prior to article being AfD'd. Though, I will not be upset if it is deleted. I just ask that if it is, if an admin could edit move it to my userspace after deletion or email the text to me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutralhomer, Livingonli, and 12.153.112.21 -- thanks for your input; you make good points although I still favor deletion. And thanks for all the work you've put into this article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can have my userfied version, I linked it below, if we work together it'll even have the 2011 and 2012 references, but can we please have better links than dynamic ones? I'm looking too. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even excluding regional differences, this type of directory is not appropriate, given that it is constantly subject to change at a whim of the company or stations. As noted, notable issues with channels being unavailable or added or change are appropriate in the company article (eg I don't know about AT&T Uverse, but I'm sure there's number of Dish Network-related problems that can be added there), as that part is significant going forward. As noted, it's neither a verification nor a notability issue, but simply this is not the type of information that is encyclopedically appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, if it is deleted, I won't be upset. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely reasonable; I only commented more on the fact that we're not questioning WP:V or WP:N here (unlike most AFDs), so that future !voters can consider that and focus on the NOTDIR factor. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, if it is deleted, I won't be upset. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did provide them prior to article being AfD'd. Though, I will not be upset if it is deleted. I just ask that if it is, if an admin could edit move it to my userspace after deletion or email the text to me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you misunderstand; the issue isn't whether it is verifiable, so simply providing sources that verify this channel lineup isn't sufficient to overcome the criticisms above. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - NOTDIR, original research, no notability. Spshu (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is purely academic at this point, but how is this possibly original research? postdlf (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one confused me too. Since it is sourced, it can't be OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the lead, nearly the entire article lacks inline citations. besides the tables, the text here: List_of_AT&T_U-verse_channels#Channels_1.E2.80.93199 and List_of_AT&T_U-verse_channels#Channels 600–799 for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking inline citations ≠ original research. And I don't see anything there that shouldn't be verifiable, if it is correct. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spshu and IRWolfie- are correct, as it stands it's OR. My version here or here is not OR, but this difference of opinion is getting swallowed up in the NOTDIR claims. I think the best argument against NOTDIR is Neutralhomer's observation that U-verse has a single national channel lineup and is thus more worthy of retention than the other articles in this category. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking inline citations ≠ original research. And I don't see anything there that shouldn't be verifiable, if it is correct. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the lead, nearly the entire article lacks inline citations. besides the tables, the text here: List_of_AT&T_U-verse_channels#Channels_1.E2.80.93199 and List_of_AT&T_U-verse_channels#Channels 600–799 for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one confused me too. Since it is sourced, it can't be OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is purely academic at this point, but how is this possibly original research? postdlf (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Qworty (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:DIRECTORY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a reasonable spin-out topic from the main article on the cable/satelite system. The list would overwhelm the main article, so it seems reasonble to split it out as its own list. --Jayron32 13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I've been the recepient of WP:NOTDIR comments in the past myself. Exactly what clause of NOTDIR is being violated? Not an electronic program guide? From the EPG article's current definition, EPGs: "provide users of television, radio, and other media applications with continuously updated menus displaying broadcast programming or scheduling information for current and upcoming programming." In what way does this article violate that part of NOTDIR? At the risk of "violating" the off-cited WP:Other stuff exists, what about List of DirecTV channels (United States), List of Dish Network channels (United States) & List of Verizon FiOS channels? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT is not a fully-inclusive list of examples of problems, but gives ideas of what types of problems can exist, so just because a listing of stations carried by a television carrier is not explicitly listed doesn't mean it doesn't violate NOTDIR. Also, as to those others, as I identified, if this AFD does prove this to be deleted, those will under review for deletion as well - this was explicitly a test case. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So lacking clear, consensus-based guidance from NOTDIR, is the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT? And why not use e.g. Dish, McDonald's, Microsoft as test cases? Use of less-notable articles as test cases seems to be a pattern in AfD and content deletion arguments. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, you're missing the point. A channel offering list is similar enough to other electronic program guides, as well as other similiarities to directories, as to fall within NOTDIR's territory, even though it's not explicitly listed. Further, while you may consider this list "less-notable", as you'll note above, this AFD has been well advertised, so it doesn't matter how notable the actual service is (and I would contest that AT&T Uverse is not notable since it is a major player in the US). What does McDonalds or Microsoft have to do with this? --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you mean the clause in NOTDIR that links to Directory (databases), an article which, even if one believes is well-suited to the discussion, has been tagged as being unsourced since April 2007? As to your other points, I didn't claim not notable, just less-notable than other articles. My mention of McDonald's and Microsoft goes to the same point: the tendency I've seen historically to "clean up problems"/make a point on less-notable articles, while leaving alone highly notable articles which exhibit the same "problems", as modifying or deleting those might serve to rile-up the WP community and the general public. I would submit that using Dish or DirecTV as the test case instead, would generate many more and better comments, and would lead to a much broader consensus. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The other articles are formatted in exactly the same way, so any of them are fine as a test case; it's not a matter of what one may be more notable than others, as long as the discussion is broadcasted appropriately (which I feel it has). The only reason I picked this one is that the edit war prior to this AFD on it appeared in several talk pages, and on looking at it, and then the category, I realized they all are a problem and should go, but felt the better option was to go with a test AFD than to nominate en masse (which almost never works). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a test case to delete articles listing Channel Guides/EPGs per WP:DIRECTORY, not a test case to delete every/any article. Your mention of McDonalds and Microsoft misses Masem's point. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reflecting on anyone's motives, I think that too often Wikipedia justifies "test case" on the grounds of "because edit war" (which this wasn't). Far easier to start an avalanche AFD than to understand the disagreement. A fresh influx of NOTDIR skimmers will overcome actual article readers more often than not. Based on more source review I'm moving to "strong keep", but it will take awhile in "userfy" for this to happen on WP's gamed timetable. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit war has nothing to do with this. I understand there was an issue between showing historical information and current, but either form would fail NOTDIR. No amount of sourcing will fix that. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikipedical, WP:DIRECTORY is something else, and not relevant to this discussion. I've already explained my McDonald's and Microsoft references. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reflecting on anyone's motives, I think that too often Wikipedia justifies "test case" on the grounds of "because edit war" (which this wasn't). Far easier to start an avalanche AFD than to understand the disagreement. A fresh influx of NOTDIR skimmers will overcome actual article readers more often than not. Based on more source review I'm moving to "strong keep", but it will take awhile in "userfy" for this to happen on WP's gamed timetable. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you mean the clause in NOTDIR that links to Directory (databases), an article which, even if one believes is well-suited to the discussion, has been tagged as being unsourced since April 2007? As to your other points, I didn't claim not notable, just less-notable than other articles. My mention of McDonald's and Microsoft goes to the same point: the tendency I've seen historically to "clean up problems"/make a point on less-notable articles, while leaving alone highly notable articles which exhibit the same "problems", as modifying or deleting those might serve to rile-up the WP community and the general public. I would submit that using Dish or DirecTV as the test case instead, would generate many more and better comments, and would lead to a much broader consensus. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, you're missing the point. A channel offering list is similar enough to other electronic program guides, as well as other similiarities to directories, as to fall within NOTDIR's territory, even though it's not explicitly listed. Further, while you may consider this list "less-notable", as you'll note above, this AFD has been well advertised, so it doesn't matter how notable the actual service is (and I would contest that AT&T Uverse is not notable since it is a major player in the US). What does McDonalds or Microsoft have to do with this? --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So lacking clear, consensus-based guidance from NOTDIR, is the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT? And why not use e.g. Dish, McDonald's, Microsoft as test cases? Use of less-notable articles as test cases seems to be a pattern in AfD and content deletion arguments. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT is not a fully-inclusive list of examples of problems, but gives ideas of what types of problems can exist, so just because a listing of stations carried by a television carrier is not explicitly listed doesn't mean it doesn't violate NOTDIR. Also, as to those others, as I identified, if this AFD does prove this to be deleted, those will under review for deletion as well - this was explicitly a test case. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Delete It: First off, please note that I have struck my original !vote above. I would have added an updated one there, but it was part of it's own "mini-thread", so I moved things to the bottom for continuity's sake. Now then...after dealing with the anon's constant, blatant and disruptive vandalism and "corrections", it is best to just delete the article outright. That, on top of the very clear "Delete" consensus here. I would still ask that the article be moved to my userspace after deletion. Thank You. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, whoa, whoa. First, there is no language in WP:NOTDIR about disallowed content being "similar enough" to an Electronic program guide. Second, NOTDIR has pointed to Directory (databases) since 10 August 2006, not to directories in general. (And had it pointed to directories in general, would that necessitate the deletion of all articles starting with "List of"?) Third, "Directory (databases)" has been tagged as unsourced since April 2007. Quite a poor foundation for a Wikipedia Policy. Which leads us to a quite existential and likely fatal flaw: the NOTDIR Policy is dependent on the current content of regular articles. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines cautions: "Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them." NOTDIR goes much, much further than deferring to advice pages: it's deferring authority to articles !!!!!! That prospect is truly disturbing, and not just to prove a point here, I'm compelled to go tag NOTDIR itself. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to main space articles is not to point policy resolution to there, but only to provide a meaning of the term. So this is just a red herring. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved this sub-discussion to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Meaning of Wikipedia:NOTDIR. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this nonanonymous !voter receiving the userfied history and affirm that the history should be preserved if only to resolve our disagreement. I naturally must again disagree with the nonanon's characterization of my edits, which will be dealt with in a different forum. Chaswmsday seems to have a very valid objection to a simple "notdir" consensus and I think the existence and tolerance of 100 of these articles affirms keeping this one. Deny as we like, WP is not driven by policy but by personality and individual, arbitrary and capricious case law. Cheers. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to main space articles is not to point policy resolution to there, but only to provide a meaning of the term. So this is just a red herring. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this one and all the others as non encyclopedic content. we are not here to provide a free hosting service for corporations to be promoting their content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per the discussions in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Meaning of Wikipedia:NOTDIR, I find the notion that this article constitutes an electronic program guide to be invalid. I further find the foundations for NOTDIR to be vague and on shaky support. Nonetheless, this article might be subject to deletion on the grounds of WP:NOTADVERTISING or by consensus within the TV Project that it "doesn't fit the educational or academic goal of WP" (in @Masem's words from the other thread).
- In case it's gone unnoticed, be aware that this precedent would call for the deletion (barring secondary sources) of all "List of" articles within Category:Lists of television channels by company and elsewhere, both for the United States and for other countries. The precedent should also affect List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations, List of XM Satellite Radio channels and other similar and dissimilar "List of" articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSo what - your attempts to Wikilawyer around the intent of WP:NOTDIR on the basis that it supposedly doesn't cover this exact sort of
dictionarydirectory appears to have little support - and unless and until the policy is changed, we will have to conform to it. The consensus here is that this is a directory, and that as such it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, do it in the appropriate place, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in reply to Chaswmsday "be aware that this precedent would call for the deletion (barring secondary sources) of all "List of" articles within Category:Lists of television channels by company and elsewhere" One would certinaly hope so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - well, of course: that's part of the whole point, to purge this whole class of WP:NOTDIR violations from the project, as should have been done a long time ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would still ask that if they are "purged" as OrangeMike put it, that I could get a couple moved to my userspace. Maybe one day find a way to make them NOT#DIR appropriate and reintroduce them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSo what - your attempts to Wikilawyer around the intent of WP:NOTDIR on the basis that it supposedly doesn't cover this exact sort of
- Keep per User:Jayron32. There is an article about U-Verse. Having a page listing the channels it carries, updated as needed, is by no means a wild, radical extension of the original page. Much of what I've read here seems to be pedantic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't mind edit warring, frequent page revising, inconvenient editing, shameless expanding, non-notable archiving, etc. of the list, similar to other lists, correct? --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. I do not. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobby, I don't see any historical value of revisions of this list, especially when this list may change due to defunct networks, upcoming networks, channel switching, and bundles coming and going. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continual edit conflicts is not a reason to delete the page (nor the reason I started this AFD). --MASEM (t) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies: well, one person changed from "keep" to "delete" because that person thought that revising this list is very time-consuming, conflict or no conflict. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- George's replies seem singularly off-point, but I don't care to elaborate. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies: well, one person changed from "keep" to "delete" because that person thought that revising this list is very time-consuming, conflict or no conflict. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. I do not. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't mind edit warring, frequent page revising, inconvenient editing, shameless expanding, non-notable archiving, etc. of the list, similar to other lists, correct? --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No way anyone can source each fact cited in that list to a reliable source independent of the topic. Fails WP:LIST. It may be an information source that has value to some people, but it's not a valuable information source per WP:LISTPURP. There's no Navigation or Development purpose to the list. And the big one, delete per WP:NOTDIR, whic notes "article on a radio station should not list ... current schedules". List of AT&T U-verse channels is close enough to that to fall under NOTDIR. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uzma Gamal, lists are developed because independent sources provide snapshots of them, and when that has been established there is nothing wrong with completing the list from self-published sources. I grant that the independent sources have not yet been added on the face of the article, but nobody has disputed our assertions that many exist. Further, a schedule of programs of a single radio station is qualitatively different from a schedule of stations of a single TV provider. Thus your supplemental arguments fail just as much as the notdir argument is failing. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the independence from AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse originates the information and the supplies the information to sources and they reprint it as provided by AT&T U-verse, which is similar to how a press release works, only with less prose information. Seems to me that, if articles on internet service providers should not list the television channel lineup per NOTDIR, then there shouldn't be a stand alone article on that television channel lineup. Regarding being avaluable information source, NOTDIR indicates that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. For example, if there was a list that conveyed how AT&T U-verse changed its television channel lineup overtime, I think that would be more valuable than the current list because you then could get some insight/sense into AT&T U-verse's thinking over time, business reactions in response to changes in technology over time, and/or etc. and get insight into questions like "Where the heck did my channel go." As for the current List of AT&T U-verse channels, readers do not need Wikipedia for the information since people can just go to AT&T U-verse Channel Lineup. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the historical changes were simply presented as they were without any additional commentary, this would still fail NOTDIR. If there is commentary, it is better to put that in prose on the provider's article to discuss "major lineup changes". Again, an example I think would be the various failings that DISH Network has had with certain broadcasters that eventually negotiated on contract teams. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the independence from AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse originates the information and the supplies the information to sources and they reprint it as provided by AT&T U-verse, which is similar to how a press release works, only with less prose information. Seems to me that, if articles on internet service providers should not list the television channel lineup per NOTDIR, then there shouldn't be a stand alone article on that television channel lineup. Regarding being avaluable information source, NOTDIR indicates that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. For example, if there was a list that conveyed how AT&T U-verse changed its television channel lineup overtime, I think that would be more valuable than the current list because you then could get some insight/sense into AT&T U-verse's thinking over time, business reactions in response to changes in technology over time, and/or etc. and get insight into questions like "Where the heck did my channel go." As for the current List of AT&T U-verse channels, readers do not need Wikipedia for the information since people can just go to AT&T U-verse Channel Lineup. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uzma Gamal, lists are developed because independent sources provide snapshots of them, and when that has been established there is nothing wrong with completing the list from self-published sources. I grant that the independent sources have not yet been added on the face of the article, but nobody has disputed our assertions that many exist. Further, a schedule of programs of a single radio station is qualitatively different from a schedule of stations of a single TV provider. Thus your supplemental arguments fail just as much as the notdir argument is failing. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does not violate NOT DIR, because this is simply detailed coverage of an important subject. to illustrate, a list of members of congress in in some sense a directory. Yet we inbclude it on the basis that it is signficant historical information about an important subct. The present article is not anywehre near suco important, but where we stop is a mtter of judgement, not to be solved by quoting buzzwords. As a nationwide company, I think that;s enogh jutification. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- detailed I will give you. important, not in the least. people who make the laws of the land are important. whether a particular cable company has CNN on channel 4 or 444 is not. if it is, it would require actual text based commentary by third party reliable sources to show why. and if such commentary appeared, it would be appropriate to cover it in the article about the company and not in this list. Just because a company is big, national or even international does not automatically guarantee that everything about them is important or worth a standalone encyclopedia article. List of streets on which Toyota has a manufacturing plant, List of VP of HR of CocaCola Company, List of pet related companies previously own by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you've done is create a batch of obviously stupid article titles which have no chance of being created, or if they are, of lasting very long. What you haven't done is argue how this article is a bad idea, compared to other list articles like Pink Floyd discography or List of Microsoft operating systems which seem like better matches for what this article does. --Jayron32 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what i did was respond to the claim made by the user that "As a nationwide company, I think that;s enogh jutification" by providing examples that showed such reasoning is not sufficient as there are lots of things related to national companies that are clearly not worth articles. And your examples are the ones that are completely inappropriate as there are multitudes of sources that discuss in detail the PF discography and the MS operating systems. There are none that discuss even in passing detail the list of Uverse channels.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Neither discography nor list of OSs is similar to list of channel lineups from one company. Discographies and lists of OSs have historical sense; channel lineups randomly change and have no third-party or independent coverage that would indicate notability of channel lineups. --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, George Ho, what you did there is called making a good argument. This is distinctly different from what Red Pen did. It isn't helpful to be ridiculous here, or to mock other people. Instead, making cogent, well reasoned arguments is the way to make this work. --Jayron32 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think my examples are ridiculous. Where a multinational decides to place high paying manufacturing jobs is far more important than whether FOX is on 887 or 889 today. Who is directing fortune 500 companies in matters of hiring, discrimination, skills training is far more important than whether I watch the Next Food Network Star on 69 while someone on the other coast watches it on 111. Whether the biggest investment holding company has decided that the economy is going to get so bad that consumers are no longer going to be having a lot of disposable income to spend on their pets and is dumping pet stores from their portfolios is far less trivial than which block of 100 channels the ESPN sports stations are being delivered on this week. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, George Ho, what you did there is called making a good argument. This is distinctly different from what Red Pen did. It isn't helpful to be ridiculous here, or to mock other people. Instead, making cogent, well reasoned arguments is the way to make this work. --Jayron32 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you've done is create a batch of obviously stupid article titles which have no chance of being created, or if they are, of lasting very long. What you haven't done is argue how this article is a bad idea, compared to other list articles like Pink Floyd discography or List of Microsoft operating systems which seem like better matches for what this article does. --Jayron32 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- detailed I will give you. important, not in the least. people who make the laws of the land are important. whether a particular cable company has CNN on channel 4 or 444 is not. if it is, it would require actual text based commentary by third party reliable sources to show why. and if such commentary appeared, it would be appropriate to cover it in the article about the company and not in this list. Just because a company is big, national or even international does not automatically guarantee that everything about them is important or worth a standalone encyclopedia article. List of streets on which Toyota has a manufacturing plant, List of VP of HR of CocaCola Company, List of pet related companies previously own by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per A. B. We're not here to regurgitate material than can be much better presented elsewhere – and more reliably and in a more timely fashion – on the Internet than we can. --MuZemike 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Transient, trivial, non encyclopedic information. Nobody Ent 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably unwelcome sidebar comment
[edit]PossiblyProbably unwelcome sidebar comment: If people really want to make TV-related lists, how about a list of communities served by each cable system? I don't know if it meets WP:NOT or if the outside world wants to read it, but it would sure make it easier when tracking some anonymous sock IPs to know what parts of metropolitan areas are served by different cable providers. Ditto all the independent phone companies in America (like CenturyLink, etc.) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: First off, I moved this to a seperate section so we didn't clog up the thread above with this discussion (gets confusing for some). Anywho, I would object to adding each and every community to a list on the infobox. For major cable or satellite systems (ie: FiOS, U-verse, DirecTV, Dish) that have the same lineup nationwide, that's no problem, but systems like Comcast, Charter, Time Warner and Suddenlink (to name a few) have different lineups from state to state, hell even town to town. I have Comcast and if you go 15 miles down the road, the cable channels are all in different places, different locals. So, it would just be a mass of information. That's where Zap2It and TVGuide.com come into play. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTDIR. No, don't see it, read it. As the discussion above amply demonstrates, we tend to discourage compiling massive lists of unencyclopaedic information (and where is 'nationwide' anyway for an international encyclopaedia?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutralhomer, I didn't mean a list of channels. I meant a list of what cable operators served what communities. That's not readily available online (if I'm wrong and there is something readily available, let me know since that's information I would use periodically when investigating some IPs). There are industry directories you can buy but they're very expensive. Again, this is purely a sidebar comment for anyone who enjoys compiling lists (not me)! Heck, you could even do it in my user space. And thanks for being moving this off to its own section. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not appropriate, because again, that goes in the concept of a directory. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @A. B.: Ah, gotcha. I misunderstand what you were meaning. That could be a very long list with a lot of original research as there really isn't a list for say Comcast or Time Warner systems anywhere online...at least not that I know of. But Masem is right, it would go again NOT#DIR.
- @AndyTheGrump: It was a sidebar question, no need to live up to your username. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not appropriate, because again, that goes in the concept of a directory. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutralhomer, I didn't mean a list of channels. I meant a list of what cable operators served what communities. That's not readily available online (if I'm wrong and there is something readily available, let me know since that's information I would use periodically when investigating some IPs). There are industry directories you can buy but they're very expensive. Again, this is purely a sidebar comment for anyone who enjoys compiling lists (not me)! Heck, you could even do it in my user space. And thanks for being moving this off to its own section. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While this sidebar discusses a need, it's not a WP need. These lists are proprietary and that's why they're OR. The fiber providers are only in the communities where they have fiber boxes and a list of fiber boxes, which is the only thing this sidebar would amount to, is more of a Google Earth project. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing of article
[edit]Moved from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not:
- Clarification: Would like to note that the List of AT&T U-verse channels page is no longer unsourced ans I took four seperate sources from three seperate sites (including AT&T itself) to source it. You can find them at the top of the page. I though I had removed the "unsourced" template at the top, but oh well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
End move --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise to AfD
[edit]Crossposted from Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels#Compromise to AfD
As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article?
End Crosspost --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- God no. See WP:OCAT; we do not categorize articles by every fact they contain, and categorizing cable channel articles by every provider that carries them would really be a ridiculous thing to do. I can guarantee that any such category would get soundly thrashed at WP:CFD. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- also NO. Although aI support the article, doing something like that makes every possibly objection to the content even worse, If we are goign to cover it, a single article is better than diffusing the information in this extremely unhelpful fashion, with all the associated overhead. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snurbs IM (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 significant secondary-source coverage cited or to be found; fails WP:GNG on that basis. Batard0 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: my search brought nothing to demonstrate notability. Given that this is a custom incompatible IM client with little to no user base, this article seems to serve promotional purposes, so WP:NOTPROMO may also apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a starting IM software in its firt beta versions let it rise and this page is not for advertisement cause the software is free and doesnot need advert - preceding comment by User:Madara2012.
- The phrases "let it rise" and "not for advertisement cause" hardly sit well in the same sentence IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence found that this software has attained WP:NSOFT notability. Hardly surprising, given comment about it being in first beta.) AllyD (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - software article lacks 3rd party references to establish notaiblity, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:03, 27 September 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) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Alghawi (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)
Bio of blatantly non-notable person. Claim to notability appears to be that he's an "activist" who handles the Facebook and Twitter pages for a right wing PAC. Presumably an autobiography. Speedy and notability tags persistently removed by an IP, skipping PROD since presumably that will be removed as well. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 12:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Blatantly non-notable. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The guy wants a career in politics, so he thinks the way to do it is to come here and write an article about himself. Well, that's not how it works on Wikipedia, and it's not how it works in the political world, either. Fails WP:POLITICIAN--by a landslide. Qworty (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Previously speedied [42] The poor kid. Three more years have gone by, and he's no more notable than he was in 2009. Qworty (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not delete* Hairhorn's usage of the term "right-wing" in a pejorative sense is a clear bias and I request that he be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonDarkhorse (talk • contribs)
- LOL. You're accusing another editor of bias while you yourself have been busy vandalizing the AfD discussion [43] about an article you wrote about yourself?? LOLOL. I must say you do act like a certain breed of politician, although you are not a notable one. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty considering your reasoning is nothing but ad hominem it's clear you have a bias as well. This is not an article about myself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given the fact that you are now guilty of 3RR, of vandalizing maintenance tags, and of vandalizing the AfD discussion, there are now three different reasons to block you. Qworty (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the tags were honest mistakes, as I am new at this. However, removing your autobiography tag was NOT vandalism. The fact that you posted it without proof should be construed as vandalism itself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence. Alghawi is from Dayton, Ohio and lives in Houston, Texas. You're from Dayton and you're editing out of Houston. That's quite a coincidence, don't you think? How ever do you explain it? Qworty (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that user Aarong2029 (talk · contribs) originally wrote this page in his sandbox, since blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had noticed that earlier. Looks like a fourth reason to ban him, for WP:SOCK. Anyone care to open an official investigation? Qworty (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that user Aarong2029 (talk · contribs) originally wrote this page in his sandbox, since blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know that you didn't invent the user Aarong2029 yourself? The first user who tried to delete Aaron Alghawi was Delta161 and that user had no prior edit history. Was Delta a code word for delete? 161 is a numerical representation of Aaron Alghawi's initials A = 1 F = 6. AFA = 161. The page doesn't have much of an edit history on it. If I was using both pages, what's the point? Why would I create two usernames that could be associated with the page? Why not just one? Why none? And why wouldn't he make his own sandbox private? Just walk away, Qworty and Hairhorn, you have clear biases. I'll upload more sources as I find them to add to the significance of the subject. I'm doing more articles on the RLC national committee as well as time permits. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "As time permits?" You mean, before you're blocked for your four documented violations of Wikipedia policies? Qworty (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean as I feel like because I have a life unlike the stereotypical "internet tough guy" that stalks Wikipedia pages of those with different political beliefs trying to get them deleted DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're not being deleted because you're a Republican. We have thousands of articles about Republicans, many of them from your own state [44]. You're being deleted because you have failed to become a notable one. Qworty (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: autobiography - as Hairhorn has already discovered, DaytonDarkhorse also edited several other pages (e.g. U of TX A&M notable alumni) - all of which pointed to this page. Ironic that I was accused of registering solely to delete this page. By that reasoning, it certainly appears DaytonDarkhorse registered solely to create this individual presence on Wikipedia. Also, sorry to burst your code breaking bubble, but my username has nothing to do with you (although if it were, cracking that code might be the most notable thing you've done). Please do yourself a favor and review Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Delta161 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm a little irked by the tone this discussion has taken. We should do our best to gently explain the concept of WP:NOTABLE to DaytonDarkhorse and leave it at that. We don't need to point out with smug glee that Aaron Alghawi has "failed to become a notable" person or lodge WP:SOCK allegations against new users who probably aren't familiar with the rules. I understand that it might be fun and amusing to denigrate those seeking to use WP as an outlet to massage their ego, but I'm not sure it's in the best spirit of the project. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough and I will admit my contribution to such in the last comment. I originally tagged this article in good faith for deletion as a blatantly non-notable person. However, it is not irrelevant to note that the article is quite apparently WP:AUTO (ref content written in sandbox, personal details of subject in article, username/url geographies, other pages edited, etc.). Further, with regard to “tone,” DaytonDarkhorse should rightfully be exposed as the instigator of such by repeatedly violating Wikipedia rules (even after warned) and acting contentiously with long-standing editors (accusations of bias, etc.).Delta161 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Let's look at this with utter sobriety. In 2009, Aaron Alghawi came here to write an article about himself that was speedily deleted for lack of notability [45]. Then, in September of 2012, Aaron Alghawi returned to do it again, this time starting in a sandbox [46]. Then, after creating a sock puppet, he moved the article into the main space of Wikipedia [47]. Aaron Alghawi didn't stop there. Three days later, in a clumsy attempt to cover up what he had done, he blanked the sandbox [48]. He then set about spamming the link to his article onto other articles, including "famous" people born on his birthday [49], a political group [50], and a college [51]. When the article he had written about himself was quite rightly nominated for speedy deletion for lack of notability, he responded by removing the deletion tag himself, not once, but FOUR times [52] [53] [54] [55]. The fourth time, he vandalized the notability tag for good measure. While doing so, he logged out in order to create a third sock--his IP address--and unwittingly revealed that he was editing from his new hometown of Houston. When the article came to AfD, Aaron Alghawi responded by vandalizing the WP:AUTO tag FOUR times, in violation of 3RR. (Whew! This is tiring me out, so please just look in the edit history.) He didn't stop there. He then stepped into the AfD discussion and began vandalizing it [56]. Now, how exactly is Aaron Alghawi the "victim" in all of this? What exactly is "fun and amusing" about all of this? He should be banned for 3RR, for vandalizing maintenance tags, for vandalizing deletion tags, for sock puppetry, and for vandalizing the deletion discussion. He's a troublemaker who will break every rule in order to establish and preserve a false notability on Wikipedia, for the purpose of advancing his own political ambitions in the Republican Party. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't say he was was a victim. There's no reason to bash perpetrators though. Professional policing is polite policing. I'm not sure this guy's "sock"ing was done with malicious intent, and I think if we WP:AGF we wouldn't be quite so critical. He's obviously a new user. New users rarely sock maliciously. And anyways, even if you do want to believe this guy is the worst of the worst, you ought not feed the trolls. NickCT (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to delete the page, just get it over with and shut up about it. How's that for a troublemaker? The page will be back in the future, as will the other RLC board member pages, once more sources are found. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You still don't get it. First of all, if the person meets notability standards, the sources are typically not difficult to find with a simple web search. This article itself presents no basis for notability (by Wikipedia standards). Being on the RLC board, blogging, and volunteering for a congressional candidate do not meet the Wikipedia standards. The RLC is a notable organization. Some of its members/board members are probably notable, others are not. That's all. Taking it personally is just one more reason to avoid autobiographical work. Delta161 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt this article. The article's author is threatening that once it's deleted, "the page will be back." He's already recreated it one time, after it was speedied. Clearly, he's going to continue to recreate and recreate and recreate this non-notable autobiography as many times as he can. He should be prevented from doing so. Qworty (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt - add this to my delete !vote, above, salt for the reasons Qworty stated. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, it's not an autobiography. Other mods: the next time it is posted I will make sure it has enough sources to met the notability guidelines. Go ahead and delete it for now. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- As author of the article, I move to close this discussion and delete the article immediately. If it does not meet the notability guidelines then I will not fight its deletion. And I will use more scrutiny in my future articles. However from the language of Hairhorn and Qworty as well as complaints on Qworty's talk page, I still stand by my claims that they were motivated by a political bias, even if they were right about the non-notability. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 September 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) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snap Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, no reliable sources. No GNews/Books hits, GHits do not appear to have anything useful either. Brought to AFD since article makes a claim of significance. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I haven't found any sources despite searching with both Google US and New Zealand news. I wouldn't know how significant this company is to New Zealanders but it seems non-notable to me. SwisterTwister talk 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as it only receives a passing mention at most on the articles secondary sources, with the same being true of the companies search engine results.--Donkey1989 (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Creator of article admits he works for the company. Article creation seems to be an attempt at promotion of the company rather than creation of an independently notable article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the purest WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Largest independent internet provider in the South Island. Article does need despammed and blog entries etc. need to be weeded out from references, will try to get to that in the next few days if I have time. Not sure why nobody else can find reliable reporting of them, I found two in a matter of minutes. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not advertising. The article has one secondary source, and appears to be little more than a trophy cabinet of awards won by the company.--SUFC Boy 10:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete (due to lack of sources)
Weak Keepneeds to be de-spammed/COI/advert per my markings, notability claim is upheld in reference. We may not have heard of this company, but as the largest (independent) ISP on the island, this has some notability. Widefox; talk 11:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Widefox; talk 18:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, can't find enough to make it warrant a keep - they are not significant enough - by independent they seem to mean first after all the main telecommunication companies. The awards don't seem that significant either. NealeFamily (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 September 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 Intelligence services in Canada. Please note that "merge and delete" is not a possible outcome as it would instantly turn any merged content into copyright violations under Wikipedia's attribution requirements. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency (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 such thing as a Canadian foreign intelligence agency. The article is unsourced and is mostly speculation. Very little encyclopedic value. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but probably rename. It's a stubby article, although I've tried to update it and add refs. But the general topic of foreign intelligence and surveillance by Canada, the history and structure of Canadian foreign intelligence operations, and the question of whether Canada needs a foreign intelligence agency, are notable topics.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] Might consider renaming it to something like Canadian foreign intelligence services or something similar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article discussed here is not about the broader topic of foreign intelligence activities by Canada, which is already covered to some extent at Intelligence services in Canada. The non-existent agency is not notable in itself, and a rename and refocus of the CFIA article to something like "foreign intelligence in Canada" would amount to a fork of the #Modern intelligence section that can hardly be justified considering the small amount of useful content. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Intelligence services in Canada. There's enough sources, but not enough content for a separate article. The agency doesn't exist ... or does it? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge usable content (the last 2 paragraphs) to Intelligence services in Canada and then Delete. Agency as named does not exist and is not a viable search term; WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here in the sense of speculation - and WP:Reality Wins Again also applies because in the current Canadian political climate creation of such an agency is unlikely.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment: if by some miracle this is kept, it should be renamed to "Canadian foreign intelligence agency" - capitalization does not apply here because it suggests the existence of a non-existant agency.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete as above. Presented as though it actually exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect for the reasons given above. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 September 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.
Speedy deleted under G12 CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Best city (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 doesn't have any significance to be included in the encyclopedia, doesn't have neutral point of view, few source(s), non-notable Mediran talk 10:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only source is a master's thesis, so POV issue (lack of balance) looms large, and notability certainly isn't established. Whether 'Best xxx' can be an encyclopedic topic is a matter for debate; certainly "Best..." invites POV writing, but if a range of sources is available it might be possible to write neutrally about it. Whether this article is a suitable place to begin for that project is doubtful: it sets out a particular bunch of criteria, which other sources probably wouldn't agree with, so comparison would involve starting again - i.e. WP:TNT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 25 September 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calpano (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 simple piece of info and not an article Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7: Unremarkable company or organization. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:48, 25 September 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) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-mortem interval (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)
Entirely unsourced, failing WP:V, so tagged since 2009. No way to tell as a reader if any of this, particularly the stages of death, is true. Delete if untrue or still unsourced after the AfD, else merge to Death. Sandstein 09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep We do not delete articles just because they lack sources because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Even if the article had references, this would be no guarantee that they or the text of the article was true. The main way that Wikipedia is kept reasonably accurate is that we have many eyes inspecting the content and that the readers are able to tag or correct anything which seems dubious. There doesn't seem to be any such dubious content in this article and so the concern of the nomination is low priority busy work. But AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator wants sources adding or the facts checked, he should please do so himself, per {{sofixit}}. Warden (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, lack of sources is indeed a reason for deletion per WP:V. That policy states: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this unsourced material because I have no way to determine whether it is true. This means that it must be deleted if nobody does source it. Even if it is eventually sourced, it does not seem to fulfil the requirements for a standalone article and should therefore be merged. Sandstein 15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- After a brief review, strikes me that with a little work, this article could pass WP:V. At the same time though, Sand is right in saying there's currently no sourcing. Not sure what to do here. Do we delete articles because they are not verified or do we delete them because they can't be verified. Probably ideal solution would be for someone to just rework the article. NickCT (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Chiswick Chap added some references. I'm changing from neutral to keep. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Colonel is correct here: we delete when sources cannot be found, not when they simply happen not to be in the article already. However, to save arguing, I've simply added some refs, and done a little body-dressing on the article. There is no shortage of suitable sources; every forensic pathologist knows the traditional methods, it appears. It does look as though the one that the pre-AfD text was based on was pretty basic, however. I've also named and reffed two more recent techniques; I rather suspect there are a whole lot more that could be added, but others can add those later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, following Chiswick Chap's improvements to the article, especially the inclusion of academic material in which there is substantial coverage of the subject. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet (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 Member of Parliament for Linlithgow Burghs from 1772 to 1784 is his only substantive claim to notability. The remainder of the article is genealogical. Unless being an MP automatically confers notability, the article must go as the rest is purely of interest to his family. Inheriting a non-noble title does not confer notability. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have added a source that cites him being an MP, which means he passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Seems an interesting enough person. Does Member of Parliament mean he sat in the House of Commons? Pity nothing about him in the article, but at least no married secondly... and had issue ... and issue had issue who married firstly... and the link can provide our readers with what they may want. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC) (Nominator, which should mean this may be now closed)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lock On (street art) (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)
Sources used in article are either assosciated with the subject or are blogs. My own search for reliable sources discussing this phenomenon failed to find anythinng any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agreed. There are "sources" for the information like the brooklynstreetart blog and the Classic Copenhagen blog and these are probably what inspired the article. But these are not "reliable sources" as per WP, so the subject fails WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - would be a shame to delete this important knowlege. Found lot´s of sources at the Danish Wikipedia: Some in danish, some in french, some in english. 217.61.50.32 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - The article is new. Here are some sources (from USA, England, Denmark, Germany and Poland) about the suject(some more suitable than others, but togeather it´s my impression that they give a good picture of the new lock on genre.
- "Lock On´s in Lunchmoney Gallery". http://lunchmoneygallery.com/tejn-january-20-%e2%80%93-february-18-2012/.
- Ring, Katrine (2011) (Book in danish and english). Walk This Way. Radius. pp. 29, 50, 54, 64, 66-70. ISBN 9788792334220.
- In polish: http://streetartnia.wordpress.com/tag/tejn/
- "Lock On artist homepage". http://www.tejnibyen.dk/node/1055.
- "Tejn in Magasinet KBH (newspaper)". http://www.magasinetkbh.dk/node/1055.
- "Tejn, Palms Are Sweaty". http://wots.dk/2011/04/tejn-har-faet-svedige-handflader/.
- "Galore Underground art festival". http://werket.dk/galore/.
- "KØS, Museum for art in public space". http://www.koes.dk/#/495126/.
- "Helvetikat gallery". http://www.helvetikat.dk/index.php?/project/tejn-palms-are-sweaty/.
- "Street art in Køge". Politiken (newspaper). http://ibyen.dk/kunst/omtaler_kunst/ECE1273094/vil-du-se-street-art-saa-tag-til--koege/.
- "Brooklyn Street Art: Tejn, Lock On". http://www.brooklynstreetart.com/theblog/2012/03/24/copenhagen-street-art-on-lock-down/.
- "Lock On video". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQsgHYEIPw.
- "Zeutch (in french)". http://www.zeutch.com/graphik/lock-ons-34600.
- Art review: http://gadeplanet.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/do-the-lines-gadekunst-pa-udstilling/
- "Classic Copenhagen, Lock On, Tejn". http://classiccopenhagen.blogspot.com/2012/03/lock-on-tejn.html.
- "Cafe Morgenrot, Berlin, cafe and gallery (in german)". http://morgenrot.blogsport.eu/2012/06/13/absence-of-a-leader/.
- Brandts museum of art (danish) http://www.artworx.dk/street-art-the-new-generation-pa-brandts-klaedefabrik-i-odense-part-1/
- Greetings, Mogenskbh (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Have fixed the indentation on your comment for ease of reading. I don't believe I changed the content, but if you are concerned about my changes, please feel free to revert them. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Understand where you are coming from but most of those could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject artistic style. Some are broken links, but those that aren't are mostly blogs and so could not be considered "reliable sources" for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Having had a look through them, it might be possible to use some of those to help build on the article for Tejn (artist), the artist responsible for this style. You might be better off trying to Merge the content of the above into his article under a section about his styles of art. There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this particular style to justify a stand-alone article. If the style is still developing and is gaining popularity and might be the subject of more coverage in the future, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If that is the case, it might be worth userfying the article so you can work on it in your own space, for example at User:Mogenskbh/Lock On (street art) which can be created for you. Once it has the appropriate references it can be brought back into the main article space. That can sometimes be a better option that deletion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Newfound sources added + expanding of the article has begun. The internet is full of lock on explaining material. Unfortunately this art niche is mostly describet on blogs, social networks og in other languages than english. There is some good information though. Lets make this thing grow. I812 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, none of the "sources" you added are really sources that would help this article comply with WP:GNG. You should have a read of that policy and work on finding some sources (if they exist) to help this article comply. You should also note that Wikipedia already has an article for Love padlocks which is very different - sources for that subject should not be added to this one with the suggestion they verify the claims in this article. They do not. You might also like to have a read of WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:SOC. I'm all for helping the article to grow and have suggested a way for that to happen while it (currently) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advise, Stalwart. I´m new here, trying to navigate on this page. Have now deletet the Love Padlock section of this article. I tried to read WP rules where I found them, but didn´t manage to get a clear view conserning witch languages, according to WP, are big enough to really count as a source. If danish is ok (thinking the world got Bing and other translate oppurtunities) it should be no problem to ad some of the "relyable" sources from newspapers and galleries, but if it has to be in english, I see problems finding it when it comes to local but relevant subjects (like a upcomming, non destructive, branch in street art). I would like to Keep the article, but my time investment is limited, so I really need some help to get it going from here. Cheers :-) I812 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that. WP:NOENG gives a pretty good summary for the guidelines that would apply in this case. English sources are preferred because this is the English Wikipedia, but foreign language sources can be used. I think there would be concern, though, if an article relied entirely on foreign language sources, especially to meet WP:GNG. Regardless of language, blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) - and I don't need to be able to read Danish to be able to tell many of the current "sources" are blogs and would not be considered reliable, regardless of language. So we either need to find some reliable sources (in English and Danish and others, as the case might be) or we need to look at alternate options like userfication. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree with you, Stalwart, and i´m happy that some foreign language souces is accepted. I´ve added a bit sources (danish gallerys + one of denmarks leading newspapers), and have no time for wikiwork the next few days. The genre is growing and sooner or later the perfect source must show up. Hope that someone out there with more time wil take the challenge of making this into a great article. Cheers for now I812 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, sources are not required to be in English whatsoever, per WP:GNG, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." Topics can have entirely non-English language sources and still pass the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely right - strangely, that line from GNG about them not being required links back to NOENG which says they are preferred. But that's not my point - my point was that editors/readers might be concerned if the article relied on non-English sources and those sources (to non-Danish readers, for example) didn't look to be WP:RS. My point was as much about the sources themselves as about the language. Danish/French-only sources would be fine if those sources were WP:RS. As an aside, the sources added by I812 look good. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Broken link fixed, source added (book in danish and english describing a lock on (+ wheat paste-) artist on nine pages), minor details. Mogenskbh (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could use a helping hand making the language in the article sound like it is written by someone who is better in writing english than I am. :-) Mogenskbh (talk) 15:10, 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, @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 08:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The article is a stub and should be expanded. Good luck editors :) this could be a cool page.Righteousskills (talk) 18:50, 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) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative Minerals Management Bill (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)
Unambiguous copyright violation of http://lrcksk.org/main/campaigns/minerals-management-bill/. (G12 tag removed.) Cindy(talk to me) 07:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio. I tagged the article as a copyvio. GregJackP Boomer! 12:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 September 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. Pliché has been restored, since it's undiscussed. Anyone wanting the content to make an EPower that meets WP:N can ask at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, but there really isn't any worth having. WilyD 08:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced stub full of spelling punctuation errors (even in the title!). Content could probably be merged into the iMac article if necessary. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. The article Desktop computer is currently a mess (though I'm trying to tidy it up) but it does include a discussion on all-in-one desktop computers mentioning the iMac. The first-generation iMac was notable for its all-in-one form factor with CRT and electronics combined, though later iMacs had different form factors. No point in merging this because it's even less clear than what you get from All-in-One PC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article contains the same facts and format as the 2007 revision, but the spelling and grammar have been altered for the worse. Considering that in five years, no additional significant facts or related information has been published, it is a waste of a MB on a server. Frankly, an article discussing things that resemble other things is a laughable topic. --Stealthninjaduck (talk) 25 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close and reinstate the two articles, followed by a housekeeping deletion of the nominated article title. The article history shows that this article was previously located at EPower, which may be notable. Pliché has also been redirected to Computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac. -- Trevj (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the subjects' notability will have to be established anyway. If it not be, the article will be deleted — why trouble ourselves with splitting in this case? Keφr (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Observing a judicious process does not signify or necessitate bureaucracy. A valid AFD nomination requires that incompetence and vandalism do not compromise the article, such that the subsequent discussion is an accurate and fair procedure. Whatever the issues affecting the original articles on EPower and Pliché, they properly warrant a separate discussion, without reference to the ineptitude that ultimately prompted the nomination of the article entitled 'computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac'. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Pliché hasn't been nominated, so I agree that an appropriate discussion would be required. -- Trevj (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Observing a judicious process does not signify or necessitate bureaucracy. A valid AFD nomination requires that incompetence and vandalism do not compromise the article, such that the subsequent discussion is an accurate and fair procedure. Whatever the issues affecting the original articles on EPower and Pliché, they properly warrant a separate discussion, without reference to the ineptitude that ultimately prompted the nomination of the article entitled 'computer's That Resemble The First-Genration iMac'. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Procedural close per Trevj and WP:BEFORE B. §3. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a need to close the discussion per the above suggestion. While it might be reasonable under other circumstances, the entire history of EPower is at the current article, and it never has been substantially better than it is now. The history of Pliché is essentially the same. Those who opine here are not being misled, and if there is evidence of notability of either of the two machines, it can be established here and the article moved as needed. I do not see sufficient proof of notability to justify the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're discussing the two articles (which isn't obvious from the AfD title), then either
- This AfD should be closed and a new one started; or
- This one needs relisting and appropriate direction advised for those discussing.
- -- Trevj (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're discussing the two articles (which isn't obvious from the AfD title), then either
- just to ensure there's no confusion, I'm not suggesting that any article be deleted other than the one nominated. All I suggest is that thisarticleis no different from others that have been moved - we take the article on its merits, and on that basis this article imho should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:12, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low level of participation. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mongo Wrestling Alliance (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 search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This 11-minute television series fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 13 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) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aired on a national cable network for a full run. Passes WP:N easily, even if it only aired for one season (sources are needed, but it's obvious an Adult Swim show easily has notability even without any). Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited, and all articles require a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources; our guidelines are quite clear on this point. Furthermore, its full run was 10 11-minute episodes, which would not grant inherent notability even if there were such a thing. Neelix (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators should never add a delete vote as this is indicated by nominating the article for deletion. I have moved this to your initial AfD nomination comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Adult Swim programs. I've found three sources, but ultimately that's all that I could really find for this show and I don't think three sole sources show notability enough to merit an article. Notability isn't inherited by airing on Adult Swim. It generally didn't get much notice from the public at large as far as reliable sources go. If someone could find one more in-depth source, I'd be willing to potentially change my vote. It's just that everything else I've found has either been non-reliable, primary, or a "junk" hit. Everything else has been in passing and there's not a lot of those either. I'm voting for a redirect to the list of programs since redirects are cheap, although it may be worthwhile to keep the history in case more sources are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Arcana Heart characters (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:LISTN, as part of the guideline on WP:Notability, explains that we need to establish the notability of lists by establishing the notability of the group. There is nothing here to WP:verify notability of these characters. Further, most of this article just summarizes information from the instruction manual (a few sentences of character bio plus a ton of information about fighting style / moves / etc.), which would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Lists of gameplay weapons and moves are considered inappropriate under those guidelines. Simply editing out that information WP:WONTWORK, because then you won't have much of a list at all, hence why I'm proposing deletion as the policy-based option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooterwalker (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LISTN is not applicable to all lists, as it itself explains, but is merely one analytical tool. It helps us far less with subtopics such as this, which is merely a WP:SPLIT from Arcana Heart. If it is not to be kept separately for WP:SIZE concerns, then it should be merged back to that article, as a summary of the characters in a video game series is a necessary part of covering that series. So keep or merge (in other words, deal with through normal editing and discussion to trim or improve sourcing). postdlf (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Whether we merge this depends on the importance of the work, and the amount of material available. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 23 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Normally, I would just advocate trimming and merging the list to the main Arcana Heart article. But it seems that a good deal of the information on this list (the entirety of the Arcana Hearts 1 characters for sure) is just directly copied and pasted from the character's official bios off the official site. This seems like its a bit of a copyvio problem that needs to be fixed before anything is merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep whatever survives the above copyright concerns, and then have a normal editing discussion about whether the list should be split from the game or merged back into it. Shooterwalker's nom ignores the fact that we routinely keep one or more lists of characters from fictional works (multiple if merited based on size) in lieu of people deciding to create individual articles for non-notable characters. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 27 September 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. Soft delete because discussion has been minimal. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Society for Companion Animal Studies (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)
Although certainly a noble cause, I haven't found sufficient sources to establish notability. Google News provided links each consisting of one mention here, here and here (requires payment for full article). Google Books also provided one mention here. Google Books also found this (scroll to the book with the title "Society for Companion Animal Studies"), a book published for the society with content from this article. I should also note that this is not the first time I have seen this. I've seen those authors publish other books with content from Wikipedia as shown here.
The best link I found was this, mentioning that the group was founded as Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond in 1979 but changed its name in 1982. However, I have found little results with "Group for the Study of Human-Companion Animal Bond" aside from one mention through a 1979 newspaper here. I found another small mention of the former name here. With a slightly positive note, I found what appears to be a detailed book here (scroll to the title "The powers of love"). Unfortunately, the snippet view never shows the relevant content. Additionally, I would be more than willing to improve the article if it weren't that I haven't found any significant content or significant sources. If I were to improve the article, it seems the best option would be a stub with the former name and dates. However, the concern of few news sources would remain. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, besides its own claims for itself. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 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) 14:03, 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, SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 September 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Price (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 does not assert notability nor is it referenced, any possible notability of this minor actor is borderline and as it is written and as I see sources it is best to delete Chanchiqua (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There appear to be enough articles written on this person and his career [69][70][71][72][73][74] (some require subscription) to satisfy WP:GNG, and his on-camera work seems to meet WP:ENT #1 as well. Gongshow Talk 23:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In a few NYT reviewed films, and mentioned therein. Well enough to meet the Wikipedia def of notability AFAICT. Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 September 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) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthony M. Esolen (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 subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. He is in fact a translator of notable works, but he WP:INHERITs nothing as far as notability. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This guy fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[See below: Opinion changed! *Delete As this stands there is no evidence given of genuine notability. Short of someone finding various positive references in peer reviews/articles on Dante and similar academic works there is no reason to keep this. Jpacobb (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Has anyone argued that doing a translation of a great work conveys notability and gets a WP:INHERIT warning? I don't think so. But a great, and critically praised, translation of a work (great or not), is notable. One looks for reviews of the translations to see whether this is true or not, as Jpacobb suggests, and they are there in spades. JSTOR: reviews of his Tasso translation in the top journals of the field: Translation and Literature: "offers a great deal...excellent notes" (by Barbara Reynolds; a superstar of the opposite translation tradition), International Journal of the Classical Tradition: "Esolen easily supplants the...competition; his is a highly readable translation with considerable narrative drive and a good deal of local vigor and interest", Sixteenth-Century Journal: "Because Esolen takes such care to make the text accessible, he offers an excellent introduction to Tasso for new generations of readers, and he succeeds in awaking an interest in the original Italian, as well as in all ofTasso's works, with this translation." Reviews of his Lucretius, Spenser, and Dante abound -- there's not time to read all the praise for Esolen in them. But just suffice to say that The Modern Library chose his translation of the Divine Comedy for their series -- this is not in any way a minor press, but the kind of extremely highly regarded publisher that has the money and reputation to attract the best and most notable of translators. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Guys, I got JSTOR added to the Find sources template for a reason! His translations have been reviewed in a couple of scholarly journals, as Mscuthbert points out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am changing my opinion in the light of Michael Scott Cuthbert's contribution: there is now sufficient evidence of notability. Can it be worked into the article please? Jpacobb (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to do so once the AfD gets closer to the end if it looks like the balance is for keep. Thanks for reconsidering! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- He's among the best-known translators of classic texts now at work in America. For what it's worth, Anthony M. Esolen gave me 52 hits on Amazon and (in quotation marks) 283,000 hits on Google. Tillander 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a review of one of his translations here. The review makes significant remarks about Esolen's style etc. and is largely positive. There is another review here. This one is negative, but glowing reviews aren't needed for notability. There is still another one, again positive, here. The last source is not a neutral one (it is effectively a magazine of the Catholic Church) but is high quality especially for literary stuff. That is after skipping the JSTOR references others have pointed out. Churn and change (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a periphery look at the lead shows that his translations are major, important works of history. Definitely notable. --Activism1234 05:05, 30 September 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. The article has now received significant improvement with a rewrite and sufficient sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Queeruption (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)
Foe over 2.5 years tagged as nonnotable without improvement Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Google books has a lot of published works that cover this topic.Chanchiqua (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - @Chanchiqua - Not exactly, several of those are small mentions or irrelevant. Intial comment sidetracked due to edit conflict: I found several results with Google News archives but one of the websites (beyondrobson.com) that supplied several of those results appears to have closed. I also found this indybay.org link which claims that the festival has been held in London, New York, San Francisco, Berlin, Amsterdam, Sydney and Barcelona but I question that website's reliability. This San Francisco Bay Guardian article mentions that it started in 1998. I noticed that half of the results were supplied by either BeyondRobson or infoshop.org, suggesting that this festival receiving little to no significant coverage. The other results are simply event listings, not English (but seem trivial as well) and all of the archives results are from 2006 to 2008 so I believe that this festival may have failed or ended. Google Books provided small mentions here, here, here, here and here. I also found this book which also mentions 1998 as the establishment date and continues with some possibly helpful information but the preview never continues with a clear view of the pages. This result cites the festival's website as the source for the information, I also found other small mentions that aren't worth listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal I still see numerous non-trivial sources spanning several years implying continuing coverage, furthermore your inability to obtain old information is what's irrelevant, the wayback machine will do a fine job or digging up the old articles.Chanchiqua (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have found "numerous non-trivial sources spanning several years implying continuing coverage", please list them. Furthermore, how is my ability to obtain old information irrelevant? I explicitly stated that I have only found old articles and zero recent links, suggesting that this festival may have failed or ended. SwisterTwister talk 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There is a valid argument that not each iteration of this international queer anarchist festival deserves its own article but the collective overall article has plenty of sources including journals and books that do discuss this as part of the larger movements of the political left and anarchists in general. I stopped adding cites after the first of six pages from the Google Scholar link (which includes some books) after the first page. I can certainly add more but it would take an investment of some time as there is so much and not all is available online. The Internet Archive is a likely trove of online articles but alas will only help find those articles that google has cached in some way. That the events may have ended for good (I'm not sure if anarchists do officially end these events or if it's a matter of no new group forming to organize one) is of no consequence as the original series we have is plenty notable in itself. Also it's worth mention I didn't yet do a wider www search as I was finding so many sources to start with, a wider www search would start to pull up an abundance of LGBTQ press that is still left out of Google News but remains plenty reliable as a source, this is a systematic bias against LGBTQ news organizations and is worth mentioning as this event is more likely to be covered by those businesses. Insomesia (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good deal of secondary sourcing, exceeds standards for significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 26 September 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) 01:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonio Dennard (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 American football player that plays cornerback. He has not played a regular season game or is on an active roster. Played college at an NAIA school. Has been Proded, deleted and recreated hours after deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per long-standing consensus that making an NFL practice squad is not sufficient to clear the low, low, low bar we have set for notability for professional athletes. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, and there's no solid evidence that he passes WP:BIO or any of the other specialised notability guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A college football player can also qualify regardless of whether he plays pro ball if he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources. In this case, I don't find any such non-trivial coverage of Dennard's college career. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only passing mention in a few news articles, nothing of substance. If he makes the pro cut and plays, that's a different story.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cbl62 and Paulmcdonald -- no presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH; insufficient independent media coverage of substantial nature to satisfy general notability standard of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 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 Moved to AFC space. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lone Wolves (novel series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable self-published book series with no references. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:55, 25 September 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 wrong forum. Try over there. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ligue de Football de Guyane (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 correct name is “Ligue de Football de la Guyane”. The page “Ligue de Football de Guyane” is just a leftover redirect with the wrong name. Cf. this pdf. -- Dietrich Benninghaus (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've refactored the nomination to include the standard deletion templates. Monty845 15:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Wrong deletion venue, would go to RfD. But note, as to the substantive question of deletion, it is traditional to leave redirects in place following a page move unless there is a good reason to remove it. Wrong name redirects are helpful, as anyone else mistaken about the name will be directed to the correct article. Furthermore this redirect still has a large number of incoming links. I would therefor suggest not relisting it at RfD and leaving the redirect intact. Monty845 16:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Besides the wrong venue issue, the fact that the page existed at the wrong title is a good indication that people sometimes think that the league has this name. Redirects are often in place for people who remember a name wrongly, and this is a good example. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 25 September 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.