Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 6
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ozzy Dugulubgov (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 is unclear if this person is notable enough for a WP entry. There is already a notability tag in this article and I agree w the editor who placed it there. The article has other issues which shouldn't be addressed if it can't pass the notability test but which must be addressed otherwise. Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cage Fury Fighting Championships and World Series of Fighting are not top tier fight organizations and as such the fighter remains all three fights shy to meet WP:NMMA. In conducting WP:BEFORE, this athlete does not have any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to meet our general notability guideline; it would seem there's a reason why there are no sources listed in the article, furthermore it lacks any prose so for most readers it fails to identify the subject of the article (this is a stylistic choice, but no sources and no subject is not a good sign). Mkdwtalk 03:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He clearly fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. In addition, my search found no coverage except for social media and routine sports reporting so he also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abderrahmane Saighi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally since the article had previously been PROD'ed. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abderrahmane Bourdim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both and about 120+ more, which will have to wait for another time. I originally PRODed these articles as it appears the author created 120+ stubs without checking to see if any of the individuals have done anything more than be in a squad for an international youth football tournament, which is below notability standards on Wikipedia. C679 06:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing in a youth-international tournament is not enough to bestow notability - long-standing consensus and common sense confirm it! GiantSnowman 09:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the players are in a fairly high profile international tournament, even though they are young. That makes them notable, per GNG, if they have sourcing. Sadads (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth international caps as a source of notability, and the sourcing they have is routine coverage insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - articles needs expansion, not deletion. A few sources from US-based Google search include: [1], [2], [3] Hmlarson (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also routine coverage insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete playing in an international youth tournament does not make players notable. These people are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as non-notable. Neither player meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Sideways713 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2012 Valparaíso earthquake (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 earthquake; most likely just another aftershock of the 2010 Chile earthquake, which unlike others, didn't have destructive consequences more than a tsunami warning which ended up in nothing Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion
- Delete - This one scared some people and there were disruptions to telecom services and power transmission, but there's isn't much more to say than that. This would be fine on Wikinews but there's not enough substance to be included here. Dawnseeker2000 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is not a deletion-related argument. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stelios Siomos (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:BAND, this should be a redirect to Koza Mostra. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close - nominator is not proposing any deletion action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is not a deletion-related argument given. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 03:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Elias Kozas (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:BAND, this should be a redirect to Koza Mostra. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close - the nominator is not advocating any deletion action.-- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mabel Richardson (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)
Actress who appeared as an uncredited extra in several films and shows no signs of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. This leaves the question as to whether she meets the general notability guidelines. There seems to be a lot of prose and sourcing here, but the majority of the references are not reliable sources:
- References #1 and #4 are IMDB, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb
- Reference #2 is her obituary. I can't read it all, but it is presumably a legitimate, reliable source, albeit one that does little, if anything, to establish notability.
- References #3, 5, 7, and 8 are all links to historical documents. These are original research and do not contribute to the requirement of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. They just prove that her existence was documented by government records.
- Reference #6 is coverage of her 109th birthday. Again, I can't read it all, but presumably this is a legitimate, reliable source as well that does little to establish notability.
- Reference #9 has nothing to do with her. It just shows who the world's oldest person was when she was alive, a trivial and irrelevant detail.
The text, for the most part, is full of material that inflates what is available in the "sources", but doesn't actually add much content. This article does not meet the general notability guidelines, nor any specific ones, and thus should be deleted. Canadian Paul 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only real claim to notability is being the longest-living film actor, and that's "supported" only by IMDb trivia (ugh). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think that being an actress and a supercentenarian combined is sufficient to keep her article. Futurist110 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Press-Telegram articles cited are independent, reliable sources that attest to Richardson's involvement in the historically notable film The Ten Commandments. While not a star in her own right, she did serve as a stand-in for starring roles. Admittedly, the sources do not describe Richardson as the oldest Hollywood actor, so the article should focus more on her film career rather than on her advanced age (although it still seems reasonable to keep her name in the list of centenarian actors). Note that I removed references #1 and 4 (iMDB), references #3, 5, 7, and 8 (historical documents), and reference #9, so arguments for deletion on those bases no longer apply.Miskatonik (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is enough here to suggest she should qualify, such as her unusual age. Certainly not a clear case against her inclusion. So keep, please.Sophiahounslow (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Both her age and her profession should be sufficient enough to merit an entry. However, I think more about her career needs to be fleshed out. ExRat (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete living a long time doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and neither does being a bit-part actress. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As being the person who first brought Mabel Richardson to attention, I guess I'll have to say what I think. Basically, being a 110-year old does not meet the notability criteria. Being a bit-part actress in two films does not meet the notability criteria either. However, the combination between those two aspects puts her in a unique position. So that's her claim to fame, being the only supercentenarian to appear in a real movie. The closest we've got right now is Vittoria Crispo, if she is alive, then she will be 108 years old very soon. OscarLake (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep oldest actress ever to appear in movie? Record holder. Notable. Listmeister (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you have misread her (dubious and unsourced) claim to notability. She was not the oldest actress ever to appear in a movie, she was the actress who lived the longest after appearing in a movie. Allegedly, of course, since there is no reliable source anywhere that claims this record (incidentally, this distinction could also go to Jeanne Calment, who appeared in a documentary at the age of 120). Canadian Paul 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I got that. I should have said longest-lived actress. I didn't know about Jeanne Calment, but if she was the subject of the documentary, that would not count as being an actress. Still a record. Still Notable. Listmeister (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth noting that Richardson appeared in films when she was young. Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I got that. I should have said longest-lived actress. I didn't know about Jeanne Calment, but if she was the subject of the documentary, that would not count as being an actress. Still a record. Still Notable. Listmeister (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you have misread her (dubious and unsourced) claim to notability. She was not the oldest actress ever to appear in a movie, she was the actress who lived the longest after appearing in a movie. Allegedly, of course, since there is no reliable source anywhere that claims this record (incidentally, this distinction could also go to Jeanne Calment, who appeared in a documentary at the age of 120). Canadian Paul 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Elive (fest) (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 event. Fails WP:GNG with one reference from a Google news search that doesn't constitute significant coverage (it's one of many names in a list). I also found no references in a Google News Archive search. The only reference given in the article isn't independent. That the festival is held in India may be making it hard to find sources that support notability. OlYeller21Talktome 22:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleteIt is now a trend in India to create an article about a fest in India,to show off.As a professor i have asked my students not to do this.In my opinion articles about non notable fests must be deleted Uncletomwood (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander Lett Spence (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 person. Apart from inherited nobility from his son, the only claim is based on his award of the British DFC in 1944. This fails WP:SOLDIER as the DFC is a third level decoration and contrary to the claim made on the article talk page approx 20% of DFCs awarded during the Second World War were to RCAF personnel (4,000 out of 20,000) so more than a few. Doesn't meet GNG as few mentions mostly in primary sources. NtheP (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Notability isn't reverse-inherited and a DFC is not enough on its own. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem any more notable than the many thousands of other servicemen with third-level decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Skip Spence, adding relevant info. likely search term.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Wikipedia has a category for Distinguished Flying Cross recipients, which would indicate notability in itself, no? Another element to his notability is his background, relative to the award, or perhaps it is the reverse. He was from a smaller town background in Ontario, Canada, where an award of this nature was typically heralded. I know: citation required
Dreadarthur (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had written a page on Omar Spence, musician son of Skip Spence, who has basically replaced his father whenever Moby Grape performs. This page was deleted, based on the justification, which I appreciated ex post, that he had no recording career or other notability justification beyond being the son of his father. To me, there is more notability in Alexander Lett Spence.
Dreadarthur (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just because we have a category for DFC recipients does not mean all DFC recipients are notable. That category is for people who were notable in other ways who happened to receive the DFC. We also have a category for carpenters. Does that mean all carpenters are notable? Obviously not. As for coming from a small town, people from small towns who win awards are no more notable than people from large towns who win awards. They may be more likely to be reported in local media, but that does not make them notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment having a category for something in no way implies that everyone who fits that category is notable. This is especially true because categories are much easier created than deleted, but many people argue for keeping categories explicitly saying tht the category itself should not be used to justify any article as notabel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved what I believe to be particularly relevant to Alexander Lett Spence to a footnote in the Skip Spence page. I hope the footnote seems reasonable, for the purpose of emphasizing Skip Spence's deep Canadian roots which, via his father, are far more extensive than perhaps otherwise appreciated. The fact that his father died at 50 is also significant, in that Spence's "issues" commenced barely three years later, and Spence himself died from lung cancer at the comparatively young age (for that illness) of 52. Please set the footnote up differently if you believe it is too much/too little. I agree that the Alexander Lett Spence page should be deleted, based on the precedent that being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, without more, does not render a person notable. Many thanks for the thoughtful discussion here.
Dreadarthur (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Skip Spence's father + DFC. Neither by itself is Notable, but I think the two factors together make him Notable. At least until we get a WP:Decorated Relatives of Rock Stars. Listmeister (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while the article has three sources, they're all primary sources and rather routine for a soldier. There doesn't appear to be any substantial secondary sources published by third parties on this person, although a few do mention him in the context of Skip Spence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete although he did his bit to get a DFC you really need something else to make him notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutiful films (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 only claim to notability for this film company is that it created a couple of films which were moderately successful on YouTube. I can find no sources to establish notability for this company.
I am also nominating:
- Carara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nail Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Abdurahman Warsame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The latter two had been PRODed today, but I thought it would be better to include them in this AfD as the four articles are all related (there was also Latest pursuit which I deleted per WP:CSD A7). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even any real claim of notability on pages, much less sign of it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all for failing inclusion criteria. The film company exists but fails WP:CORP. The film exists but fails WP:NF. The filmaker and his brother exist but fail WP:BASIC. Clean sweep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Carara (film) the article has been updated with further relevant sources WP:CORP.Mwarsame (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The added refs were two database listings (this and that), which may help establish that the film exists but say nothing about its notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Mwarsame. While I appreciate your efforts to show the short film as existing (really not in doubt), please review WP:NF. if you can find and offer reviews of the film in reliable sources I could review my delete. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I am not sure whether 30000 U-tube views is significant but I doubt it constitutes notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Holly Zuelle (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 declined this CSD and BLPPROD, but I remain unconvinced that this acress is notable. I cannot find enough reliable sources to establish notability (there is one on the page, but I question it's reliability and one is not enough anyway). As there are insufficient reliable sources and she does not meet any of the requirements at WP:ENT, I can't see that she is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know it has been speedy deleted in the past with the same text? The user has then opened another account and recreated the article. I have opened a sock puppet investigation. --JetBlast (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt this unsourceable promotional thing that keeps getting recreated. Qworty (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt as above. If Ms Zuelle becomes notable then we can look at it again, but for now, bolt the door. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. SalHamton (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Not only is this person not taking 'no' for an answer, she's ruining it for everybody, under the principle that abuse of the rules leads to stricter rules.Listmeister (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. I am prepared to speedy-delete this despite the removal of the tag, because of the total absence of any independent confirmation. The speedy tag was removed with the comment "It has its own website and logo", but these are very easy to make, and the website is a classic hoax one, giving no real information, and in particular no checkable information like street address or telephone number, for this supposedly 12-year-old $1 billion dollar company. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vicaso Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy tagged it as a hoax, tag has been removed by another user. I still think it is one. No evidence found that the company exists. Anyone? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo von Morenberg. Ben Ben (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - looks like a hoax to me. For a company supposedly in business for 10 years, the domain name was only registered yesterday (see this link for proof). Also note that that domain was registered by someone named Juan, whose given email address is the same as the username of the page creator. The financial reports given as a reference do not exist as of this post - and they were linked from the "company" website, and wouldn't be reliable anyway. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is pretty clearly a hoax, and I'm waiting on the user who removed the speedy tags to chime in with the faint hope he saw something none of us have. This company has zero web presence, the awards supposedly won only seem to exist in our articles, and the website is less than 2 days old. Tempted to speedy this myself, but I really am curious about an explanation from the user who removed the tags. AniMate 05:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Leonardo von Morenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy tagged it as a hoax, tag has been removed by another user. I still think it is one. No evidence found that the person exists. Anyone? Ben Ben (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicaso Group.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)--Ben Ben (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - looks like a hoax to me. As I posted in the company's AfD, for a company supposedly in business for 10 years, the domain name for the subject's allegedly successful company was only registered yesterday (see this link for proof). Also note that that domain was registered by someone named Juan, whose given email address is the same as the username of the page creator. A Google search on "Leonardo von Morenberg" shows only 15 unique results, all connected to this or the other Wikipedia article. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm half tempted to just delete these myself, but I'm waiting on an explanation from the editor who removed the speedy tags with the faint hope that they saw something I've missed. The only evidence of this persons existence are a website that is less than 2 days old and a blog that is less than a week old. There are claims that he has appeared in tabloids and on television programs, but I can't find any mention of him anywhere on the web. AniMate 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. SalHamton (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lauda Air. MBisanz talk 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Austrian myHoliday (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)
Declined CSD, but I can't find any evidence that this company is notable, and was unable to find any reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's not even an airline, just a brand. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lauda Air, and rename that article to Austrian myHoliday - the two airlines are, in fact, one and the same, simply with "Lauda Air" renamed to "Austrian myHoliday". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jandek. MBisanz talk 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corwood Industries (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 distinguishable enough from Jandek to warrant a separate article. The article's text itself admits this. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages for pretty much the same reason:
- Corwood Industries discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- If a separate discography article is warranted, then it should be titled Jandek discography, with the current title redirecting to that. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As Jandek discography just redirects to Corwood Industries discography and has no other history, the Corwood discography page should be moved to Jandek discography, not deleted. Also it seems that Corwood Industries would be a reasonable redirect to Jandek. In other words, we don't have an AFD; we have a pretty straightforward editing task. postdlf (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would also appear to me to be an obvious no-brainer. However, I notice that this article was created at the same time as Jandek in February 2003. Many in the Wikipedia community seem to be so eager to indulge those who believe in creating articles for the sake of creating articles, or who really believe that the world is thousands if not millions if not billions of islands unto themselves, that we now have before us an article which has effectively gone ignored and unchecked for over a decade. That sort of longevity may lead people to believe that there is a legitimate reason for it to exist, hence AFD is the most appropriate forum. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, redirect to Jandek. SethTisue (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James Wilde (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 truly dreadful autobiographical article, with nothing in the way of reliable sources about the subject apart from an article in his local newspaper. According to Seven Summits over 300 people have climbed the 7 summits, so this is no longer an exceptional achievment. It fact the article seems a vehicle to hang publicity for his organisation, Global H20 (of which there is a separate draft waiting at AfC). Time for this article to go, I'm afraid, failing WP:GNG in all respects. Sionk (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with the nomination. I have searched for sources which could demonstrate notability but couldn't find even brief mentions. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not natoble.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have no idea what to make of http://www.everestnews.com, but it doesn't appear to be a legitimate source and hasn't been updated in two years. He does have a local news mention, but that describes him as Raleigh man and doesn't support any of the grand claims of this article. Fails GNG. SalHamton (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Argentine presidential election, 2015 (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:NOTCRYSTALBALL Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently undecided. I'd say delete as the article is, but apparently someone is working on it, judging by the construction templates. If somebody can write it properly (like this), I'd say keep. If it does get deleted, I don't have a problem with recreation in 2 years. King Jakob C2 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to also consider Argentine general election, 2015. The article already nominated is a cut & paste move from the original by a now blocked user. Number 57 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL covers this fairly clearly, as the nominator pointed out. OlYeller21Talktome 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL.-- Dewritech (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant to Argentine general election, 2015, which is heading for keep. Number 57 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- L. A. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and verifiability. Aside from a variety of self-published sources, all I'm seeing are news articles involving him getting into or out of various kinds of trouble, with only passing mentions of him being a deejay and graffiti art. I see no reliable sources with which to build a viable article. ElHef (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, and anything else you want to name. Qworty (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This AfD has been disfigured by sock-puppetry; the sockpuppets' voices are not the only ones for keep, but after discarding them, the balance of consensus is that notability has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Helm (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 script coordinator whose dabbling in writing and production also fails to meet notability standards. Every source given in the article fails one notability policy or another. There are instances of WP:CIRCULAR, with assertions that simply loop back to other WP articles. There is a lot of WP:ELPEREN, including IMDB, which is not WP:RS. There is a lot of WP:PRIMARY stuff, which in itself is not enough to establish notability, since Wikipedia requires secondary sourcing. There are dead links and unsourced sections. There are even absurd additions, like the fact that a fire once came near his house, which obviously does not make him notable. Good faith efforts have been made to add sourcing, but none of these efforts has resulted in acceptable sourcing. Assertions of notability will probably be made during this AfD as well, but they will consist of nothing more than the WP:PRIMARY and WP:ELPEREN and WP:CIRCULAR that we have already seen. The article fails to meet the basic requirements of WP:42: “Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Qworty (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Qworty (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree. He's won awards in writing, and has been involved in lots of important material. There is one dead link. There is substantial trustworthiness and continuity between the sources. User Qworty has been at this article for months, whittling it down and eliminating sources. Then QED he wants it deleted because it is unsourced. The importance of this writer of stories, television, video games and movies makes him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:7&6=thirteen 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't named one policy. Show us some sources that meet Wikipedia policies for notability. Give us the source and give us the policy. You can't do that, because the WP:42 doesn't exist for this article. It's one thing to make assertions. It's another thing to offer up specific evidence. Qworty (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, mon ami WP:42 is not policy. Assertions were not fabricated. Taram (talk)- The article contains evidence of significant coverage. Res ipsa loquitur. You have not met the merits of his notability. Its not your decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Name the coverage. Give us examples. If you're so convinced that it exists, then it should be easy to produce. Where is it? Qworty (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't named one policy. Show us some sources that meet Wikipedia policies for notability. Give us the source and give us the policy. You can't do that, because the WP:42 doesn't exist for this article. It's one thing to make assertions. It's another thing to offer up specific evidence. Qworty (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree. He's won awards in writing, and has been involved in lots of important material. There is one dead link. There is substantial trustworthiness and continuity between the sources. User Qworty has been at this article for months, whittling it down and eliminating sources. Then QED he wants it deleted because it is unsourced. The importance of this writer of stories, television, video games and movies makes him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:7&6=thirteen 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put it into the article, and you take it out, and then say there is 'nothing in the article.' Chutzpah. Self fulfilling prophecy. Also, violation of WP:3RR, and you were warned. This is not unlike the admonishment you received on your talk page from Jimbo Wales.[1] You don't own the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your argument for notability? A message from Jimbo from two and a half years ago on an unrelated topic? Please, let's get back on course here. What, if any, are your notability arguments for the article under consideration here? Qworty (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author was reminding you to demonstrate manners in communicating your ideas. This dispute asks "What is to be done next? What is to be learned from this?"(WP:DR) The message from Jimbo points you in your direction, Qworty. Taram (talk)- It's already there, unless you deleted it again. But its not your article, and its not mine. There is plenty in the article, for those who choose to read it with an open mind. A seven month effort by you may mean that you are closed on the issue and invested in a result. But its not for either of us to decide. We are each but one voice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a WP:VOTE, and the outcome has nothing to do with the number of voices. Policy is supposed to decide AfDs. And so far, you haven't given us one single example of a source that can be used per policy to establish notability. This is your chance. Give us one. Qworty (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I have to chime in here. Qworty's position is that this Andrew Helm bloke isn't notable, citing Wikipedia's guidelines. 7&6=thirteen meanwhile takes the position, regarding the notability of Andrew Helm, that Qworty is a bad Wikipedian. I mean that may be the case but discrediting Qworty doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Maybe he's guilty of removing your stuff too many times, but only I suppose, if there's any notability to begin with. I've already made my position clear, everything I've seen in any revision of this page - the sources and the text itself - tells me this guy really doesn't pass the guidelines, most clearly stated in WP:42. It also has other issues - even heavily edited as it appears now, to me it still raises questions concerning WP:NPOV. Hst20 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a WP:VOTE, and the outcome has nothing to do with the number of voices. Policy is supposed to decide AfDs. And so far, you haven't given us one single example of a source that can be used per policy to establish notability. This is your chance. Give us one. Qworty (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there, unless you deleted it again. But its not your article, and its not mine. There is plenty in the article, for those who choose to read it with an open mind. A seven month effort by you may mean that you are closed on the issue and invested in a result. But its not for either of us to decide. We are each but one voice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a patina of notability there, but mostly the references given are non-reliable, or circular, or irrelevant to the subject or his notability. Wikipedia articles are used as references as well... Looks to me this is a case of WP:BOMBARD, and when that happens it's usually because the topic is not notable. After some research (because the sources there obviously cannot be trusted), I don't believe this person meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG for that matter. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, and the rest of the sources fail to meet wikipedia's standard. I searched for anything that might back up notability, but all I could find was more self published, and primary sources. I did find a few interviews, but those were interviews done at conventions and were not published by reliable sources so those fail as well. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone brings reliable sources to the table, but as of yet I haven't seen any.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Determining the fine line between "notable" and not notable in this case is best suggested by the quote by Stuart Chase: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” For those who run in the realm of Stage Combat, Horror Films, Independent films, and the history of Webisodic presentations, Andrew Helm is not only notable, but distinguished. For those of you who do not, there is not much that can convince you that this individual, though quite prolific is "notable," though perhaps a better word is "noteworthy." As connoisseurs of network matters, some of you may be old enough to remember the beginning of webisodes on the Internet. If so, perhaps you will remember how short and clunky the early productions were in addition to how difficult they were to watch. That was because we all had something called "dial-up." Back then, did you ever ask yourself where the ideas for stories came from? It came from people who were writers, but were not fixated on the writing structure for film and television. That would not work on the Internet. Andrew Helm led the way in writing writing internet-based, fantasy-combat, webisodes (for those old enough to recall, like now, there were different genres of webisodes even as far back in the late 1990s). If it was only for his work in early webisodes, Andrew Helm is noteworthy. Like all humans, he had a past and a future. His past and future revolved around writing...like many of you who have already commented here. He worked in what used to be called independent television, moved into mainline television, and then started writing feature films. The ReelzChannel plays his film Death Racers constantly. (That is the Insane Clown Posse film.) By my count it appeared on ReelzChannel fourteen times between April and December of 2012. It pays the bills so Helm can explore other ventures. Anybody who writes at Wikipedia but thinks that publishing a story in an anthology and then receiving a nomination for the Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in Anthology is not noteworthy, especially in light of Helm's other accomplishments and history, is either jealous or should never consider him or herself a writer again. Getting even a nomination for a writing award is no small achievement. There are thousands of writers in America and that nomination could have gone to any one of those people. So, whether one is made nervous by strong female characters in shows like Queen of Swords or Mutant X (as one poster here has indicated at the another talk page that s/he also nominated for deletion this week) or not, when one looks at his entire career Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person to be included in Wikipedia. By the way, If you did not know who Stuart Chase before clicking on the link, that is okay, you just didn't travel in his circle of specialty, as might also be said for the arena in which Andrew Helm operates. TaramTaram (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- A lot of words, but not a single policy argument for notability. In fact, no one has made such an argument thus far. The only thing you're saying here is WP:ILIKEIT. That is a wholly inadequate argument to make. Qworty (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, I am sorry there are too many words for you to consider in my opinion; however, I choose not to insult you nor will I argue with you. When you chose to claim that this conversation is a battle not a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Helm, it was apparent that nothing anybody would say in this matter could sway you. Taram (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment Taram, a TL;DR type post doesn't count for much, because we look for wikipedia policy when we do AFD's rather than observe which arguments had the most megabytes of data, and in your post you didn't actually quote any real policy. Actually here on wikipedia we use a different criteria for notability, and we actually didn't consult Stuart Chase to come up with it. Determining the fine line between "notable" and not notable in this case is best suggested by our general notability guidelines which you don't have to have any amount of faith in, you just need reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editors argue policy, Coffeepusher. I am merely a witness and a contributor. I told you the facts as I know them in my statement above and I gave my opinion. The references are in the article. I will not insult you and I will stay in conversation. I understand that dyslexia is a pain.TaramTaram (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment well this is a page for discussing policy, do you have any reliable sources to add to the artcile along with your opinion? As of right now that is what most of the editors require to change their opinions.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of words, but not a single policy argument for notability. In fact, no one has made such an argument thus far. The only thing you're saying here is WP:ILIKEIT. That is a wholly inadequate argument to make. Qworty (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Roberta Brown credits". TV.com. April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Hunted". TV.com. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
- >"Andrew Helm". Celebrity Networth. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Amityville the Legacy 3d". bloody-disgusting.com. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Best in the West Announces 1999 Winners". Best in the West Screenwriters. 1999. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Amityville the Legacy 3d". bloody-disgusting.com. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, only one of those could even come close to classifying as a reliable source, and that is the best of the west winners...which from what I can tell isn't a notable award, or better stated I can't find a single thing about that award. The others are credits for work he has done which doesn't qualify for WP:42.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question WHat would make a "notable" writing award for you Coffeepusher? Since most awards are not listed online, I will need to find, get out, and look through my Dramatists Guild of America 2013 handbook to check it out, but I don't want to take the time to do that unless that would make the award a notable one in your opinion, Coffeepusher. Thanks! TaramTaram (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Answer you are welcome to tell us about the award,
but honestly awards aren't counted in the notability guidelines unless they generate a significant amount of secondary source literature.See WP:FILMMAKER and WP:NACTOR and you will notice that awards don't come into the criteria, but they are assumed because significant awards will generate secondary reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Answer whoops, I just checked out WP:ANYBIO and it states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." So I guess if you want to make the case that it is a "well known and significant award" then I am willing to listen.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Don't forget to check Writer's Market 2013 (or another year). It publishes information on writing contests, also. SNCKnightSNCKnight (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best of the West Info So, here is what I found after hearing from Frederick Mensch of "MovieBytes - Screenwriting Contests & Markets Online" (and digging a little further):- "The Best of the West" awards are given by by True West Magazine and True West Publishing.
- True West Magazine has been around since 1953
- The current executive editor of True West Magazine is Bob Boze Bell. It has been many years since I have seen the History Channel, but I remember seeing Bob Boze Bell on documentaries about the west, including those about Billy the Kid. I believe there is a Western Channel (or something like that) and he appeared on documentaries for that channel,too. So, I think that in western terms, at least, he is fairly well known (but of course, I can be proven wrong). By extension, one might assume that his magazine is of national sigificance.
- In terms of determining if True West is a national magazine, I found the following awards and mentions for True West Magazine which sponsors The Best of the West awards:
- 1) In 2008, the Western Writers of America awarded True West the Lariat Award for outstanding support of the organization and its members.
- 2) In June 2010, True West appeared in Fern Siegel's Magazine Rack in Media Post who wrote "The Empire State Building is my true north—as it is for anyone who lives in downtown Manhattan... For those seeking fun authentic experience without actual contact, try True West, Siegel wrote. He added, "Today, the popular history pub hopes to capture the spirit of the West with authenticity, personality and humor, linking its past to its present. In the immortal words of Seinfeld's Kramer: 'Giddy-up.'"
- 3) The Oregon-California Trails Association awarded True West the Distinguished Service Award in August 2010 in recognition of consistently publishing travel articles on the National Historic Trails.
- 4) On January 23, 2011, Bob Drogin, in the Los Angeles Times, mentioned that True West Magazine "celebrates the Old West." The article was repeated in the Washington Post on February 6, 2011. I would assume that since a mention in the LA Times is needed for a reference to establish one's stature, that comment by Drogin would work for that purpose; but, what do I know.
- "The Best in the West Screenwriting Competition" (which celebrated writing about both the OLD WEST and NEW WEST) morphed into a general award for works already produced and as such changed the name to "The Best of the West." Frederick Mensch told me that the screenwriting competition was dropped in 2007.
So this is what I have found so far. I do not know if you would like to view True West magazine as a national publication or not. If you do, it seems that the screenwriting award would have been linked to a national publication which would have made it a significant award or honor among lovers of western lore.Just FYI. Sorry it is so many words, I don't have time to check in frequently to keep adding a little here and there, so I tried to give you what I have so far, all at once. TaramTaram (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- So what? He didn't even win. Qworty (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the preceding conversation first , then remember to use the WP:Civility policy please, Qwortysir (or ma'am). Thank you. This appears to have been a very complete reply to a question asked by .Coffeepusher. SNCKnight (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Frankly, I fail to see the significance of the award itself if Helm himself didn't even win it. What is the purpose of discussing the notability of an award that the man did not win? This makes no sense at all. Qworty (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it Qworty! That would have been an appropriate question to ask of Coffeepusher rather than brushing off Taram's efforts in locating information about the writing contest as it had been asked about. You could have asked if Coffeepusher thought that coming in as first-place runner up (a level distinguished from 2nd and 3rd by many writing contests) was an honor even though the first place award was not achieved. The reply "so what" means "it is of no importance" according to Cambridge Dictionaries Online. In this case, the "it" appears to have been Taram's research into the matter. When you used that pharse, you blatently dismissed another editor's hard work which violates WP:Civility policy ("Incivility consists of one or more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments.") SNCKnight (talk)
- Comment I appreciate the effort on exploring the significance of that award. As you can see, I haven't struck through my vote for two reasons. The main reason is that I am not convinced that getting a "first place runner up" on this award qualifies as receiving a well known and significant award. The second reason is that most of the evidence presented concerned the magazine rather than the award itself, so I am not convinced that the award is well known or significant, even if the magazine itself is. But that is my opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mr.Coffeepusher, thank you for your appreciation. I do so really wish you would have said that you thought that being the second winner was not worth considering before I did all that work, though. (Just FYI for your future reference and consideration: In writing contests, there are usually two first place winners. There is the person who gets the pot and the person whose work is also well appreciated. That second person is the runner-up. Then there is a second and third place. So many people want to pretend that they are writers, that one can easily get 100 entrants or more when one announces a contest, so 3rd place is nothing to laugh at. I would think that in a contest run by a legendary magazine, they would have gotten quite a few entries for the winners to beat out.) Taram (talk)Comment I do want to comment on your second point, Mr.Coffeepusher, in which you wrote: "most of the evidence presented concerned the magazine rather than the award itself." As far as I am concerned,an award or honor is only worth something based on who makes the award. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize is significant because it is funded by the bulk of the estate of the man who invented dynamite. The medal of honor is valued by Americans, but not by the enemy nations against whom soldiers were fighting to win the medal. Barnstars mean something to people who are on Wikipedia alot, but they won't get you anywhere when you apply for a job. (I hope you get my drift.) So, to determine if the best in the west writing award was worth the paper it is written on because it came from a significant group, that is the information I sought. I think that winning a prize from a legendary and well established magazine, like True West is an honor.Taram (talk)- Comment Two things, first "Coffeepusher" isn't gendered, so "Mr." is inappropriate until I specify otherwise, I'm sure you understand the conventions. Secondly the specifications are for a well known award, not an award from a well known publication, so getting first, second, or illustrious potentate of this award doesn't qualify for notability until it is proven that the award is well known, and in this case it doesn't appear to be, there isn't even a wikipedia page for it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer you are welcome to tell us about the award,
- Comment Looking at the Andrew Helm page I see that Taram was the one who originally created it, and one of his arguments now against deletion is that "Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person" regardless of wheather strong female characters makes a person nervous or not? It's just nonsense. The rest is anecdotal and unsourced, and regardless of which the page just doesn't meet the guidelines from what I can tell. I understand that you created the page and doesn't want to see it go, Taram, but I just can't find how this guy is notable in the Wikipedia sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hst20 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As per above, and a hoho to you,too, Hst! Regarding the comment "...I see that Taram was the one who originally created it, and one of his arguments now against deletion is that "Andrew Helm is a very noteworthy person regardless of wheather (should be whether) strong female characters makes a person nervous or not? It's just nonsense." I am sorry that my comment created some confusion about what I wrote Hst, but thank you for reading it. The sentence referred to some comments made earlier regarding other endeavors. As per your opinion, I appreciate reading it, but I still beg to differ and respectfully disagree. The citations in the article are complete and indicate that Helm has made a significant contribution to the world of entertainment, including multimedia. If his only contribution was that of fathering the writing of webisodes, it alone would signify his notable-ness to receive an entry in Wikipedia. Thank you again for your comment, though. TaramTaram (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]Reply You mean as in WP:Civility, right? SNCKNightSNCKnight (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Reply Yeah, was a bit confusing but cheers. But lets's stick to the point. The first source for the subject points to a seemingly home-made site; a place called meat-insomnia.com, and it goes on from there. Reference #5 points to a members.tripod-page that's about 13 years old - I didn't know those still existed. The sources are poor is what I'm saying, see WP:IRS, though as you say there are a lot of them but it just looks like a case of WP:BOMBARD. And I don't quite understand your reasoning, why would creating webisodes make a person notable, as per WP:NOTABILITY? Hst20 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-to-the-reply Sorry to chime into your discussion Hst20 and Taram, but it seems to me that the reason one would be notable for developing the method of writing and formatting fantasy combat based webisodes (still used today) is found in WP:CREATIVE: 3.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Andrew Helm created a technique. Wordsword1 (talk)Quetsion for Hst Thank your Wordsword1 for your input, too. Hst, I am curious as to what you thought about Wordsword1's comment regarding the notability to be found in WP:CREATIVE and the development of the technique of writing for combat fantasy webisodes for which Helm was recognized according to the webpage? Taram (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yeah, was a bit confusing but cheers. But lets's stick to the point. The first source for the subject points to a seemingly home-made site; a place called meat-insomnia.com, and it goes on from there. Reference #5 points to a members.tripod-page that's about 13 years old - I didn't know those still existed. The sources are poor is what I'm saying, see WP:IRS, though as you say there are a lot of them but it just looks like a case of WP:BOMBARD. And I don't quite understand your reasoning, why would creating webisodes make a person notable, as per WP:NOTABILITY? Hst20 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- >"Andrew Helm". Celebrity Networth. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is a mess and uses sources poorly and it does seem like an autobiography. But in light of his credits I can see on imdb and some coverage I think he does meet guidelines. Article just needs a radical overhaul.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that per WP:ELPEREN, IMDB cannot be used as a source, right? Since anyone can enter anything into IMDB, it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS. Also, none of the "coverage" cited meets WP:RS either. Qworty (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI WP:ELPEREN is not a policy. It only supplements WP:EL. Wordsword1 (talk)
- Delete What settles it for me is WP:ELPEREN. I'm not a frequent editor on here but I came across the Andrew Helm page a couple of years ago, looking like an autobiography and a resumé. I flagged it for notability and someone scaled it down significantly afterwards, but last month I came across it again looking much like it did when I first saw it. That might not measure into it, I don't know, but regardless I can't find enough to meet the criteria in WP:NOTABILITY Hst20 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — The sources are poor, and my searches didn't produce anything better. There's no substantial coverage of this subject by reliable sources. Credits alone, like liner notes, aren't enough to hew together a truly encyclopedic biography. In this case, fairly unreliable sources give more coverage, and the WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS represent the most coverage, including anything that could add to meeting WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an old link if it works to a 2000 interview. http://thequeenofswords.tripod.com/Andrewhelm.htm REVUpminster (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The arguments about poor quality, looks like an autobiography etc. are irrelevant. If the guy is notable, the text can be fixed. But I do not see evidence of notability in the sense of reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. According to IMDB he wrote for a number of minor movies and TV shows, but IMDB is not a great source and anyway gives no biographical information. Discarding his linkedin page and various blogs, there is nothing but a short bio from the publisher of a collection of short stories that included one that he wrote. Publishers ask their authors to supply bios, but is just a list of work he has done. Again, no discussion of the subject. With all the effort that has obviously been put into digging up sources that mention the subject, if this is all that can be found he is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The sources in the article are beyond poor. The sourcing offered up in this AFD is not any improvement, and I can find no coverage to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep' - Borderline in some respects, but I generally agree with Dr. Blofeld, there's enough there to squeak by the notability requirements. Editors interested in the article ought to do some work on it, though. Nonetheless, keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to be specific about any sources that you feel fulfill WP:RS? The keep votes in this discussion are all rather vague, or reference things such as IMDB, which per policy are not WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify, please, Qworty As you wrote so boldly above, "This is not a WP:VOTE, and the outcome has nothing to do with the number of voices." So, it would be much appreciated if you would reword your question to Beyond My Ken. SNCKnight (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - There is nothing to reword. The question is very clear. reliable sources are needed to establish notability. A vague handwave saying there seems to be enough sources fails to address our notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On ne vote pas ici. We do not vote here. See WP:VOTE("Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.") SNCKnight (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to be specific about any sources that you feel fulfill WP:RS? The keep votes in this discussion are all rather vague, or reference things such as IMDB, which per policy are not WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs work and I hope everyone understands that including people with possible conflict of interest. The language is unencyclopedic, however the list of valid citations is substantial. Please improve it if you can. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question that is actually the main point of contention. My count on the list is that not a single one of the 32 references actually qualifies WP:42, Could you please identify which sources you think satisfies as a valid source?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those advocating keep have not responded to identify which sources they are relying on to establish notability. I suspect the reason is because the answer is "none". Below is an analysis of the sources in the article as of this version:
- Primary source, and not significant coverage
- Not independent as he is a contributor
- Not a reliable source, and not significant coverage as the site just catalogs people's salaries
- Linkedin is not a reliable source
- Somebody's tripod page is not a reliable source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- A directory listing is not sigificant coverage and in any case, Helm isn't even mentioned in the source
- Helm is not mentioned in the source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- TV.com is not a reliable source
- Primary source, and not significant coverage
- Blogs are not a reliable source
- TV.com is not a reliable source
- Primary source, and no mention of Helm
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- Primary source, and not significant coverage
- Passing mention, not significant coverage
- No mention of Helm
- Directory entry, not significant coverage
- Confirms he was nominated for the award but is not significant coverage
- Primary source, and not significant coverage
- Quoted in a story about wilfires in LA, not significant coverage, not related to notability, and no evidence it is the same Andrew Helm
- Dead link but viewing in Archive.org shows it is just a directory entry and not significant coverage
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- IMDB is not a reliable source
- Not an independent source as he is an author
- Minor mention in Ain't It Cool News, not significant coverage
- Not independent source
- Blogs are not a reliable source
-- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "He's not notable" "Yes he is" "Prove it" "He won awards (List of Awards)" "Those don't count." "Why not." "Prove those awards are notable" "Long involved proof that the award itself is notable" "That proof was not from a reliable source" "The source was plenty reliable." "Nuh-uh" "Yeah-huh, and what about the awards his Web show won?" "Those aren't notable awards" "That's because webisodes is a new field, but the awards recognize that he is a notable writer" "Sorry, still doesn't count." "Does too" "Does not" Enough already. The Hunted won awards, he deserves some credit for it, he's Notable.Listmeister (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please identify what award was won by The Hunted? In any case, notability is not inherited, and that "he deserves some credit for it" is a personal opinion. AFDs are kept or deleted based on Wikipedia guideline and policy which your argument fails to address in any manner. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just Click on The Hunted. Taram (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- That's WP:CIRCULAR. Qworty (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I believe you mean The Hunted (web series). And yes, I did do that. There are NO awards listed in the awards and recognition section. Being an "official selection" just means it was selected for showing in the festival. That is why I am asking you folks who are claiming an award to identify what this award is. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They cannot identify what award Andrew Helm received for "The Hunted" because he himself never received one. We've been round and round and round with this for days now, and while I'd like to assume good faith, the plain fact is that just because a web series was nominated for an award does not mean that Helm received an award. See WP:NOTINHERITED. To claim that he actually won an award for this series is nothing short of a falsehood. Qworty (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please identify what award was won by The Hunted? In any case, notability is not inherited, and that "he deserves some credit for it" is a personal opinion. AFDs are kept or deleted based on Wikipedia guideline and policy which your argument fails to address in any manner. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep That works for me (Listmeister)! "The Hunted won awards, he deserves some credit for it, he's Notable." SNCKnight (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm going to ignore the arguments about the reliability of the sources. The reason is because that argument happens to be irrelevant since if we accept the sources they demonstrate very little in terms of notability anyway. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taram. --Rschen7754 07:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THREE BLOCKED SOCKS WHO FAVOR "KEEP" HAVE MADE A TRAVESTY OF THIS AFD For days now, these three socks, Taram, Wordsword1, and SNCKnight--who are all the same person--have "interacted" with one another and with other users, arguing that Andrew Helm is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. What is clear from these "debates" is that Andrew Helm has exactly zero WP:RS to fulfill any Wikipedia policy that any experienced Wikipedian is aware of. The arguments for his inclusion are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and SOCK PUPPETRY. I submit it is time for a speedy close of this "discussion" and deletion per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, suspicions confirmed. The three accounts have to a lesser extent done the same in the AfD-page for Roberta Brown, so I did a strikethrough of their comments on that page too. As for the notability of that particular subject I haven't really looked into it yet though. Hst20 (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
[edit]- ^ == October 2010 == Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Meg_Whitman. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Qworty, your hostile behavior at Talk:Meg Whitman is completely unacceptable. You have been warned many times in the past about civility violations and so I know you know better. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merged - both articles have been merged into 2011 Slovak Cup Final; if that is not the correct title then please use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 09:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 Slovak Cup Final (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)
Duplicate topic of 2010–11 Slovak Cup Final. The article at 2011 Slovak Cup Final should be deleted as it was created later and the "original" article should be moved to the (correct) title here. C679 17:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 17:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is a simple WP:HISTMERGE - what do you believe is the correct article title? GiantSnowman 20:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK Final articles should have single year descriptors. C679 06:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want delete this article ? The article have reliable sources and all informations are real. • IQual (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have 2010–11 Slovak Cup Final, whicj is about the same match. Why would you create s duplicate? C679 06:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrell Rogers (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:VICTIM. no long standing notability, just another murder LibStar (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At the very most, this random tragedy is an instance of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A sad case, and could have become a cause celebre - but didn't. Google News Archive finds coverage at the time of the shooting, virtually nothing a week later, and nothing since. Fails WP:CRIME as it does not appear this case had lasting notability. (It didn't even have lasting Wikipedia notability; the article was created in January 2008, the week of the shooting - possibly as a WP:MEMORIAL - and has not been significantly updated since.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:WereSpielChequers after the original author blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Burlington Hotel, Sheringham (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)
Appears to fail WP:GNG. I'm unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. My search turns up plenty of passing mentions, but not significant coverage. Some sample coverage includes: [4] and [5] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete as G3 by INeverCry (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DRK-Quark (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)
Can't find any sources supporting the existence of this concept. Google doesn't find "DRK" in the book mentioned under Further reading. — HHHIPPO 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — HHHIPPO 15:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. The general form of the Schrodinger equation has no bearing on supersymmetry. The book ref is on nuclear physics, not particle physics or supersymmetry. There is no such thing as G-theory and the link points to a disambig page of unrelated concepts. Supersymmetric annihilation doesn't work that way. In short, patent nonsense. --Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedily delete as hoax, and permablock the originator. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like this article has just been speedy deleted via G3 by INeverCry. Does this mean we can close this AFD? --Mark viking (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crowden, Devon (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. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for the nominator Did you attempt to check and see if the existence could be confirmed? If you did not, please see WP:BEFORE, if you did and discovered its existence, this is notable as a populated area, if you did and could not find any sources confirming its existence, why didn't you say so? Ryan Vesey 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In accordance with WP:GEOLAND, such settlements, even though very small, are almost always kept when verifiable. This one is labeled on the relevant Ordnance Survey map, listed here, and so forth, so I think it's sufficiently verifiable. Compare the other articles listed in Category:Hamlets in Devon. Deor (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:UKCITIES which (sensibly although not very clearly) recommends that small settlements without clear notability of their own should be covered in the article of the smallest notable area in which they lie, which in this case is the parish of Northlew. The recent AfD for Barwick, Devon is a similar case: a few things were found out about that settlement (it has two listed buildings for example), so merge and redirect was considered appropriate. However the only information about Crowden that I've found is (1) a couple of passing mentions of a "Crowden Mills" in 19th-century magazines (via Google Books), and (2) in Gover, Mawer & Stenton: The Place-Names of Devon (1931) p. 155 which just confirms that the place has existed since at least 1330, when it was known as Crowedon - this is nothing unusual for England: it is one minor place-name of the 25 that the book lists in this parish. So despite this being an apparent "drive-by" nomination, I think it's uncovered an article that is of no benefit to the encyclopedia. —SMALLJIM 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- REdirect to Northlew -- I note (from Google maps) that Northlew has a Crowden Road, which suggests that Crowden is a genuine place (as Smalljim implies). However, it is probably too small to merit having its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Northlew per Peterkingiron. The civil parish is generally the best unit for an article.--Charles (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't doubt that it is a genuine place and if there was any substance to the article then I would support its retention. "x is a place in y" is not an article and as such having a redlink on the Northlew page in case anyone would like to write an article would more than suffice. I don't believe that WP:GEOLAND was ever intended as a carte blanche to generate hundreds of content-less stubs, merely to protect genuine articles written about places that aren't as obviously notable as towns or cities. danno_uk 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep real place (is in the ordnance survey) should be kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verified settlements, however small, are generally kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some time a go a huge number of articles were auto-created based on a download of the US census. Ever since those articles have been defended with a WP:GEOLAND argument, regardless of the content. As far as I know, no genuine US settlement article has ever been deleted. I am not sure that I entirely agree with this principle personally, but it is clear-cut and if we are applying it to the US, it should be applied to the rest of the world as well. Besides, a settlement that can be traced back to 1330 is a notable fact. Peterkingiron may be right that this is not unusual for England, but is still an interesting and notable fact. I note that estate agent sites respond to requests for Crowden, Devon ([6][7]) and if for no other reason, that alone is cause for our readers to want to look it up. SpinningSpark 01:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't know if this is any use but the Curia Regis rolls of Henry III (1250) lists cases of people from Croweden (the spelling given in the Devon placenames reference for 1330) and if nothing else pushes its foundation back another century. I am no good with Latin, but one case (number 649) seems to be about Margery, wife of Hugh of Croweden claiming a third of two shillings rent owed by Peter the Taylor, and a dispute over ownership of some stables. Case number 117 brought by Sybil of Croweden is against Warin of Bassingburn. SpinningSpark 11:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since those are Cambridgeshire cases, I think the "Croweden" or "Craweden" referred to is Croydon, Cambridgeshire, which is very close to "Bassingburn". Deor (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know those are Cambridgeshire cases? Both were from sessions held in Canterbury, a good distance from both locations. According to Google maps Cambridge is 107 miles (actually a good deal further as I doubt the Dartford tunnel had been constructed at that time) and Crowden is 264 miles. SpinningSpark 16:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ca(u)ntebr' is Cambridgeshire (from Cantabrigia, the Latin name of Cambridge), not Canterbury. Note that all the italicized place designations at the heads of case reports are shires, not towns. (See also the index entry at "Croydon", p. 364, col. 2, referring the reader to case 649, which you cited above.) Deor (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I did say I'm no good with Latin. SpinningSpark 18:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ca(u)ntebr' is Cambridgeshire (from Cantabrigia, the Latin name of Cambridge), not Canterbury. Note that all the italicized place designations at the heads of case reports are shires, not towns. (See also the index entry at "Croydon", p. 364, col. 2, referring the reader to case 649, which you cited above.) Deor (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know those are Cambridgeshire cases? Both were from sessions held in Canterbury, a good distance from both locations. According to Google maps Cambridge is 107 miles (actually a good deal further as I doubt the Dartford tunnel had been constructed at that time) and Crowden is 264 miles. SpinningSpark 16:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be a more substantial settlement than Barwick, Devon, based on a look around with Google Street View, with a verifiable history as a village (see above). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, it's a real place of verifiable existence. It seems that there is also additional material that can be written about it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- INSZoom (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:ORG. only 2 news hits. Ushau97 talk 17:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Business making "immigration software", which I gather really is software for businesses to check the immigration status of potential employees. That's a long list of petty trade awards and Top 10 lists of other non-notable businesses, but nothing makes a case for significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Don't Delete. The above page is about a company which has been widely recognized and has received lots of accreditations. In my opinion the above article only shares the facts which has reliable sources, and is not promoting their products in any manner. Reconsider the AfD. MrNiceGuy114 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Looks as if it has a program to generate paperwork to get people into UK and US. Is that about legal immigration? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject appears to have received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources. That being said, the subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in those non-primary reliable sources, and it is my opinion that if taken in total they do not add up to one significant coverage content article/source. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, it is my present opinion that the company is not yet notable enough to warrant notability as Wikipedia defines it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Don't Delete. The article is about an immigration software company, which is accredited by NASSCOM, Stevie Awards and Best of San Ramon. The above article doesn't promote their products in any manner through the article. 115.242.249.144 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for Deletion. The above is a general encyclopedic article of a recognized immigration software company. The clientele includes Microsoft, IBM, BP etc, which makes the above company is good to be in Wikipedia.
Writeindia (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Don't Delete. I support MrNiceGuy114's opinion. Reconsider AfD and close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer107 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article currently reads like a press release or a promotional brochure. In order for an article on this topic to remain, the article really needs to discuss what the software in question does, what its competitors are, and what distinguishes it from other software products in the same market. There should also be critical commentary on the company and its product(s), giving a balanced and neutral set of perspectives. If the article can be improved in these ways, it may be salvageable; otherwise, it should be deleted. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
' Please do not close this discussion until this SPI case is closed.'--Ushau97 talk 11:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, it is being suggested that Writeindia (talk · contribs), Writer107 (talk · contribs), MrNiceGuy114 (talk · contribs), and 115.242.249.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may all be the same person. This issue should be cleared up, one way or the other, before deciding how to weigh the input of these users. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the primary contributor to the article (Writeindia) has been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry, it might possibly be appropriate to put this AfD on hold until he is able to respond to the issues raised here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalJournal, SysCon Media, SiliconIndia, PressRelease, SiliconIndia, YahooNews, Businessweek --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reslist comment: As we had issues with sockpuppets and a late flurry of sources provided, another week would probably be useful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Most, if not all, of the additional sources found by Titodutta are press releases or company submitted puff pieces. It would take a rather more selective list of sources to convince me. By the way, I think it is rarely helpful to keep open a sock infested debate like this one. SpinningSpark 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the "impressive" list of "references" are just press releases from the company. SalHamton (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was looking for immigration software and stumbled upon this article and the company. From my research, I find it notable enough to be on wikipedia.Here is the link Also, the article didn't seem promotional to me. Though the recognitions can be better framed to be meeting the WP:ORG PriyankaLewis (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I don't find any genuine reason to delete the article because the article has clear citations to prove that it is a notable company. But I do feel the language can be neutralized and relevant references can be added for reconsiderationAngeldiv.87 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Angeldiv.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck contribution confirmed as a sockpuppet of Writeindia. SpinningSpark 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page is about a notable company which has been consistently ranked among the Top 100 IT innovator, Top 100 Enterprise Software, 50 Outstanding Asian American Business etc, and is recognized by NASSCOM and Asian American Business Center. [1]. Hope this complies the policies and eligibility criteria of Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Please share your views! Thanks. Writeindia (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) This contributer has been identified as the a sockmaster abusing this AFD. SpinningSpark 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI believe that the company INSZoom is a well recognized and notable immigration compliance and global mobility Software Company.
Hemanandy (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Struck contribution from user identified as a likely sockpuppet of Writeindia. SpinningSpark 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, in view of the ongoing socking, I strongly urge the closing admin to speedy close this AfD and not to relist it. I again urge that the page is salted to prevent a repeat of this circus. SpinningSpark 14:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Please carefully study the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), which expects "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Essentially all the sources cited so far are reprints of press releases, which are explicitly listed as a kind of source that is not considered independent for purposes of satisfying the GNG. The fact that a press release has been republished by a reliable news source is not enough to make it independent of the subject. If INSZoom truly is as noteworthy as is being claimed, then there should be numerous independent sources discussing the company without basing their comments primarily or exclusively on the company's own self-promotional material. Even assuming the editors writing here in favour of keeping this article were not sockpuppets, their arguments are not policy-based, because they are putting forward sources of a type not considered acceptable per the GNG. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to now meet GNG and WP:Film guidelines and is a contemporary film of Tamil cinema ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kan Pesum Vaarthaigal (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 Wikipedia:Notability (films) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this, this and this. Salih (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Keep per meeting WP:NF per sources offered by Salih AND per Times of India Kolly Insider and IBN With respects, I would remind the nominator of WP:NRVE, point out that even as nominated the improvable article had sufficient sourcing, and urge that he consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having looked again, I see that simply having a few reviews meets the notability criteria, even if the film has no other significance. On that basic, I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD if someone independent will close it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can-Am Connection (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 tag team lasted 7-8 months and didn't accomplish much to warrant a separate article for the team. The relevant information is already part of Rick Martel and Tom Zenk. This article's existence is just a redundancy. Feedback ☎ 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Feedback ☎ 22:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep - Assuming this nomination isn't a joke, the claim that this team is not notable is patently absurd. Notability is etablished in the article, but can easily be demonstrated further through this site: [8]. Obviously, the article just needs a chance to grow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I somewhat agree with you. Generally speaking, the topic is notable, but per WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.. I'm not saying that the subject is trivial, I'm just saying it doesn't warrant a standalone article. I personally think it's a duplicated redundant repetition of information which could all easily fit between the Tom Zenk and Rick Martel articles, but obviously I nominated it to AFD to discuss it. Feedback ☎ 09:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Didn't last as long as planned, but they had a solid push and gave birth to Strike Force. The way it ended killed a promising career. Could use a bit of work, but the team is notable, not just its parts, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PAGEDECIDE and because AfD is not cleanup and it shouldn't be used to decide how to merge or redirect content. The title is a likely search term even if the content was placed elsewhere, so it doesn't make sense to delete the page, which would turn it into a red link. Diego (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not a place to discuss if "article titles" should be deleted, we delete articles themselves. As long as this article is deleted, a redirect page can take its place. It is not outside the scope of AFD to decide the title redirect to somewhere else. Feedback ☎ 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that, if the goal was to keep the title as a redirect, an AfD is not the best procedure; either a merge or a WP:Blank and redirect are more adequate. Diego (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting that I blank and redirect and hope opposers didn't notice? I'm here to ask for a consensus. If most prefer to keep the article, then we'll keep it. If they don't, we'll get rid of it. Bold editing is not the solution here. Feedback ☎ 02:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A "blank and redirect" should leave an edit notice at the target article's talk page so that other editors can notice the edit. If you wanted to achieve a consensus prior to redirecting, you could do this at the original talk page. There's no need to seek for a full deletion, which has the unfortunate and unneeded effect of blocking the previous content away from people without admin permission; something that is clearly not needed for this article, as there's no benefit in doing so. Again, if the goal is signal the topic as relevant to Wikipedia (which is what a redirected title does), an AfD is not the right venue. This would be different if we had extra-soft deletions that didn't hide the article's history, but that's not the case right now. Diego (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting that I blank and redirect and hope opposers didn't notice? I'm here to ask for a consensus. If most prefer to keep the article, then we'll keep it. If they don't, we'll get rid of it. Bold editing is not the solution here. Feedback ☎ 02:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that, if the goal was to keep the title as a redirect, an AfD is not the best procedure; either a merge or a WP:Blank and redirect are more adequate. Diego (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not a place to discuss if "article titles" should be deleted, we delete articles themselves. As long as this article is deleted, a redirect page can take its place. It is not outside the scope of AFD to decide the title redirect to somewhere else. Feedback ☎ 23:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lena Yada (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)
Second nomination. First, Mrs Yada save her ass because she was in WWE. Now: she was in WWE as a no-wrestler role. A few month with a mic and she was fired. After this, she disappeared from wrestling. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of her wrestling career, she seems to also have some notability as a model and surfer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Commentary That's the thing. I think that his career in wrestling isn't enough to make an article and I don't know if her career as a model and surfer is enough.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If we made an article for every model with a similar resumé, we'd have a few thousand more stubs with hardly any content (or traffic for that matter). This just isn't notable enough for the encyclopedia . Feedback ☎ 00:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The first AFD for this topic resulted in a resounding keep. Nothing has changed over the last 4 years except that she has received even more coverage. Let's not forget WP:NTEMP. When meeting the primary notability guideline for the entirety of her life and work, we need not then look to any of the many SNGs to decide if one of them is failed. being "notable enough for the encyclopedia" is based upon coverage in reliable sources, and not upon wax comparisons to "every model with a similar resumé". If these hypothetical others have similar extensive coverage, they could merit an article too. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentary The first afd has commentaries like this. "a professional wrestler appearing on one of the major programs is notable", " being on TV every week and being seen by millions of people", "she is active in the WWE". She don't work since 2008 in WWE and didn't nothing in any wrestling company, surfing nor modeling. Still notable? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She wasn't notable then, and she isn't notable now. The decision of whether a subject is notable depends entirely on consensus, and consensus can change. Feedback ☎ 07:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, seems she is notable for things outside of the ring as well.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About that, I should clarify that I didn't mean she's particularly notable as any one of those three things. But when those three questionably notable careers combine, you get a more solidly notable person who's more than the sum of her parts. WP:CAPTAINPLANET. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominici. MBisanz talk 02:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucio Manca (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)
Poorly sourced BLP article about a non-notable musician. I was unable to find any reliable sources, and only found a couple of sources that include a trivial listing of his name. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 12:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dominici, where a couple of lines could be eventually merged. Cavarrone (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Maillard (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)
Poorly sourced BLP article about a non-notable musician. I was unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 12:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The alternative would be a redirect to Dominici which is the subject's only band with an article, but even the sole reference on that page quotes the singer's own opinion of the band: "hardly anyone knows about us" which is hardly a ringing claim of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sorry, not really notable enough.Sophiahounslow (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator(Non-admin closure). Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 12:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RIGVIR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been discussed here. The only "scientific" source I've identified is doi:10.1134/S0026893312050032, which is available here, and while it is presented as a review, this source does not cite any of the phase III clinical trials it says happened. Thus, I don't see how it qualifies as a secondary source. The only papers it cites after mentioning the name "Rigvir" are from 1982 and 1971. Then we're referred to the Latvian Virotherapy Center website. As medical articles use WP:MEDRS as a sourcing guideline, I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Biosthmors (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator: I've reduced this article to a sentence so that it follows WP:MEDRS, and if that is how it is written, then I'm OK with the article. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on article history: this material was contributed by single-purpose accounts AndrejsN (talk · contribs) and Riga virus (talk · contribs) on the page Virotherapy, and recently split to its own page. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified AndrejsN of this page on March 31. The user account was set up in 2009 so the email account may be dead by now. User:Riga virus was not set up to accept emails. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I received an email reply from AndrejsN, who contributed the first brief mentions of RIGVIR. His message does not help us to resolve this discussion, but for the record he is a cancer survivor, apparently not otherwise connected with the producers of RIGVIR. He says, "I received the medicine, I am doing very well… I am alive after five+ years of being diagnosed with melanoma." – Fayenatic London 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- While english-language sources are not a prerequisite, the fact that these references are all in Latvian makes judgements about the therapy difficult. Furthermore, I have spoken with someone who speaks Latvian who has cast some doubt on the interpretations made on WP about of some of the available resources. I would rather we deleted it until more people were able to interpret it usefully. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, here are the other citations provided to date.
- "Register of Human Medicines". State Agency of Medicines of Latvia. Retrieved 6 April 2013.
- Supplier's website Latvia Virotherapy Center, also http://www.virotherapy.eu
- "Vīruss var izārstēt vēzi (The virus can cure cancer)". TVNET (in Latvian). 30 August 2011. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
- "Aina Muceniece". Inventors of Latvia. Latvian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
- – Fayenatic London 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources exist, yes, but what is reliable for what? I've reduced the article to what is clearly supported by a reliable medical source. Biosthmors (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to seeing it trimmed, but that seems excessive to me as a non-medical editor. I think would be the best outcome would be to move or redirect it to Naturally occuring oncolytic viruses or similar, where it could be combined with information on comparable products. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources exist, yes, but what is reliable for what? I've reduced the article to what is clearly supported by a reliable medical source. Biosthmors (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the claims are unsourced. We can barely confirm that the Latvian medicines agency has approved it. That does not seem excessive to me, but stops short of what I would prefer to see, which is deletion. There is no significant evidence of notability. A single English-language review paper that mentions it is not enough, as WP:N requires multiple reliable sources. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is an echovirus, the dates of its development & approval seem to me to be adequately sourced and of encyclopedic interest. Latvian Academy of Sciences seems to be a RS. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the claims are unsourced. We can barely confirm that the Latvian medicines agency has approved it. That does not seem excessive to me, but stops short of what I would prefer to see, which is deletion. There is no significant evidence of notability. A single English-language review paper that mentions it is not enough, as WP:N requires multiple reliable sources. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I do not see policy-based arguments in the discussion that the person is notable, and plenty that he is not. The previous discussion also resulted in delete. No prejudice against recreation provided the future article will be based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence Frankopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet our notability requirements for people. There are currently no independent sources providing significant coverage of the person referenced in the article. A search for sources turned up some brief mentions about managing tennis players e.g. [9] [10] but these fall way short of what would be required. SmartSE (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The two sources you mentioned for tennis firmly indicate that users would find it useful to be able to look up who this person is.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but as they are the only sources the article would boil down to "Lawrence Frankopan is a tennis player manager who has managed X and Y" - hardly encyclopedic. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not the only sources - though they are the ones that made it clear to me why people would find a biography of the man on Wikipedia to be useful to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users would find it useful to be able to look up who this person is" is not a reason for keeping, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Maybe it should be, and you are welcome to try to get the policies and guidelines changed, but as long as we are working to the present guidelines, "there are a couple of brief mentions of him that make me think some people might like to look him up" cuts no ice. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not the only sources - though they are the ones that made it clear to me why people would find a biography of the man on Wikipedia to be useful to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally fails to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Scarcely any of the sources cited in the article even mentions "Lawrence Frankopan" (only one does, if I remember correctly). Nothing found on searching gives significant coverage. (Judging by the editing history of the single purpose account that created the article, it is part of attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a certain family and its members. The "references" look like a classic case of "if I stuff my article with lots of references, it will look as though the subject is notable, no matter how irrelevant those references are".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to House of Frankopan -- The article appears almost entirely to be about his relatives and connections, some of whom are distinguished, but that sort of material properly belongs in a family article, such as that. It is possible there is some material to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is possible there is some material to be merged" is not a reason for merging, though "there is some material to be merged" would be. Can you indicate what content is worth merging? If not, no merge is possible. In my experience, 90% of times when an AfD discussion closes as "merge", nobody actually merges anything, and the article just stays there for months or years, despite a consensus that it should not do so. If you actually have a suggestion as to what to merge, that will be a different matter, but at present virtually the only content of the article that is sourced is not about Lawrence Frankopan at all, but just about other members of the family, who are either already mentioned in House of Frankopan, or can be added to it independently of the article Lawrence Frankopan. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepHow can you waste time on trying to delete, for a second time, this useful entry? It is so clear that there are some people out there who have a problem with the Frankopan family and repeatedly try to trip up members in various ways. I even recognize some pseudonyms who have appeared in other contexts. Have you nothing else to do in your lives? Users would certainly find it useful to find out details about this person. What is wikipedia all about? There are some entries of far less worthy persons. If you do not think that wkiipedia should not have an entry for a young man who manages Stan Wawrinka who nearly beat the number one in the world a few weeks ago, you certainly have a problem with what 'notability' means and what the wikipedia guidelines imply.--Official Lists (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I too think that the current notability guidelines could be improved. However, this discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of those current guidelines, and he/she should give little if any weight to a comment which says, in effect "keep, because I think the current notability guidelines are wrong". Also, ad hominem attacks on what you suspect are the motives of those you disagree with will not be likely to further your case, and nor will remarks like remarks like "Have you nothing else to do in your lives?". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles (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)
Pretty much an unnecessary duplication of information found in the Anti-lock Braking System and Combined braking system articles. Reads like an essay, and bits of it are very poorly written/unnecessary. Not really a valid redirect title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, upon comparison this article has a significant amount of content that is not present in Anti-lock braking system, nor in Combined braking system. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That only addresses the state of the article, it does not address the fact that part of this topic doesn't belong in the article (the combined braking system bit; that's a separate system) and that the other part is a needless fork of something that belongs in the main article (which is certainly not too long to be added to). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a significant difference between the ABS in motorcycles and cars. To say nothing of planes and trains. It first appeared on motorcycles long after the first car, and at a proportionately greater cost premium. It spread from BMW to the mass market more slowly, and only first appeared in the low end of the market at the late date of 2011, in the Honda CBR250R (2011), and then two long years later in the 2013 Kawasaki Ninja 250R. Even now, ABS is not a ubiquitous, near-standard feature in motorcycles as it is in cars, although we hear talk that it soon will be (in rich markets, not the developing world). ABS operates differently in motorcycles than cars, and unlike cars, the rider typically can switch it off if desired.
I agree that most of the redundancy should be deleted -- though not all. A little redundancy between parent and child articles is fine. The overall focus of the article should shift to the six points I listed above, and away from the current muddled content. All surmountable problems, and AfD is not cleanup. Forking is a reason to delete an article when it is a POV fork which violates WP:NPOV, but this is not a POV fork. It is a sub-article spawned from the main article to amplify a subject. It's what WP:Summary style prescribes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not doubting the difference, but the fact is, it's not different enough to really contain that much information (especially, as you correctly pointed out, it is not anywhere near a standard feature). It may well be worth taking the TNT approach and coming up with a better title and a new article anyway, as this one is in a really bad state. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the assumption is that because ABS is non-standard, there is not a large quantity of source material? I can see how, not having reviewed the sources, one might think that. But I can assure you that I have several books and magazines on motorcycles sitting here in front of me now and there is a copious source material.
Moto journalists have written pages and pages discussing whether or not you should get a bike with ABS, and whether you should change the way you ride if you have ABS, and when or if you should switch it off. Plus speculation about the present and future costs, and how popular it might become, an is that a good thing or a bad thing?, will the weight come down?, and so on and on. These discussions are inseparable from considerations of linked braking, and traction control systems and slipper clutches. And then you add in different riding modes, like rain, economy, sport, etc. When you ride a bike with these technologies, it is all interacting with the other systems in all sorts of complex ways. So if you have an article about one system, you inevitably will have to discuss the others. Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is already a large article and you can't stuff all this into it; there must be separate articles to cover the numerous parts. I personally find the technical cost and and complexity of it all overwhelming and probably not worth it, but nonetheless, it's there and needs coverage.
If motorcycles were only used for utility, there would be little discussion of ABS: everyone would demand it. But motorcycles play many roles for many people: cheap transport, recreation, and even a "lifestyle accessory" that projects a personal image. Hence many different views on what a motorcycle "should" be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My previous comment was poorly written. I would still take the view that there should be a section about motorcycles in the main ABS article (or, possibly, an article on bike brakes, if one exists), and if that got too big, then it should be moved out into its own article. At present, we have a very poor quality article, which reads like a low-rent essay, and covers more than just ABS. The current article needs TNT at best, and to be moved to a better title (although what it would be, I'm not sure: this current title is not that good though.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the assumption is that because ABS is non-standard, there is not a large quantity of source material? I can see how, not having reviewed the sources, one might think that. But I can assure you that I have several books and magazines on motorcycles sitting here in front of me now and there is a copious source material.
- There is a significant difference between the ABS in motorcycles and cars. To say nothing of planes and trains. It first appeared on motorcycles long after the first car, and at a proportionately greater cost premium. It spread from BMW to the mass market more slowly, and only first appeared in the low end of the market at the late date of 2011, in the Honda CBR250R (2011), and then two long years later in the 2013 Kawasaki Ninja 250R. Even now, ABS is not a ubiquitous, near-standard feature in motorcycles as it is in cars, although we hear talk that it soon will be (in rich markets, not the developing world). ABS operates differently in motorcycles than cars, and unlike cars, the rider typically can switch it off if desired.
- Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is our editing policy to retain content, not to blow it up whenever it might be improved. Warden (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware AfD is not cleanup. This is not a valid article, it's a very low quality essay, on different topics merged into one place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means that the excess or irrelvant material should be editted / removed. I.e., cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware AfD is not cleanup. This is not a valid article, it's a very low quality essay, on different topics merged into one place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With very little effort, I found articles covering Motorcycle ABS in Modern Motorcycle Technology, Popular Mechanic, and Poular Science. The title of the aricle could use some adjusting, and the articel can be cleaned up but the topic is notable, and the article is not in such a shape that blowing it up and starting over is even remotely appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Content appears to be directly notable via sources. If there are stylistic choices in that the article should be a redirect and the content merged that is the prerogative of the editors. Mkdwtalk 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by User:Edokter. –anemoneprojectors– 12:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Series 7, Episode 14 (Doctor Who) (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:HAMMER. Not only is it a TBA episode that's over a month away, it's not even named. More importantly, we don't an article for every episode of every show, and while this series seems to have good per-show articles, they don't need to be started in advance with no content. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moses in Islam. MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Islamic view of the Pharaoh of the Exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is someone's personal commentary on the Koran. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought, nor a place to publish personal essays on readers' feelings bout some topic.
The original version of the article was in 2006. Various people have added and subtracted to it, but nobody have ever turned it into a proper article; and I do not think anyone ever will. My guess is that the only sources that could possibly exist for it are primary sources.
Until today, it had a primer in the references section telling readers which parts of the Koran refer to this topic. This primer was either a copyright violation or was original research, which was why a user removed it today. - Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No secondary sources since creation in 2006.--Razionale (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Moses in Islam. The Islamic traditions about the Pharaoh of Exodus and Moses are very closely linked because Pharaoh basically only appears as the opponent of Moses and the children of Israel. Moses in Islam already duplicates much of this material in its coverage of Moses' encounter with Pharaoh (and is relatively better sourced) so a redirect is appropriate. Moreover, redirects are cheap (WP:CHEAP). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's the personal reflection of a seemingly retired editor. There isn't even anything to merge because all sources are primary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TNT - somebody might be able to make an article out of this in the future, but this was not a good start. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moab International Film Festival (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 tag was removed without substantial improvement. The article is about a film festival that hasn't happened yet and seems to have no coverage other than a local press release. Have to conclude not notable and too soon by far. nonsense ferret 09:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now without prejudice toward a recreation if notability through independent coverage is forthcoming after the event takes place. Without coverage, it is simply too soon for an article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and (why not?) WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nearly closed as 'no consensus' and this decision does not preclude a merge discussion but the consensus here as I see it is to keep. J04n(talk page) 23:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cendrine Wolf (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)
Co-author of some books, but no significant coverage; WP:NOTABILITY not established - seems to be promotional, part of a collection of articles on Pushkin Press' authors by User:PushkinPress. She does have a German WP article, but I still don't see notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/nov/07/oksa-pollock-plichota-wolf-review In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That her book has been reviewed in a national newspaper doesn't establish notability. How does she meet WP:AUTHOR? (The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.) Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She passes WP:AUTHOR #4 In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm finding quite a few sources, but pretty much just for the Oksa Pollock series. It looks like this is her sole claim to fame, so I'm leaning towards saying that this should redirect to that article. If I do vote that way, I think we should leave the history intact in case her other series becomes just as popular. If it does, there would be merit in having an article for her as well. I'm still doing work, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Oksa Pollock, but leave the history per my argument above. The series seems to be wildly popular in France and I've found enough to show notability for it. There just really isn't anything that focuses on Wolf herself as the author. Everything is about the series. I suggest leaving the history because if her new series becomes just as popular and gains sources, we could rationalize an entry for her and the other author due to them being famous for the two series. When/if that happens, we might want to look into writing an entry for the two of them together, as they work in a pair and their articles would pretty much read the same. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still keep - Boleyn, I think we have to give some latitude for children/teen literature. The somewhat semi-professional way these 2 bios have been launched on en.wp is indeed a little annoying, and a tad WP:TOOSOON given that the second franchise Susan Hopper only hit Amazon.fr on 21 March 2013, 23 March 2013 author appearance at the http://www.librairie-kleber.com/media/nsl/brochure/pdf/6740_mars.pdf i.e. still doing the book signings, although there is some pre-pub stuff in the French press http://www.lalsace.fr/loisirs/2013/02/01/la-vie-des-livres. The problem is the moment the second franchise of books starts churning out we'll be in a two book-series articles and no author bios scenario. So right on the cusp of the second series coming out, redirecting the author bios is just creating hassle - technically justified hassle given WP:AUTHOR, but still a rather short-term Canute like solution. Unfortunately this is just reality on en.wp isn't it. Acres of sports bios and yet we're going to delete the two new names of French teen girls fiction because they haven't made the adult lit press. They may not do so. How do we explain that Jamal Mahjoub (evidently mega-notable) didn't have an en.wp bio until he published some crime potboilers under the pseudonym Parker Bilal. It is what it is. Keep and move on. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I'd support an author article, but I'm thinking that maybe it'd be better to create an article for the two of them? The actual coverage of their personal lives is fairly light and my big issue is that we'd essentially have two identical articles because both would say the same thing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a fair point. But there's already more info on each than on most sport BLPs. It's unfortunate that the same minimial snippets of bio info are the same again and again in the same 27 languages the books have been published in and getting newspaper reviews all round the world. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Qworty, please can you clarify on that, given WP:BKCRIT item 1? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the author of multiple noted series of books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two for one
[edit]- The almost duplicate article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota has been deleted despite passing WP:AUTHOR #4 "The person has created... a work... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - I hope that means that we're taking up TokyoGirls' suggestion of a 2-for-1 bio. Despite the spammy way these bios started, the writing duo evidently do pass WP:AUTHOR #4 when French sources are allowed, as we do allow. Therefore this surviving Cendrine Wolf article should be moved to Anne Plichota and Cendrine Wolf. If that can't be done then Anne Plichota should be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the two pages were userfied to you would you be willing to merge them into a decent non-spammy "two for one" article? J04n(talk page) 10:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If all else fails and nobody else wants to do it, I'd be willing to try to come up with something myself. If we do create a combo user page, I'd still like to keep the individual page histories intact for each person so we can have something that can be un-merged if/when they gain more notability outside of one another. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly it is difficult while they are joined at the hip like this. I support Tokyogirl79's suggestion of leaving the history intact. But to be honest it really seems a little pointless merging Wolf into Plichota. They're getting more notable by the day; the first book in the new Susan Hopper series has been featured in several French newspapers. They have passed WP:AUTHOR #4, getting more press coverage than serious grown up authors, and if it is true that there's a film deal coming there'll be material on that and new cats being added. Seems an awful lot of effort to de-article one half of a writing duo. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per In ictu oculi. Listmeister (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism of family (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 huge original researchy mess forked from family. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially, two accusations have been made against this article: (1) that it is a “fork” and (2) that it is “original researchy.” I'll show why both are false.
- What a POV fork is, is a “content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.” Of course, asserting that this article is a fork of the Family article is like asserting that the Criticism of marriage article is a fork of the Marriage article. True, a portion of the content in this article was featured previously in the Family article—and, mind you, it did there just fine—but at that point the criticism section could not be expanded without violating WP:DUE, so it had to be split in compliance with WP:DETAIL.
- Original research, in Wikipedic terminology, is basically when you make here on Wikipedia a statement that has never been made in any reliable published source. Contrastingly, this article cites sources for almost every statement made and, more than that, consists almost wholly of expressions written or uttered by third parties. So, you see, blaming this article for being “original researchy” is pretty much like blaming the Pope for being Protestant. EIN (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) (the creator of the article)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article has myriad problems, but mainly original synthesis. Is there a book or a body of literature linking together these wildly disparate criticisms of family as one, coherent concept? It doesn't seem so, in which case, the synthesis is being done entirely by the Wikipedia editor, and that's not how we roll. TheBlueCanoe 17:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be confused about what improper synthesis actually is. Improper synthesis—or “original synthesis,” as you called it—a type of original research, is when you use two or more sourced statements as premises for some questionable conclusion without even providing any source for it (e.g., “4/20 is Adolf Hitler's date of birth.Sourced In cannabis culture 4/20 is symbolic of marijuana consumption.Sourced Therefore, potheads are Nazis.Critically unsourced”). One thing improper synthesis is not, is the use of multiple sourced statements independently of each other—as in this article—which has even been recommended as a good article-writing strategy in certain situations by Wikipedia guidelines. If this article is “original synthesis,” then so is the Holocaust denial article; let's propose it for deletion, too! Now, you said, “myriad problems”; anything else? Yours, EIN (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)[reply]
- Merge back into Family, and edit for WP:Undue Weight. Criticisms need context and balancing against other POVs... when presented in a main article that context and balance is provided. When split into a stand alone article that context and balance is lost. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's recall the Criticism of marriage article for a moment. How is this case different? Clearly, no imbalance there (or here?). Anyway, a merge of this article into the Family article would require a major abbreviation of the content—a course of action incongruous with the desire for Wikipedia to expand and develop. EIN (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)[reply]
- Keep EIN seems about right to me: The whole point of sub-articles to main articles is to allow expansion of article content beyond what is reasonable in the main article. Putting all of these criticisms in one section (criticisms) is not the same as claiming they all cohere together. Take a recent Featured Article, like Prosperity Theology]. There, disparate criticisms of prosperity theology are included in one section under a single heading. No book or body of literature links together all these disparate criticisms of prosperity theology. But the fact that they are criticisms makes them fine for linking under the heading "criticism". Similarly here. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TNT. This is, as currently written, a quotefarm: a list of quotes that is borderline plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, this article may have resorted to an excess of citations, but when dealing with a topic as sensitive as this, it is oftentimes a necessary evil. Plagiarism—“the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own” (Oxford Dictionaries). Now tell me how this is plagiarism. I rest my case. EIN (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)[reply]
- Keep Each one of the pro-deletion arguments has been countered, while none of the counterarguments has. The article, thus, stands unchallenged. EIN (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)[reply]
- Keep well-sourced notable topic, I see no evidence of original research --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research by synthesis. For any given topic X, you can find quotes that are broadly critical of it, and paste these together into a WP:QUOTEFARM, but this does not make a coherent article. What would be needed are reliable sources covering this as a topic, making it notable. Also, content forks of the type "criticism of..." are to be avoided; any relevant criticism should be addressed in the main article. Sandstein 19:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and comment. Deletion discussions are not a debate or argument. Votes are not "countered," and responding to someone else's comment does not somehow nullify it. All editors are equal, and the article absolutely stands challenged. I recommend a comprehensive reading of Wikipedia:Closing discussions and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. My point isn't that this article must be deleted - I think it should but I could be wrong, and I won't lose sleep if it isn't - but comments like "the deletion votes have been countered and so the article is unchallenged" aren't helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:QUOTEFARM and per Sandstein (t c) above. I originally came by to close this AfD, but realized I had too much to say. Also, how is an entirely separate article about "Criticism of X" any less a violation of WP:DUE than leaving it in the main article? If your criticism section is growing too big, then it needs to be trimmed or made the main focus of the article, not split off into a separate article that only discusses one viewpoint, which is inherently non-NPOV.
- Further, EIN, I agree with MezzoMezzo above that you need to learn more about how consensus is formed on Wikipedia during discussions. Rebutting someone's comment does not invalidate it, and as an admin who was considering the closure of this AfD, I can tell you that it doesn't help much when you split your arguments into several rebuttals. I suggest making one "keep" !vote and putting your argument there in detail. —Darkwind (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much of the talk here deals with reworking/renaming/merging this can certainly continue on the appropriate talk pages. J04n(talk page) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Future Korean War (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 speculative page going against WP:CRYSTAL, among other guidelines. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't entirely speculative - Fx the mentions of OPLAN 5027 is not speculation, and there are other parts of the article which are acceptable too. Thue (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OPLAN 5027 is an existing plan intended to prepare the US and SK forces for a possible future event. This article is about a possible future event, not one that will most likely happen (like the Olympic games or FIFA championships). The very introduction says it is a "hypothetical scenario", we're in the realm of speculative fiction here. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't entirely speculative - Fx the mentions of OPLAN 5027 is not speculation, and there are other parts of the article which are acceptable too. Thue (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be against WP:CRYSTAL, but on the other hand it could be kept as notable hypothetical conflict, such as World War Three. 31.45.146.34 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Besides being against the policy cited by the above anon, there's already an article on this topic; North Korea crisis. That's all this is right now. It would make more sense to add a section to the linked article about any acceptable sources discussing a possible war.
- (WW III has an article because the threat existed for so long and so many sources wrote about it. Some folks even say the Cold War itself was WW III.) Anynobody(?) 19:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A resumption of the Korean War has been a possibility since the armistice was signed in 1953, so by your measure (how long there has been a tangible threat of a possible conflict), an article for a possible future Korean conflict has as much merit as the WWIII article. Joshbunk (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep/Rename. The choice of title is unfortunate in light of WP:CRYSTAL. However, this problem could be surmounted by renaming to Proposed scenarios for a future Korean conflict or something similar. If we look at the article as strictly being about an overview of the published literature describing such scenarios, then it seems to me that the topic would become potentially encyclopedic. However, I'm not certain if this topic would be best presented in its own article or as a subsection of North Korea crisis. Being rather unfamiliar with the pertinent details, I'm also not certain about the quality of sources available; aside from OPLAN 5027, does the published literature on this topic consist mainly of journalists stating their opinions, or are there high quality analyses prepared by defense experts? --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems like original research, we can merge them all to Division of Korea. ༆ (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge with Division of Korea. This is different from North Korea crisis (2013), as that is about an ongoing event, and this consists of more speculative material. Ansh666 04:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep for now/rename The article as it stands (which is much the same as when I first voted a week ago, to be honest) is rather disjointed and gives off the feeling of being a trivia page. If it can be improved, it might be worth keeping. If anyone decides to do this, I can....correct formatting and typos?... Ansh666 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge and lets go with OPLAN 5027 as a much stronger replacement. It is an article that is in need of attention but could be quite nicely reworked into an acceptable state, adding (if well cited) some of the speculative elements of the deleted FKW. Ive replaced FKW with OPLAN 5027 in Division of Korea "see also" articles. Likewise with North Korea crisis (2013) It should have been there anyway, not this concoction. Its certainly a more suitable link with a much stronger cite background. Irondome (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the love of God delete. Articles should not exist that are pure speculation. Only future events that are sure to happen, such as future Super Bowls, should have articles. JOJ Hutton 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is not the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia. I'd say that it's articles like this that the deletion process was designed to weed out! Could be renamed or reworked somehow, but it would need a lot of changingSophiahounslow (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rename. If it's a serious enough hypothetical for war colleges to study, it's serious enough for Wikipedia. Besides, I recall Ted Koppell on Nightline back in the day asking a retired American general who had been with the R.O.K. what would happen if the balloon did go up. The guy thought a moment, and said that there would be a period of high-intensity warfare not seen since WWII, if then. kencf0618 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think deleting and using the credible bits and expanding OPLAN 5027 in its place. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good proposal if OPLAN 5027 were the only significant analysis of the topic issued by an authority in military/defense matters. However, other (independent) analyses by defense experts may exist too, in which case this topic would be too broad to be covered by OPLAN 5027. Via a brief Google search, I came across "North Korea's military strategy" (US Army War College Quarterly, Spring 2003) and "North Korea's Armed Forces: All Dressed Up, with Places to Go?". Perhaps more thorough searches would reveal other analyses of a potential future conflict published in such respected sources as Jane's Information Group, STRATFOR, or a journal covering defense/military matters. I'm no expert and I'm not particularly familiar with the range of published sources covering military matters, so perhaps someone with more expertise could uncover additional sources. At any rate, even though the topic is inherently speculative, the article still has WP:POTENTIAL if the topic has been the subject of significant discussion in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think deleting and using the credible bits and expanding OPLAN 5027 in its place. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Agricola makes some good points. I saw the USAWCQ piece a few years ago, and it looked good. There is a lot of reputable and relevant material on the web to really strengthen a replacement. I would suggest OPLAN 5027 be used as the core of an expanded article, using the newer sources, without resorting to speculative futurology. I suggest Korea current warplans and strategic forecasts or similar. Irondome (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / rename based on the precedent set by World War Three, a well-written and informative article that doesn't go against WP:CRYSTAL. Sure, some of the material in the current version does, but there's no reason it couldn't be brought up to a standard like that of the WW3 article. It's important to distinguish, I think, that this and the WW3 article are not meant to be "what would happen if X and Y went to war" or something as random as "who would win in all-out war, Brazil or Argentina"; that kind of thing doesn't belong here. Both of these conflicts are things that have been researched, with expert opinions to cite, and are situations which could realistically present themselves at some point in the next few years. dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/refocus/rename surely the possibility of the event is a serious enough thing for wikipedia. Granted, its about the chances and possible outcomes that the article should be focused, and it is, except for the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.71.210.165 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename Hypothetical Korean War perhaps? If newsworthy simulations are being carried out, I think it should be an article. Julius Know 01:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep WP:CRYSTAL bars us from including unverifiable speculation or original research about the future. It doesn't bar us from reporting the conclusions of reliable sources about potential future events, as (part of) this article does. While the article ought to be renamed, and a merge to Division of Korea might be advisable, I don't see any reason for deletion. Hut 8.5 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - speculative and violation of CRYSTAL. Wikipedia generally doesn't deal in hypotheticals: there's only so much you can say about a war that hasn't happened. World War III is a permissible exception due to the sheer popularity of that concept in culture, but there hasn't been nearly as much written about this one, even taking into account recent tensions. Robofish (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some hypothetical future events receive enough press to be Notable. This does not necessarily violate WP:CRYSTAL: As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. There are contingency plans for a war in Korea, which seems reasonably probable at this moment and has at other moments in the last 50 years, and I would like to know what they are and have been. I'd like to know what people saying about a Korean war, what its impact would be, and what could prevent it. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this. Listmeister (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / rename I also agree that it complies with CRYSTAL, even with this line- "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is an expected future event that is without a doubt very notable and it is also almost certain to take place. For unless the DPRK's Kim Jong-un has a heart attack and dies, this war is happening. Kim Jong-un is just about as determined to start this war as Odysseus was to get home.--ɱ (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (1) Full-bodied articles already exist on this topic, but it's not worth a merge because, (2) the title is a POV problem. Other more neutrally-titled articles for this topic include: North Korea–South Korea relations, 2013 North Korean crisis, and Division of Korea. (OPLAN 5027 is a bit too specific). Back to the title POV problem, while the article's contents may be real, the title's spirit is against the of WP:CRYSTAL, as it is fundamentally speculative that there will be armed confrontation. And any cultural or notable speculation (the only remaining basis for an independent article) extends as a topic from the current DPRK–SK relations status quo, which is already established with its own article. czar · · 02:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OPLAN 5027 is too specific a title certainly. I advocate merging Oplan 5027 with a new and expanded section concerning sourced and reputably based strategic forecasts. Some ideas have been mentioned upthread. I suggest Korea current warplans and strategic forecasts as a new article as a standalone. Irondome (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All notable and verifiable (described in multiple RS) speculation belongs to wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept, the subject explicitly passes WP:NFOOTY. Someone else already removed the AfD template from the article, with the same motivation, and I am not going to restore it for this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Miguel Bañuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one reference on this BLP and it contains only a passing mention of the article subject. No notability established. Gold Standard 05:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was indeed previously speedy deleted twice, as Csidaranoli should be perfectly aware of, since they were the creator, and they got both notices on their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2013 (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}} . |
- Helen M. Radics (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)
Biography of a self-published cookbook author who does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The claims to notability are that she has been "featured" in newspaper articles and on television; however, there are no sources that actually back up these claims. The existing external sources are reviews of her books in local newspapers. There is also a Hungarian-language source from the Hungarian "Life" website (which seems to be the same as the "Life Network" mentioned in the article) - this may very well be a good source but it seems to be the only one, and so it does not meet WP:GNG. I believe that the main contributor to the article (who has a COI) has, in all good faith, interpreted the small number of newspaper reviews rather liberally as being "featured". As for the CTV News mention, all I can find in the way of verification is this. There is also no source for the claim that the person has been noted by the Hungarian National Tourism Board, and when I try to find such sources all I can find are blurbs written by the author herself in many places. bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New sources have appeared in the article - I don't have the time to evaluate them right now. Note also that there's been canvassing on an external blog to "vote to delete the article" - though I'm not seeing hordes of people coming here from there, to be frank. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to the above: Unfortunately I cannot see that the added sources support the claim of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your reply on your talk page. I'm sorry but I wasn't aware that I was supposed to write here instead. I appreciate you placing a note about a "non-vote" on this article's faith. I have attempted to place additional links in the article however for some reason they came up as banned links by Wikipedia so I needed to remove them in order to save the page.
I have also attempted to place here several links including the links to verify the interviews with Life Network/ Life Magazine and CTV news however for some reason whenever I attempt to save this page it notifies me that these links are on Wikipedia's Black List. I am completely lost. I am not sure how else to verify these interviewed, cooking segments, cooking show and other notability related info. Helen M. Radics was featured on CTV twice, also done cooking segments and was interviewed by Life Network/Life Magazine twice (Hungary) and was the celebrity team leader for the Christmas special of Life Network. This is an annual event and is an honor to be chosen. I can only verify these privately by email as to copyright reasons and due to Wikipedia blacklisting these sources.
I'm sorry but I don't really know what else to include as all of the CTV interviews as mentioned above are the copyright protected video's of CTV News. I can only send them to you perhaps privately to verify that they actually took place. Please let me know what else I can do.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely
(Csidaranoli (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csidaranoli (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (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) 01:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, there is not much discussion here - I still don't believe that notability is shown, especially since there are apparently no independent sources, as noted above. There is no reason to doubt the fact that Radics was intrviewed on CTV News, but a lot of people are interviewed on TV; CTV News is a specialty channel with limited coverage, and the fact that Radics is not found on their website, despite her being interviewed by them, seems (to me) indicative of a lack of notability. However, if there are no other editors weighing in the article will be kept as a lack of consensus, and I shan't lose any sleep over that. --bonadea contributions talk 11:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I agree not much discussion, but on the actual "talk" page at the article site an unfair competitor of Helen M. Radics has written an entire tirade to slander the author. She did not actually sign her name as it could be used against her to lay defamatory libel (criminal charges) under the Criminal Code of Canada. Last year this person's account has been suspended due to her constantly vandalizing this actual article. I'd like to know how would it be possible to prevent any further libelous postings by this individual and also how to remove her comments on that "talk" page. Thank you for your help Csidaranoli (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Previously speedily deleted; Self-published cookbook author with no WP:RS third party sources to establish WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. Likely WP:COI creator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken!!! This article has NEVER BEEN Deleted. I don't know where you are getting this information, but please check your facts. The person who has been libeling Helen M. Radics has been deleted from Wikipedia and NOT Helen M. Radics. I would like to avoid any sort of confusion here. I like you to only post the facts here please. Thank you, have a nice day. Csidaranoli (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article has been deleted before, several times. Here's the deletion log for Helen M. Radics, and here's the deletion log for Helen Marta Radics. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the article was never deleted. Photos uploaded into the article have been deleted but the article has never been. I don't know where you are seeing this information but it is wrong. I would know if it would have been deleted, after all I created the article I would have noticed if I would have been required to re-create this article multiple times. The photos have been deleted by Wikipedia because I didn't know how to add them to the article and not for any other reason, but that doesn't mean that the article has ever been deleted. I couldn't see anything on the deletion log page. Csidaranoli (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Successor States (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 asserts no notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 18 kilobytes of in-universe information with no assertion of real-world notability. JIP | Talk 05:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for drafting fan pages. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daewoo FX212 Super Cruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established by WP:GNG. No independent sources. Gold Standard 04:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as seems notable Davey2010 Talk 08:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It either is notable or it isn't. Per WP:GNG, it isn't, as there aren't multiple, independent, secondary sources.
- Then find and add them. The sources only have to exist, they don't have to be in the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep There may be some sources on the internet about this buses to help make it notable however at it's present state it's not. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A distinct model of motor vehicle, which, by long-standing consensus, establishes notability. Coverage in foreign-language and offline sources should be found and added; a lack of current referencing in the article is not a reason to delete; a lack of English-language and/or online sources is also not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anne Jones (British writer) (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 author fails WP:BASIC notability requirements for living persons, as well as higher standards reserved for WP:AUTHORs. I removed 3 cites that were either unarchived or represented insignificant coverage. The result was an article that didn't explain why this author's biography is encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Based on G-search results, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I really do not see anything sigificnat in her acheivements. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. No WP:RS whatsoever for notability even to be asserted. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- XBIZ Award (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 set of massively hyped awards (see also attempts to spam links to these awards across Wikipedia) for which there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Rare that Washington Post or New York Times would use or cite Xbiz Awards, though its awards are of significance within its narrow genre. Sure Wikipedia is so-far WP:NOTCENSORED, but elimination of porn topics will benefit Wikipedia in the long run. By removing this long-accepted notability qualifier which itself supports multiple porn-topic articles allows the eventual removal of those porn topics. The AVN Awards should be bundled into this AFD to speed that process. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Struck my delete per strength of the policy and guideline based arguments for keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not require that an article cite the Washington Post or The New York Times as sources. Also, you seem to be confusing this AfD with a community discussion about WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...any AFD resulting in the over-ruling of a guideline can create a new consensus toward interpretation of that guideline and be often referenced in later AFds as the consensus grows. And too, when a genre topic IS written about in mainstream publications, it is more difficult for someone to declare the topic non-notable, in spite of whatever guideline an over-ruling is being attempted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep XBIZ is an adult industry trade publication that's been "cited in the media for coverage of the rapidly evolving adult industry and has been published in CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, MSNBC, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, ABC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety among others." [11] The XBIZ Awards basically are to the AVN Awards what the Golden Globes are to the Oscars. Are there some XBIZ Awards that are obviously minor in nature? Sure, but the same can be said of any award show (mainstream or adult orientated). One the key measures in evaluating whether or not a porn article is notable is how many & what types of awards the subject has received in the past. Without a valid listing of industry trade awards, then a lot of porn-related Wikipedia articles would eventually be deleted. The idea that because "Wikipedia is so-far WP:NOTCENSORED" that we should basically start censoring it now for some "greater purpose" is, IMHO, underhanded. Is this some kind of April Fools prank? Guy1890 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slow right down there. That quote you just made the key point of your "Keep" argument has the URL http://blog.mikandi.com/news/mikandi-news/mikandi-nominated-xbiz-mobile-company-of-the-year-2013 ... right? so it's a blog post by a company that was just awarded a XBIZ Award, right? Do you really think that's convincing in an AfD discussion? April Fool yourself. Unless, of course, you can add references to the article of multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article in significant detail. Can you? I tried. That coverage does not exist. This marketing scam is not notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do you really think that's convincing in an AfD discussion?" Yes, I do. "Unless, of course, you can add references to the article of multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article in significant detail. Can you?" Sure...NBC, XBIZ debate shown on CNN, more from CNN, another CNN article, ABC News, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Daily Beast. Why are all these news agencies quoting XBIZ and people associated with XBIZ? Because XBIZ is an adult industry trade organization, just like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Publishers Weekly, Design World, etc. [12]. I admire your passion Mr. Demiurge, but it's misplaced in this instance.Guy1890 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above sources:
- the NBC source is about a porn star/senatorial candidate who had an Xbiz award. it lacks detail about Xbiz.
- the first CNN source is about the XXX domain - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
- the second CNN is about twitter use and - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
- the third CNN article is about the industry - xbiz award in not mentioned is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
- the ABC is about free porn - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz affiliation is. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
- the USATODAY does not mention the award either.
- the thedailybeast only mentions the AVN award by name. - it lacks detail about Xbiz awards.
- the sfgate only uses xbiz as an affiliation and does not mention the awards - it lacks detail about Xbiz awards.
- These sources do not stand up to scrutiny. You are right about xbiz being a trade organization but that is not the debate here we are considering the merit of the Xbiz Awards which are either not mentioned or not described in in any detail except 1 sentence in the above sources. BO | Talk 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above sources:
- "These sources do not stand up to scrutiny." Of course they do...I'm sorry, but this really isn't rocket science here people. XBIZ is an adult trade association that routinely is mentioned in many mainstream media sources. XBIZ has notability, therefore their awards have notability. Guy1890 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is plainly incorrect. My local "alternative" weekly newspaper is notable, not so the annual award it gives out to local businesses for things like "Best Butcher," "Best Bar Bathrooms," "Best Coffee Shop," and "Best Pizza Joint". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "My local 'alternative' weekly newspaper is notable". Does it have its own Wikipedia article then? "not so the annual award it gives out to local businesses"...in your own opinion that is. Guy1890 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You make an intriguing point but there are some well established examples. Michelin which sells tires and being a top 50 CAC Company is notable. Does it mean that all its employee of the month award recipients are automatically notable - I think not. Even the coveted Michelin Star awarded yearly to restaurants for the last 100 years was not considered notable automatically. The Michelin Star's notability had to be determined according to the criteria used by other brands. So as we know notability is not something that non notable people can inherent from their parents and the same seems to applies to non notable brands and awards of notable organizations. BO | Talk 20:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, we're not talking about an "employee of the month award" here or the son or daughter of some famous person, and you know it. This is discussion is getting quite silly. Guy1890 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The importance of the awards is attested to by, among other things, the amount of coverage provided by the Adult Video News, which sponsors a competing award.[13] They have also been mentioned in the Colombian newspaper Terra,[14] by Dan Savage in his syndicated column "Savage Love",[15] and by MarketWatch.[16][dead link] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They are notable within their industry and mainstream news sources have used them as a source. Therefore, the awards they give out are also notable. Dismas|(talk) 00:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per it being notable within its own industry and its being referenced and quoted in mainstream sources. I have struck my earlier delete per cogent arguments by Malik Shabazz and the multiple mainstream sources provided by Guy1890. I am happy to set aside my personal opinion of that industry and not let a personal dislike of it color an even, proper and fair application of existing notability guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Speedy?) Keep Notable in their field and a significant number of mentions/references in well-known mainstream sources. I would add to this group of sources LA Weekly ([17]) and The Huffington Post (several times). Cavarrone (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but . . . The awards have achieved enough coverage to establish notability. However, XBIZ is not a genuinely independent trade news source, but a component of a PR business, and their notability is astroturfed rather than natural. There's a case to be made for merging the discrete articles related to the business into an umbrella piece with better perspective. And the nominator's comments about spamming here are very well taken. The awards are given by a PR business, very often to its own clients, and relentlessly linkfarmed into Wikipedia articles, signalling strongly that they are promotional artifices rather than genuine recognition of achievement. They should be treated quite skeptically as evidence of notability. One of the HuffPost pieces cited as evidence of the awards' notability is scathing: XBIZ is a newer awards ceremony that aims to honour "individuals, companies, performers and products that play an essential part in the growth and success of adult entertainment", about which Sage is scathingly critical and is more inclined to agree with Noelle's contention that large advertisers who back large production companies coincidentally win more awards. "XBIZ is incredibly stupid. Half way through the show almost all the seats were empty, most of us walked out. It was a total joke." This was an attitude I unearthed from the majority of the performers and directors at the event. Many believe that almost all of the award ceremonies were, if not fixed, in some way swayed by a small group of rich and influential people.[18] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is correct, but, as a side note, we should note that it comes from the organizators of a competing award, the Feminist Porn Award. Cavarrone (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. That "Feminist Porn Award" is a junk trophy handed out by an "erotic boutique" in Toronto to products it sells. The sources cited by HuffPost are not its "organizators," just porn performers/merchants who have collected some of that tinfoil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you are true. I "read" it wrong (better to say, I gave a lazy quick look). Probably I was still half asleep. Cavarrone (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Wolfowitz has frequently used the above rhetoric in porn-related AfD discussions before. What the article that he cites actually shows is another thing though. First, it simply shows that Nica Noelle doesn't like award shows ("Whilst it was beyond clear that for her fans, Noelle would do anything, it was equally clear that the glitz and glamour of awards shows is difficult for her. 'I'm taking you here because I think it will be good for your article, but if it wasn't for you, it's very unlikely I would have come.'"). It also shows that she, and at least some of her fellow adult business members, have disdain for ALL award shows ("Many believe that almost all of the award ceremonies were, if not fixed, in some way swayed by a small group of rich and influential people."). The same, exact quote could be used to describe the Oscars or many other mainstream award shows. The article also shows that Nica Noelle has the same amount of disdain for the AVN Awards as she does for any other adult award show, of which there are at least several, ("Next come the musical and comedic acts before the awards themselves are handed out and as Noelle predicts, the big names and industries seem to win award after award."). Ultimately, Noelle actually wins an AVN Award, but she doesn't collect it because "You have to pay for them and I don't really care about awards unless they're voted for by my fans. I'll leave it."
- I've yet to see any clear evidence to support the often repeated idea, that Mr. Wolfowitz has used on his apparent crusade to rid Wikipedia of porn-related articles, that the XBIZ Awards "are given by a PR business, very often to its own clients" Guy1890 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy1890 - I'm really confused about what you are trying to argue here. The context of the above quotes is unclear. Could you clarify what you mean and how it relates to WP policy. Thanks. BO | Talk 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've yet to see any clear evidence to support the often repeated idea, that Mr. Wolfowitz has used on his apparent crusade to rid Wikipedia of porn-related articles, that the XBIZ Awards "are given by a PR business, very often to its own clients" Guy1890 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm saying is that Mr. Wolfowitz is wrong about the article that he originally quoted ([19]). All of the quotes that I highlighted above come from that very same article. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while this award is clearly popular (at least on Wikipedia). While it has been noticed by secondary sources - though some of the listed above do not mention xbiz awards in any details. These would normally make a strong case for keeping it .
- I don't think morality is a real issue in this AfD, but the automatic assumption that this is a legitimate award. Since this award is increasingly used to establish WP:Notabilty there is a growing concern if this can be considered normative per Wikipedia's standards this award is objective, independent, exclusive like say the Nobel Prize or if it is essentially a promotional enterprise masquerading as an impartial judge of quality? If this award is predominantly promotional then the coverage in the article is undue and essentially an extension of a commercial POV a WP:NOT point and should be deleted. I therefore ask if there are sources indicating :
- pre-award media interest before it release with speculation on possible winners.
- serious criticism or parody of the choices made by the judges of award? like the Nobel Peace Prize or like with the Academy Awards ceremony.
- absence of such sources are indicative that this award may well be an industry paying lip service to itself. BO | Talk 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "this award is objective, independent, exclusive like say the Nobel Prize or if it is essentially a promotional enterprise masquerading as an impartial judge of quality?" There really aren't many award processes that are truly considered "objective, independent, exclusive" these days. Even the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards have had serious criticism leveled at them over their many years of existence. There's even an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to discussing many of the controversies with the Nobel Prize. "absence of such sources are indicative that this award may well be an industry paying lip service to itself." I'm sorry, but basically all modern award processes are industries paying lip service to themselves. We shouldn't hold adult award ceremonies to any higher standard than other, more mainstream award ceremonies IMHO. The XBIZ Awards are just another example of an established, notable industry trade organization (XBIZ) handing out a set of awards. The AVN Awards are another example of basically the exact same thing. Guy1890 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article's topic has been the subject of significant secondary sourced reception and commentary, as can be easily found listed at http://www.xbiz.com/about/ . Additionally listed at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), specifically, lots of potential references in books. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are some more sources listed available for perusal, in the German language version of the Wikipedia article about this topic. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: in the German Wikipedia the award and the news service are just one article - are suggesting we merge the two like they did ? BO | Talk 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Just suggesting there might be some secondary sources there, that could be used to improve the quality of sourcing at this article, here. — Cirt (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Can't really add more than what Guy1890 said with his sources, but on a side note, BO has a history of !voting "delete" on just about anything porn-related, so I'm smelling some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT here. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erpert, you've been warned already about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions[20], and you know perfectly well, especially given the large number of porn articles you created that were AFD-deleted, that quite a few users reject your opinions. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on editors whose opinions you do not share. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, HW, here's an idea...how about discussing the article for once instead of other editors? (Have you never read WP:POT?) If you can't ever learn to be civil, maybe you shouldn't say anything. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stu Galley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Stu Galley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Ryan Vesey 05:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I participated in the earlier AfD a couple months back, and I'm still uncertain about whether he meets the criteria for a WP:CREATIVE professional. He developed popular interactive fiction video games back in the mid-1980s and was recognized for his work by being covered in a few media sources. However, the coverage I've been able to locate thus far may not be quite enough to clearly establish his notability relative to WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I'd prefer that a couple more good sources turn up before casting a "keep" vote. Here's what I presented in the earlier AfD, repeated here for convenience:
- He was interviewed as part of the GET LAMP documentary (which was released under a Creative Commons license, so I can note that the documentary's interview with Stu Galley is viewable on the Internet Archive).
- An interview published in the Commodore 64 magazine Zzap
- A description (~3 paragraphs) of Galley's career with Infocom was published in "The Imps of Infocom are still alive and kicking", Computer Game Review. April, 1996. Vol. 5, No. 9. Pages 83-88. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to the editors involved to prove Notability. I don't see the proof. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I located a couple additional sources: (1) An interview with Galley published in XYZZY News: The Magazine for Interactive Fiction Enthusiasts (Issue #9, May/June 1996), and (2) Another interview with Galley published by the The Oral History of Video Games, a "multi-year joint project of the IGDA Game Preservation SIG and the Interactive Media and Game Development program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute." [21]. In combination, the sources I've located seem (just barely) enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Moreover, the video games designed by Galley while he was at Infocom are significant because they were the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:CREATIVE). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Needs more time for responses to that last keep to develop, especially as the previous AFD was closed quickly as no consensus with little participation
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 02:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even with the interviews, subject isn't independently notable for his work. He got a plaque but it appears to be for the game and not his independent contribution. If print sources on his personal impact on the games were unearthed, I'd reconsider, but I don't see that happening. I don't see it passing WP:CREATIVE (including #4) as it stands, similar to the treatment of game writers/devs of comparable standing. czar · · 01:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fresh And Loose (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)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Couldn't you have PROD'd it before AfD? Anyway, delete per WP:WINAD. ZappaOMati 02:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I have something of a moral opposition to PRODs (except for BLPPRODs)... they essentially mean "fingers crossed the creator doesn't log back in within the next week". As long as creators are allowed to un-PROD without leaving a reason, I just see it as a system that takes advantage of new users without signficantly lowering the strain on AFD (since if an AFD doesn't get any comments it can be treated as an uncontested PROD anyways). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Delete per NOTDICT. I find many ghits for the phrase, but they are mostly ordinary-language descriptions of things that are, um, fresh and also loose. I don't see any specific concept. Cnilep (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources. No evidence of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. We'll have the full story... at 11! 14:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimate Fighting Trashies (UFT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a non-notable toy. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - MrX 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NewsBank's America’s Newspapers and Access World News databases gives me only 3 sources. A PR readable here and a Santa wishlist by two children. Searching New York Times databases give me nothing. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Reliable sources can't be found, page also reads like an advertisement. ZappaOMati 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no assertion of notability in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamid Sayani (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 only references I can find to him are fleeting references in articles about his brother, Armeen Sayani. Does not appear to have independent notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a total lack of references to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vishal Singh (politician) (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:POLITICIANS. Dewritech (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:POLITICIANS and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to be an unelected politician, so no hitting the special POLITICIAN criteria; nor does this seem to be a GNG pass, at least through my fairly cursory English-language search. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Embassy of Burundi in Ottawa (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 and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence for this either. Those wanting to keep must show evidence if third party coverage. Also nominating:
- Embassy of Bolivia, Ottawa
- Embassy of Costa Rica, Ottawa
- Embassy of El Salvador in Ottawa LibStar (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think embassies would automatically meet the GNG... satisfies WP:V but certainly needs more sources. We'll have the full story... at 11! 14:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- several embassies have been recently deleted. You have not provided one source to back your claim, did you even look? WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. 15:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all All are simply an office in a much larger building. There is significant in-coverage anywhere that I can find, and the info is already included on the page List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa anyway. Ravendrop 00:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. I think evidence should be provided to show that embassies aren't inherently notable, as I assumed they were. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no WP guideline which says embassies are automatically notable, hence WP:ORG applies. Here's 2 recent AfDs with outcome deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Ankara and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ukraine, Bern. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leszek Możdżer. MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 Easy Pieces for Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, haven't found any sources — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:NALBUMS, albums require notability independent of the notability of who produced them. Although you may have an easier time trying to check for notability by searching for it under its original Polish title: 10 łatwych utworów na fortepian solo. This article was the only thing I noticed after a quick scan, there may be something which does establish its notability, but I'm not seeing anything.OakRunner (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 02:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Leszek Możdżer. There's little point in the article remaining if it is only a track listing. One would expect it to be better known under its Polish name, but there's no harm in leaving a redirect, IMO. The article about Możdżer is unsourced too, so I'd not be haoppy to see more unsourced fluff added to the article! Sionk (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Leszek Możdżer—nothing to establish the notability of this release. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crucial Confrontations (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)
Appears to be primarily a promotional article for the book which is its subject. References are primarily to the work(s) of one or more of the authors. Fails WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:GNG. Creation was by a SPA. Geoff Who, me? 17:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep - the page views suggest that their is an audience for information about this book, and a quick Google News search found several articles pointing towards it's importance as a Best Seller (proving notability). Perhaps we should think about bringing in references and removing peacock stuffs, before keeping. At very least, it should have some tags, Sadads (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK - article page views are irrelevant; if being a best seller is notable, then WP:NBOOK needs to be changed. ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's less that it's a bestseller, and more that it has been reflected on in the press significantly, beyond the fact that it is a best seller, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2013 (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) 01:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - being on the NYT bestseller list doesn't mean much in itself- there are 15+ categories and 35 books on each list! I can't find any independent reviews or coverage about the book, unfotunately, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Sionk (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if... there are more references added to prove its notability, including more details on its 'Bestseller' status.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find coverage to demonstrate notability. No evidence it was a NYT bestseller, though that could mean any place in any of its charts, general or subject-based, and even if it was a bestseller in those terms, that's not grounds for automatic notability. The previous book Crucial Conversations got a bit more coverage[22][23][24][25] (not all are necessarily reliable sources) and it might be possible to create an article on that and merge some of this there. But not certain even the previous book is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only coverage out there appears to be the authors'/publisher's own publicity. With only the book itself to use as a source there is no basis for an article here. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence to meet WP:NBOOK. And no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A9) by INeverCry. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From Me to You (Crunchy Black album) (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 album and the artists page is now a redirect so this page doesn't really link to anywhere. Koala15 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (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/2013 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2013 (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) 01:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under criterion A9 as a non-notable, unsourced article about musical recording whose artist has no article of its own. Creator hasn't had any contributions since 2007, but judging by his/her username it looks like a promotional account. We'll have the full story... at 11! 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ . AABDC http://www.aabdc.com/outstanding50award/2010/info.php.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)