Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Walt Disney Classics (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)
Redirect to Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment or List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases: Notability is questionable; very little sources and is quite a big page for what can be easily described in a short section of a more notable article. Freshh (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. I think the notability exists, and the nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion, choosing to instead advocate a redirect. Ducknish (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Educational, great resource, and significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 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. As Canadian Paul (t c) points out, the strong trend lately has been that even being "(country)'s oldest person" doesn't intrinsically convey notability. Absent any other claims of notability, she does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I would have created a redirect, but no specific destination was suggested. —Darkwind (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Melva Radcliffe (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, see WP:1E and WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Credible claim of notability based on age -- as one of almost 100 people included in Category:American supercentenarians -- and status as state's oldest resident, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is notable due to being a super centenarian being born, and to have died in New Jersey. Historically, it's rare for New Jersey. Also, this achievement is done by only 1 in 80 million people. There are several scientific groups and clubs dedicated to following and studying this noteworthy accomplishment. jjrj24 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Long-standing precedent has been that simply being old does not satisfy notability guidelines, nor does being the oldest person in a city/state/country (the most recent examples being Mary Byrne, Susannah Mushatt Jones, and Totaro Murakami). As there is no specific policy concerning notability based on age, notability in this case is determined by the amount of sources, and nothing about the sourcing suggests meeting the level of coverage required by WP:N. There's nothing here except a fact (which can be stated on one of the many supercentenarian lists on Wikipedia) and a lot of trivial, unencyclopedic information. Canadian Paul 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Long-standing precedent is actually that indentifiably discreet search terms of topics which Wikipedia has coverage of are redirected to the list articles where such coverage exists, even if such were John Smith (supercentenarian); this would make the articles restorable with one revert edit if they were actually to take a primary rather than secondary position, and should have been the result of the other recent AfDs; agreed that they currently do not meet the threshold guidelines for stand-alone biographies. Dru of Id (talk) 14:43, 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. Even disregarding the suspicious new user votes, there does seem to be a general consensus that this band have received sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability - though I'd certainly emphasise the point that the article really needs a good clean up. ~ mazca talk 09:59, 18 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}} . |
- Screaming Banshee Aircrew (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 notability according to Wikipedia's criterion on music Paul S (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - This band has made notable contributions to alternative music in both Yorkshire and England as a whole. They have been featured in mainstream and alternative press (Terrorizer, Metal Hammer, Dominion Magazine) and online sites not originating from the band itself, including at least 3 books (Worldwide Gothic, Music To Die For, The Dead Travel Fast) and coverage in NME online and the Guardian/Observer. The band secured a three album recording contract in London with a well established record label (Resurrection Records) and have worldwide distribution including product in high-street retail outlets such as Virgin Records. The band also have well documented direct links with notable bands of from around the world, including the March Violets, Wayne Hussey (The Mission), The Birthday Massacre, Bella Morte, The Last Dance, Gene Loves Jezebel, Chameleons Vox. All of the above make the Screaming Banshee Aircrew a band of notable interest to anyone researching alternative music in the UK or the links between notable post-punk, Goth or alternative bands. All of the above is easily verifiable from the entry and a simple google search will easily back up these assertions. While an edit to remove dead links, empty wiki entries or unnecessary material may be called for, this article should not qualify for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddilefey (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Screaming Banshee Aircrew easily match the general guidelines for notability (no idea on what grounds PaulS has nominated this band? Just as a reminder, the following are the criteria from the notability page, which SBA match: "Significant coverage"; "Reliable"; "Sources"; "Independent of the subject"; "Presumed" Additionally, the band indisputably matches the following from the Notability (music) criteria list (they only need to fulfill one of the requirements):
- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: - Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). - Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
There are other criteria which it could be argued that SBA fulfill, but these are the ones about which there should be no doubt. sheridan (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Screaming Banshee Aircrew This band page meets more than one of Wikipedia's criterion on music. As follows: 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. (see citation 26 for Metal Hammer magazine, citation 27 for Music To Die For by Mick Mercer on Cherry Red Books, citation 31 The NME, citation 33 Dominion/Terrorizer Magazine and citation 35 "Worldwide Gothic". Independent Music Press) 2) Has released three albums on an independent label with a history of more than a few years (see references to Resurrection Records) 3) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. (see references to bassist/violinist Jo Violet of the March Violets) 4) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. (see references to Yorkshire's goth scene) 5) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. (see references to airplay on TotalRock Radio and URY Radio)Gothtart (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Screaming Banshee Aircrew - This band certainly merit inclusion as a one time active part of UK Goth scene. Paul S has failed to give any justification for removal beyond a scathing dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostmarbles (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC) — Lostmarbles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- DELETE - So far, none of these objections are valid. "been featured in mainstream and alternative press" - which of Terrorizer, Metal Hammer and Dominion Magazine can be accurately described as "mainstream"? Similarly the three books cited (Worldwide Gothic, Music To Die For, The Dead Travel Fast) are all published by minor specialist music publishers and written by goth scene insiders. The only mainstream coverage has been essentially trivial as defined under WP:BAND. Resurrection Records is a very minor label, not a major or important indie as defined in WP:BAND. The "direct links", whatever they may be, are unimportant unless they fall within the heads defining notability. I do not believe that goth has ever been the "most prominent of the local scene" in York between 2001 and 2010. The criterion requiring notable musicians requires two or more otherwise notable; even if Jo Violet were notable (she isn't; she played bass for the re-formed March Violets only after leaving SBA, not in the heyday of the former) that would not satisfy the criterion. I do not see any notability for the band at all, we are simply getting stuck in fandom within a local subculture. Paul S (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Notable as per above comments. Paul S - the above magazines are mainstram publications in that they are widely available in high street newsagents, and have circulation roughly comparable to the likes of the NME (as per their Wikipedia pages) - it's not necessary that they cover music considered to be popular mainstream. MisterVodka (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- Just to clarify: Metal Hammer, Terrorizer (magazine) and Dominion are all available in high street newsagents and supermarkets etc therefore can be considered mainstream publications. Additionally, the books mentioned are all professionally published with ISBN numbers and are available in high street bookshops so cannot be considered trivial - one of which was written by renowned journalist Mick Mercer. Resurrection Records was one of the three main gothic music labels in the UK in the 1990s and 2000s (alongside Grave News and Nightbreed Recordings) - all these labels had distribution across Europe and the US, thus fulfilling the criteria of being an important indie label for the Goth_subculture (please refer to Resurrection's biggest-selling artist Inkubus_Sukkubus). Jo Violet is a fully listed and permanent member of the newly reformed The March Violets and has writing credits on their forthcoming album [1]. Also, none of the arguments to "keep" have mentioned the local scene of York but refer to the local scene of the county of Yorkshire of which goth has been an extremely important music and subcultural movement. Please refer to the Yorkshire-originating The Sisters of Mercy, The_Mission_(band), The Cult, The March Violets, Red Lorry Yellow Lorry and Whitby Gothic Weekend - all were active, relevant and important in the period between 2001 and 2010, which is up for discussion here. SBA performed at Whitby Gothic Weekend three times and have additionally supported The March Violets, The Mission (band) and Red Lorry Yellow Lorry therefore meet the criteria outlined above. PaulS - please would you validate your assertions. Gothtart (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Metal Hammer has a circulation of ~35,000 and Terrorizer ~12,000 which are typical figures for a hobby magazine in the UK/ROI - about the same as The Railway Magazine or White Dwarf. When you say Mick Mercer is a "renowned journalist" we are getting to the heart of the problem, because he is renowned if you are a goth, but otherwise he is unknown to anyone without a particular interest in the history of the music press vis-à-vis punk rock. Ditto Resurrection Records; if you are part of the goth scene you have probably heard of them, but they are certainly not a major label or even a significant indie label; the only band on their list a member of the general public might have ever heard of is Inkubus Sukkubus and Resurrection only re-issue their albums. When you say that you can buy Music to Die For in a bookshop, no doubt you can if you order it, because bookshops sell books, but it won't be sitting on the shelf - I looked. Regarding Yorkshire you have cited a lot of bands from the mid 80s and besides SBA being 20 years too late for this scene, they are all Leeds bands apart from The Cult (Bradford - next door to Leeds) and not scattered all over Yorkshire as you suggest. This is relevant when we remember SBA are from York and not Leeds: WP:BAND says "local scene of a city" (my italics). As for Whitby Goth Weekend, here are ten other bands who've also played there - how many could be said to be notable: Angels of Liberty, Cauda Pavonis, The Faces of Sarah, Faithful Dawn, Manuskript, The Marionettes, These Crimson Dreams, Torsohorse, Trauma Pet, Violet Times. Paul S (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time SBA were written about in Metal Hammer, the magazine had a circulation of more than 56,000[2]. The NME's most recent circulation was just under 24,000[3], which is lower than Metal Hammer's current circulation but I notice that you don't regard this as a "hobby magazine" so your views are inconsistent - SBA have been written about in both publications as well as The Observer newspaper on 27 May 2007(circulation then, just over 500k)[4]. The print article can still be accessed [5] along with an additional online piece from the Guardian's website [6]. Being featured in these publications alone fulfills wikipedia's criteria. Mick Mercer originally wrote for the Melody Maker, which was a general music magazine and not a specialist publication, incidentally there were copies of Music To Die For on the shelves of my local Waterstones and Foyles this afternoon because I looked too. I might also add that as goth is considered a relevant contemporary subculture and part of your discussion revolves around SBA only being relevant to goths, by default this would make SBA a relevant band given their prevalence in the goth scene. I'm uncertain where you are getting your information from about Inkubus Sukkubus but their albums have been released, not re-issued, by Resurrection Records (with the exception of 'Wytches') although I feel this diverts the discussion which is about Screaming Banshee Aircrew and not their former labelmates. Gothtart (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to buy my cope of Music to Die For from a branch of Waterstones, without having to order in. It was quite a small, provinicial branch as well... sheridan (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No: re-read. It says Classic Rock's circulation was 56,000, with Hammer at only 45,000. I read Ed Vulliamy's article when it was published, and suspected this was what you were referring to and yes, it mentions going to see them, but it is surely not non-trivial coverage since it mentions in total twelve or thirteen bands, some notable some not; SBA are not the subject of the article. The online piece is a shorter reprint of the same article. Paul S (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the NME piece. I leave it to those better qualified to judge whether or not this is sufficient to make SBA notable. Paul S (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to buy my cope of Music to Die For from a branch of Waterstones, without having to order in. It was quite a small, provinicial branch as well... sheridan (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time SBA were written about in Metal Hammer, the magazine had a circulation of more than 56,000[2]. The NME's most recent circulation was just under 24,000[3], which is lower than Metal Hammer's current circulation but I notice that you don't regard this as a "hobby magazine" so your views are inconsistent - SBA have been written about in both publications as well as The Observer newspaper on 27 May 2007(circulation then, just over 500k)[4]. The print article can still be accessed [5] along with an additional online piece from the Guardian's website [6]. Being featured in these publications alone fulfills wikipedia's criteria. Mick Mercer originally wrote for the Melody Maker, which was a general music magazine and not a specialist publication, incidentally there were copies of Music To Die For on the shelves of my local Waterstones and Foyles this afternoon because I looked too. I might also add that as goth is considered a relevant contemporary subculture and part of your discussion revolves around SBA only being relevant to goths, by default this would make SBA a relevant band given their prevalence in the goth scene. I'm uncertain where you are getting your information from about Inkubus Sukkubus but their albums have been released, not re-issued, by Resurrection Records (with the exception of 'Wytches') although I feel this diverts the discussion which is about Screaming Banshee Aircrew and not their former labelmates. Gothtart (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Metal Hammer has a circulation of ~35,000 and Terrorizer ~12,000 which are typical figures for a hobby magazine in the UK/ROI - about the same as The Railway Magazine or White Dwarf. When you say Mick Mercer is a "renowned journalist" we are getting to the heart of the problem, because he is renowned if you are a goth, but otherwise he is unknown to anyone without a particular interest in the history of the music press vis-à-vis punk rock. Ditto Resurrection Records; if you are part of the goth scene you have probably heard of them, but they are certainly not a major label or even a significant indie label; the only band on their list a member of the general public might have ever heard of is Inkubus Sukkubus and Resurrection only re-issue their albums. When you say that you can buy Music to Die For in a bookshop, no doubt you can if you order it, because bookshops sell books, but it won't be sitting on the shelf - I looked. Regarding Yorkshire you have cited a lot of bands from the mid 80s and besides SBA being 20 years too late for this scene, they are all Leeds bands apart from The Cult (Bradford - next door to Leeds) and not scattered all over Yorkshire as you suggest. This is relevant when we remember SBA are from York and not Leeds: WP:BAND says "local scene of a city" (my italics). As for Whitby Goth Weekend, here are ten other bands who've also played there - how many could be said to be notable: Angels of Liberty, Cauda Pavonis, The Faces of Sarah, Faithful Dawn, Manuskript, The Marionettes, These Crimson Dreams, Torsohorse, Trauma Pet, Violet Times. Paul S (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- Any argument that Metal Hammer and Terrorizer magazines are fanzines is just ridiculous. On top of coverage in these mainstream publications, SBA have had links from the Guardian website and a paragraph dedicated to them in an online and print Guardian/Observer article. SBA have also been featured in multiple mainstream print books. So they more than satisfy both the spirit and the reality of the criteria "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". They have also had worldwide releases on a known and well established record label and formed a notable part of the Yorkshire and UK Gothic Rock music scenes. Eddilefey (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 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, ‑Scottywong| converse _ 21:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist rationale - Hoping for more input from non-WP:SPA editors. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The band is sufficiently notable, possibly by a large margin, based on the number of diverse, non-trivial sources available, for example [1] and [2]. At least some of the article references are legitimate, and further support notability, for example [3], [4] and [5]. - MrX 22:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per criterion 7 of WP:BAND. Although I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG: of those mentioned above, the first is a blog, the second a passing mention, the third a fanzine, the fourth a passing mention, and the fifth an interview, they do appear to be enough to verify their prominent place in the UK goth scene. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue for me is whether the UK Goth scene in the 21st Century itself is notable per WP:BAND section 7. It seems to me that the criteria for notability are quite strict and there is a paradox, I suppose, in that you have to have been part of the scene to know how tiny it is, which means that you probably don't want the article removed! The band are a relatively big fish, but in a very small pond indeed. I also draw attention to the wording of note 4, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." and I'm afraid the only non-trivial coverage of SBA is basically by other goths... Paul S (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PaulS - if your argument is actually about the relevance of the UK goth scene in the 21st Century rather than SBA's profile as a relevant UK goth band, then may I draw your attention to the recent expansion of local policy surrounding the reporting of hate crimes to Greater Manchester police. This expansion now incorporates "alternative sub-cultures" [7] which has been reported by the press to include goths [8] [9]. The expansion was as a result of campaining by S.O.P.H.I.E the charity set up by Sylvia Lancaster following the Murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007, which in itself generated a large amount of media coverage. If the UK goth scene had no relevence at all within contemporary culture then surely this story and its subsequent effect on the reporting of hate crimes (albeit currently only in Greater Manchester) would have made no impact at all.Gothtart (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have, in accordance with what is said in WP:BAND to separate any prominance of the subculture from that of the music scene within the goth subculture. At the risk of digressing, it could almost be argued that the visibility of the subculture in the UK is in inverse proportion to the success of the music; "goth" music was much more popular in the late 80s, because you didn't have to be a full-blown goth to like it, it was much more in the mainstream of British music at the time: in 2001-10 everyone could point out a goth without having any idea there were still new goth bands playing. Paul S (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PaulS - Funny how you didn't mention that initially (though I did guess you had a bone to pick with the modern goth scene). sheridan (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about the size of the goth music scene, obviously. Paul S (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PaulS - if your argument is actually about the relevance of the UK goth scene in the 21st Century rather than SBA's profile as a relevant UK goth band, then may I draw your attention to the recent expansion of local policy surrounding the reporting of hate crimes to Greater Manchester police. This expansion now incorporates "alternative sub-cultures" [7] which has been reported by the press to include goths [8] [9]. The expansion was as a result of campaining by S.O.P.H.I.E the charity set up by Sylvia Lancaster following the Murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007, which in itself generated a large amount of media coverage. If the UK goth scene had no relevence at all within contemporary culture then surely this story and its subsequent effect on the reporting of hate crimes (albeit currently only in Greater Manchester) would have made no impact at all.Gothtart (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article just needs a bit of structure to it, subheadings, musician page tables etc and a picture would be helpful. Otherwise the information is relevant and content QI, all backed with many references. Paul S, just sounds like you're on a hate campaign i'm afraid dude.
- These pages should help any editors in improving this article:
- Yellowxander (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An unwarranted personal attack, as well as completely missing the point, which is the band's notability not the article's accuracy. I've set forth my argument, I won't get embroiled any further. Paul S (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - in my view, the provided sources do not offer a sufficient depth of coverage to be considered "significant coverage". Passing mentions at the end of articles about other things don't really confer notability, so the ones we can use are the ones that discuss the band in detail (though it doesn't need to be the primary subject of the article). The dishonest (and blindingly obvious) meat-puppetry in this AFD doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Stalwart111 06:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we assume good faith from all participants, please? MisterVodka (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just needs some work. They're a pretty notable gothy band, the article just needs work. (I actually have some of their stuff on vinyl, ha ha!) SarahStierch (talk) 16:11, 17 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) 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Journal of The Pakistan Materials Society (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 journal that appeared for a brief period (2008-2010). Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: how do you know it "appeared for a brief period (2008-2010)"? I deleted the original speedy deletion to give myself time to check the amount of material produced and efectively I have to agree the journal seems of little relevance in the international context. I think the article could be fused into an article for The Pakistan Materials Society. Dentren | Talk 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just follow the link to their own homepage. There is not a single issue listed after 2010. And for the record, I didn't put a "speedy deletion" tag on the article, but a "PROD" tag, which leaves you a whole week to improve the article if possible. As for including this journal in an article on the society, all that I could find was the page linked in the article, so there don't seem to be any independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I see will have to agree to the deletion for now. Dentren | Talk 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just follow the link to their own homepage. There is not a single issue listed after 2010. And for the record, I didn't put a "speedy deletion" tag on the article, but a "PROD" tag, which leaves you a whole week to improve the article if possible. As for including this journal in an article on the society, all that I could find was the page linked in the article, so there don't seem to be any independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: how do you know it "appeared for a brief period (2008-2010)"? I deleted the original speedy deletion to give myself time to check the amount of material produced and efectively I have to agree the journal seems of little relevance in the international context. I think the article could be fused into an article for The Pakistan Materials Society. Dentren | Talk 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A journal which was operable for only two years and doesn't seem to have significant independent coverage or citation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Liddle (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:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:INDEPENDENT. Appears only notability is from The Periodic Table of Videos. Thid party sources cannot be found, as searched for on various mediums. ChaseAm (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above. — raekyt 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep – Jeez,
≤one hour12 minutes old and already nominated? WP:POTENTIAL and WP:DONTBITE apply. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While true, I think that with there not being any secondary or third party sources, the potential just isn't there. Without references it can't be built up - at least properly. As far as biting the newcomers, that's certainly a concern here, it needs to be put in a suddle, encouraging way. Would you agree with that? ChaseAm (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination fails per PROF #3 – he's a Fellow with the Royal Society. – S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell he's not a Fellow, but a "Royal Society University Research Fellow" which means he's received a grant under: http://royalsociety.org/grants/schemes/university-research/. They're VERY much different things. — raekyt 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 of one, half-dozen of ... He's a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has gotten some nice awards. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "6 of one, half-dozen of" it's apples and oranges. It's like saying if you get a NSF grant your a member of NSF, completely different. Being a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry isn't a big deal, it's not an elected position, but one where you pay and your a member I believe. 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Info indicates he's not just a member, but a Fellow. So that'll work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though he is indeed a fellow - the criteria for which is outlined here - he is not an honorary fellow. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which appears as if you meet the requirements and pay the fee your a "Fellow." That's not what the criteria means by elected to fellowship position, where there's some sort of judging, limited admission, prestige. — raekyt 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information! (Alas, I was mislead by the PROF #3 criteria, which could use clarification.) In any event, Randykitty has provided justification for keeping. Also, PTOV is getting international attention which will bolster retention justification under other criteria (which I am misreading as well). See: [6]. (And the article has POTENTIAL.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the 2011 winner of the Sir Edward Frankland Fellowship of the RSC. I think I should point out that I created the article. Name1234567890 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information! (Alas, I was mislead by the PROF #3 criteria, which could use clarification.) In any event, Randykitty has provided justification for keeping. Also, PTOV is getting international attention which will bolster retention justification under other criteria (which I am misreading as well). See: [6]. (And the article has POTENTIAL.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which appears as if you meet the requirements and pay the fee your a "Fellow." That's not what the criteria means by elected to fellowship position, where there's some sort of judging, limited admission, prestige. — raekyt 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though he is indeed a fellow - the criteria for which is outlined here - he is not an honorary fellow. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info indicates he's not just a member, but a Fellow. So that'll work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "6 of one, half-dozen of" it's apples and oranges. It's like saying if you get a NSF grant your a member of NSF, completely different. Being a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry isn't a big deal, it's not an elected position, but one where you pay and your a member I believe. 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- 6 of one, half-dozen of ... He's a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has gotten some nice awards. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell he's not a Fellow, but a "Royal Society University Research Fellow" which means he's received a grant under: http://royalsociety.org/grants/schemes/university-research/. They're VERY much different things. — raekyt 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination fails per PROF #3 – he's a Fellow with the Royal Society. – S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While true, I think that with there not being any secondary or third party sources, the potential just isn't there. Without references it can't be built up - at least properly. As far as biting the newcomers, that's certainly a concern here, it needs to be put in a suddle, encouraging way. Would you agree with that? ChaseAm (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why the hurry to go to AfD? PROD would have been more logical... --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I suppose it's because I prefer the discussion aspect of an AFD for this specific article. PROD would work as well, and may even help with biting the newcomers, but AFD has a minor edge to me in this situation. And apologies for the unprofessionalism of this AFD, this is actually the first one I've actually created, so criticsm definitely helps me for in the future ChaseAm (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1: Web of Science lists 103 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that have been cited over 1800 times (1898), giving him an h-index of 24. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Randykitty. '"ST Liddle" -wikipedia chemistry' on Google scholar also gets 861 hits. --Mark viking (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A GS h-index of around 24 for "S T Liddle" gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should do WP:Before when making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see how just publishing papers meets criteria for inclusion, even with a high "h-index." Part of criteria #1 is that it's verifiable by independent reliable sources, which to me means secondary sources, which isn't his published papers. Without coverage in secondary sources, what kind of article can be expected beyond a list of published papers? Maybe I'm confused or what, but I don't see him meeting criteria for inclusion here. Is there precedent that h-index scores is all that is needed to meet criteria #1? — raekyt 11:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most academics never reach an h-index of 24 in their whole careers. And there are over 1800 scientific articles that cite work done by Lidell. That establishes significant impact on his field (and this kind of reasoning is quite common in AfD debates of academics). --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing the stats of what he's published or his citations (although I'd like a clear definition/link to his actual h-index number?), I'm asking is it accepted policy that a high h-index ALONE is sufficient to meet criteria #1, without those pesky things called reliable secondary sources? If you're calculating an h-index by just doing some searches to get #'s yourself, then that's clearly WP:OR/WP:SYN.... — raekyt 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can get the h-index very simply from the Web of Science, no need to calculate anything yourself. And it's basically just a short for saying that there are a lot of reliable sources out there that cite his works (almost 1900 in this case). --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A citation in a journal paper isn't nearly the same as a secondary source that is commenting on something. They're USUALLY just meaning the research was related in some way that the authors cited something from his paper, generally not much you can build an article from. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there is no actual linkable policy that states a calculated h-index from Web of Science alone is enough to meet criteria #1? Since you seem to be skirting that issue? It may be very true that he's made SIGNIFICANT contributions to his field, in so much as meeting criteria #1, but some automatically calculated number behind a pay-wall I don't see as meeting the "as demonstrated in reliable sources" part. So, rather than just giving this number, why not links to actual articles? That review his research, papers, etc... even though it's broadly construed there still needs to be sources, not some magic number. — raekyt 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also that doesn't say anything about WP:3PARTY. — raekyt 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not skirting anything. The h-index is explicitly mentioned (under citation metrics) in WP:ACADEMIC. As I said, "h=24" is short for "articles have been cited a lot of times". You can also obtain the h-index or citation counts from Google Scholar if you have no access to WoS (I just trust WoS more and am more familiar with it). In any case, the fact that a source is behind a paywall doesn't disqualify it in the least. As for the nature of citations, you're quite right about that. That's why we require many more of them than the 2 or 3 sources that GNG requires. Once you start measuring them in the thousands like here, you can be quite certain you're dealing with a notable person. If you want to change the practice of relying on citation data as a proxy for notability, be my guest and start a discussion at WP:ACADEMIC or wherever else you may think useful. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article that discusses one of his papers. Here is another one, although I'm not certain that it qualifies as secondary source. Name1234567890 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not skirting anything. The h-index is explicitly mentioned (under citation metrics) in WP:ACADEMIC. As I said, "h=24" is short for "articles have been cited a lot of times". You can also obtain the h-index or citation counts from Google Scholar if you have no access to WoS (I just trust WoS more and am more familiar with it). In any case, the fact that a source is behind a paywall doesn't disqualify it in the least. As for the nature of citations, you're quite right about that. That's why we require many more of them than the 2 or 3 sources that GNG requires. Once you start measuring them in the thousands like here, you can be quite certain you're dealing with a notable person. If you want to change the practice of relying on citation data as a proxy for notability, be my guest and start a discussion at WP:ACADEMIC or wherever else you may think useful. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can get the h-index very simply from the Web of Science, no need to calculate anything yourself. And it's basically just a short for saying that there are a lot of reliable sources out there that cite his works (almost 1900 in this case). --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing the stats of what he's published or his citations (although I'd like a clear definition/link to his actual h-index number?), I'm asking is it accepted policy that a high h-index ALONE is sufficient to meet criteria #1, without those pesky things called reliable secondary sources? If you're calculating an h-index by just doing some searches to get #'s yourself, then that's clearly WP:OR/WP:SYN.... — raekyt 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most academics never reach an h-index of 24 in their whole careers. And there are over 1800 scientific articles that cite work done by Lidell. That establishes significant impact on his field (and this kind of reasoning is quite common in AfD debates of academics). --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how just publishing papers meets criteria for inclusion, even with a high "h-index." Part of criteria #1 is that it's verifiable by independent reliable sources, which to me means secondary sources, which isn't his published papers. Without coverage in secondary sources, what kind of article can be expected beyond a list of published papers? Maybe I'm confused or what, but I don't see him meeting criteria for inclusion here. Is there precedent that h-index scores is all that is needed to meet criteria #1? — raekyt 11:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting a bit off-topic by discussing particular references. E.g., the issue is whether this particular article can be used in the Stephen Liddle article and thereby make the article better? But I do note that PhysOrg is a news service -- it reports that Science Magazine published the Liddle work. UoN may have given them the heads-up, but per [7] they vet the material. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But a press release is still basically primary... Doesn't mean it can't be used, but not ideal. — raekyt 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability as a scholar WP:PROF. Note to Nominator: You seem to be challenging not just this particular scholar but the whole idea of notability of papers and scholarship as grounds for notability. That's a case that would be better made at WP:PROF, not on one particular academic. There are many, many academics who are listed on Wikipedia on similar grounds as Stephen Liddle; so if you think these kinds of people are not notable because they do not have secondary source coverage in the NYT etc, then that's a question that would be better brought up at WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks a bunch for the recommendation! ChaseAm (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually on closer examination it appears to be User:Raeky who is mostly making those arguments! --Lquilter (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks a bunch for the recommendation! ChaseAm (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per RandyKitty. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I really don't like judging on h index alone. It's a very rough guide in two respects. First, the level of significance varies widely from field to field, depending on the density of publication in hat subject. The article on h-indexexplains this--it's a known and accepted and inevitable weakness of any form of citation analysis--if used as a global criterion, it has to be normalized across subjects to be meaningful. Another known weakness, is that it is insensitive to the difference between the widely publishing mediocre, and the truly important. an h index of 24 can mean 24 papers with 24 references each, or 20 with 24 references and 4 with 100 each. One is a routine scientist, the other highly notable. It has to be taken in connection with other measures. Although total cites to an author is a very crude measure, when used in combination with the h factor, it gives more meaningful information. Since 24 time 24 = 576, 1900 total cites normally indicates indicates that some of them must be considerably higher. or that there are an immense number of lower-cited papers (or both). And, if we actually looking (for convenience I'm using G Scholar, which everyone can see, we find citations, starting with the highest and descending, 165, 68 , 66, 56 , 55, 51 .... for half of which he was first author. that's not "famous", but is is definitely notable. (One of the problems with articles on academics is they are often written by those who do not understand the relevant factors, and i do not blame anyone who would look at the article as it appeared here and had strong doubts about it.) DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sudan Relief Fund (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'm unable to find good sources for this NGO. Dejakh~talk!•did! 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Two references and an External link to an effectiveness assessment now added to the article. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every one of the references suffers from one or more of the following problems: not an independent source; only mentions the subject in passing; does not mention the subject at all. My own searches have failed to turn up anything better. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 28 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) 00:27, 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, KTC (talk) 20:36, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stars (Serbian-private aerobatic 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)
Non-notable aerobatic team. FallingGravity (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they're rather notable (Radio Television of Serbia, Večernje Novosti, Politika). However, if the author of the article doesn't care enough to spend fifteen minutes providing basic sources and information, why should we care? No such user (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can not find an article on the serbian Wikipedia, But I was just guessing what the title would be. The refs mentioned seem to only make passing mention. Fails WP:GNG Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:07, 9 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, KTC (talk) 20:32, 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 merge to Dd (Unix). —Darkwind (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dcfldd (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)
possible copyvio of http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Dcfldd teratogen (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Forensics wiki is released under a CC-BY-SA license, so attribution is necessary, but we are otherwise good in that field. I haven't checked it for other problems. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the introductory text and replaced it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like we're good with regard to the copyvio. I'm still far from convinced the article meets WP:NOTE, however. —me_and 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with dd (Unix): Hi. A merge would certainly solve notability problem without adding much to the size of the target article (because this article has a lot of fluff) but only if the target article itself is notable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a problem with a number of wikipedia pages related to dd. There's also a dead link about Wikiproject computers- 'Computer redirects' to assist me in understanding about making ambiguity pages. I would like to help by proposing a new page since Dump (program) can also be used as a computer science verb, and I need to use the word 'dump' in dcfldd's article page for describing it (which is why there's short of introductory material to it because the word dump is a computer jargon verb). The comparison of clones software page is a mess and technically inaccurate (so I left a post on it's talk page). Dump (Computer data cloning) should be warranted it's one page since it differs from the word 'cloning' (Dump is a form of absolute strict cloning-- I can't use the word cloning for describing the operation of dcfldd, and the 'dd' article needs improvement which I'll try to contribute to). I see the possibility of making new pages, one called Dump (Computer data cloning), Dump (ambiguity), and keep Dump (program), and possibly a 'List of Cloning tools (dump method)'. Dump is a form of cloning. The english word 'cloning' does not imply strict-cloning but 'dump' does(I'm in the field and use this word when speaking). I'd like to hear what other wikipedians can do to help me learn more about how I can contribute more of what I do know because there's inaccuracies and mistakes that are being made on. On the disk-cloning page, I think that table shouldn't exist for dump-only tools since all the filesystem fields should be blank. (dd and dcfldd are filesystem-agnostic)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dump_(program)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software
- Let me know if it's not too much of an inconvenience for other wikipedians if I create new wikipedia pages, but I'm not going to be dishonest and simply say I agree with the accuracy of the present wikipedia pages just so that I can keep the dcfldd article. If I'm going to put an effort into more descriptions about dcfldd, then there'll have to be changes to other pages. The word 'dumping' is used and is becoming more popular. There's also a need of refinement for [ Iso image ] and descriptions about it pertaining to 'hybrid iso'. A topic related to the example I point out in dcfldd. If I roll out all the changes I want to make I wouldn't want to create a storm of any sort. Please let me know if I can make the edits I would like to do so that I can improve the dcfldd article.
- Swestlake (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. So that pretty much puts merge out of question, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the above is irrelevant to whether dcfldd should be deleted/merged/retained/other. I believe Swestlake is saying there are technical inaccuracies in other Wikipedia articles in this area. I don't think that prevents us merging dcfldd into dd (Unix), though, merely that doing so isn't the end of story (ie business as usual).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The programs gets 137 hits on Google scholar and about 360 hits on Google Books. The books The Best Damn Cybercrime and Digital Forensics Book Period has an in depth (several pages) discussion of the program, as does Defense Against the Black Arts. Two more books Penetration Tester's Open Source Toolkit and Digital Forensics with Open Source Tools both have 1-3 paragraphs apiece on the program. Multiple reliable sources, two of them in depth, demonstrate the notability of the topic according to WP:GNG. Notability of the topic and no insurmountable problems with the article suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The books you've linked to seem to primarily cover how to use dcfldd; I'm not convinced they "address the subject directly in detail". I don't think the hit count is relevant, even in Google Scholar. —me_and 00:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced that description of program features and how and when use the program and its features is addressing the subject directly in detail, as direct a description of a computer program as you can get without quoting source code. WP:NOTHOWTO advises that WP articles should not be howto guides, but it places no such restrictions on sources and point 1 on that page says Describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic. While Google hits generally aren't useful in deciding notability, in the WP:HITS#Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia section it is written that Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Google books is similar. While these do not establish notability by themselves, they can contribute evidence toward it, especially for technical topics such as forensic analysis of storage devices. --Mark viking (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mark viking or merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Diego (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources that Mark viking found do seem to show notability for the subject. I don't know if it's enough to warrant a separate article, it is relevant enough to dd itself that it wouldn't be out of place in that article either, but I don't think deletion is warranted as it meets WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 07:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:NOPAGE. I've been noncommittal so far, but I'll pin my colours to the mast now. And I'll note a number of the "keep"s above seemed happy with a merge. —me_and 09:55, 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 delete. I would be happy to userfy for futher development or merging, but this is TOOSOON at the present time. —Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Saturdays' fourth studio 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)
Un-named album, its a case of WP:HAMMER. Similar creations for Christina Milian's fourth album, Cassie's second album were also hammered and deleted with redirects back to the artist's page. Aside from that it reads like fansite. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge sourced content to The Saturdays. We don't yet know what will be on the album, what it's called, or when it's coming out, so it doesn't make sense to have an article about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Album has two notable charted singles, and Album > Single; Albums are more important than singles. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speculation at the moment so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Future projects are usually covered under the main article, as it is in this case here at The Saturdays#History. Just because the album contains notable singles or is released by a notable band does not necessarily make the album itself notable, see WP:NALBUMS for more info. Funny Pika! 18:30, 9 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, KTC (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:FunnyPika, Davey2010 Talk 11:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article per Pika, and merge any suitable content to the band's main article. Ducknish (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I created this page. We have a lot of references and information about the album. We have evidence that at least six of the tracks noted have been recorded, I feel this is worthy of a page, as new information is being released all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraPalmerCA (talk • contribs) 20:03, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Milovan Lalović (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 a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of a minor author. I've prodded it and tried to speedy it but I think the only thing that will get through to the OP if Adfing it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page Milovan Lalović is NOT an autobiography, I know this author and are therefore I chose to he be my FIRST post on Wikipedia. On his page there are no promotional elements. However, if you want to delete i cannot do anything. BUT TOMORROW OR A YEAR SOME OTHER WILL WHRITE ARTICLE ABOUT HIM, because he is popular in his home state. DELATION TO HIM NOT MEAN ANYTHING BUT TO ME deduct my first post on to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavle12345 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC) ONLY TIFF is that my English is not the best so i used GOOGLE TRANSLATE AND YOU got the impression that I am Milovan Lalović BUT IM NOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavle12345 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above discussion about autobiography is a bit unfortunate, let's move on. Pavle12345. There do appear to be some independent book reviews of the Greek translation of his third novel under "Ο Σέρβος .. Μίλοβαν Λάλοβιτς" Can you locate any newspaper reviews for the Serbian-language (? article not clear) books under "Милован Лаловић" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. SalHamton (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as SalHamton pointed out, he doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR at the moment. Out of the three references on the page: one is a link to a literary club on the Serbian Wikipedia sr:Književna zajednica Mirko Banjević, another is a brief Greek review of his third book [8] and the last is a more substantial review of the same book - again in Greek [9]. I found some Pobjeda articles via GNews but, according to Google translate, they only seem to mention him in the passing as a part of the aforementioned literary club. Perhaps there are more Montenegrin/Serbian/Greek sources out there but I can't seem to find any sources which discuss him in depth. Funny Pika! 18:09, 9 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, KTC (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without the sources to support notability the author fails WP:GNG, and thus the article should be removed. Ducknish (talk) 21:32, 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. The sources in the article do not estabilsh notability. —Darkwind (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Harrigan (computer security) (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 Bio. Marketing and advertisement for computer company 'critical assets' JDMaryman (talk) 19:15, 9 April 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 April 9. Snotbot t • c » 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This is pretty well sourced, and the subject does seem reasonably notable. There were a few unsourced statements in the article, which I yanked, but blanking or deleting the whole thing seems unwarranted. inkling (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do not check out. Just marketing fluff and advertisement. I recommend merging the relevant content into the Kingpin (book) article. Would be a better place. Computer companies that have no customers and offer services to other companies are not notable, nor or puffed up articles to promote their principals. The book content may be notable. This person is not and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 208.54.4.201 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - I located this on the internet on this website Ripoff Report. -> Matt Harrigan on Ripoff Report. This type of content should never appear on our project or wikipedia nor should wikipedia host these types of activities from an ex hacker. Whether true or not, it raises serious BLP issues down the road should it end up here. It's a non notable bio anyway, so I leave it to the closing admin. I also noticed that this article has been linked to a google popup on the advertising bar to scrape this webpage on wikipedia as some sort of ad on google. Just type 'Matt Harrigan (computer security)' on google and watch the ads come up on the right linked to our project. This article is link spam of some sort. 208.54.4.144 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not done anything notable. In no way meets notability rquirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Funny Pika! 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 9ice (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 BLP is such a mess I have doubts about most of the information and I can't find anything more than blogs and web forums that mention this guy. There is this page on NigeriaFilms.com, which contradicts his claimed birth name, for starters! The BBC article doesn't mention 9ice. The 'official websites' that were cited on Wikipedia most definitely weren't any such thing. I can't see how this article is retrievable. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - I've now seen the previous 'Keep' decision. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admins closure). Whpq (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wisner Washam (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)
Because of its date of creation this is not eligible for BLPPROD, but it is a BLP and has no references. If given suitable references this discussion may be speedy closed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis that there is now one WP:RS citation in the article I am able to withdraw this nomination for deletion and I recommend a speedy close either as withdrawn or keep, whichever suits the closer's mood better.. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've alerted WP:TV and WP:SOAPS to this discussion.[10][11] Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Emmy Award award winning writer, as shown here [12]. Agree the piece need more cites but not a delete. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a useful reference. To be kept it requires WP:RS references. Citing the emmy award in one of those in the article will keep it instantly, and it can move to a speedy close as keep. Lack of citations is the entire problem. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oh....I agree. Will work on the cites as time allows. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 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. Still does not meet notability guidelines even after attempts to improve article. No consensus on a redirect to replace the article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bernard Jensen (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)
Completely unsourced biography. Subject appears to fail WP:BIO; no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 18:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – A better Google search is "Dr. Bernard Jensen" which produces quite a few hits, as shown here [13]. In addition, looks like a Dr. Jensen was a prolific author, as shown here [14]. I believe this is enough material to establish notability. I’ll start citing the article. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how many of those Google hits are useful independent, reliable sources, but I'll look for your updates to the article. MastCell Talk 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Fair enough. Thanks - ShoesssS Talk 23:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how many of those Google hits are useful independent, reliable sources, but I'll look for your updates to the article. MastCell Talk 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep im having trouble finding references, but he is one of the biggest names in the holistic health/alternative medicine movement in its early years. I added what i could.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Two people (above) have tried to source the article and did their best, but it remains basically unsourced. At Google Books, I found his own books plus one reference to him in somebody else's book. Online I found him referred to as the founder or popularizer of iridology.[15] I also found a few non-reliable sources gushing about him, some with unverified red-flag claims such as that he was knighted, some stating things that are plainly false like the claim that he was a medical doctor. Oh, and there's the company he founded now run by his son. Maybe the information could be merged/redirected to Iridology, but there is nowhere near enough verifiable, sourced information for a biography. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An open-and-shut case of no WP:RS whatsoever to fulfill WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i suppose i should have just added a comment instead of argue for keep. if i say keep, i need to show adequate refs (what i found was marginal). i sort of hoped someone else was better than me at finding sources. I think a Redirect to Avery Publishing (which i created, think its a more notable enough entity) as his name is a valid search term. I still think there are print references out there, but we could always recreate if someone can show that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but I think a redirect to a publishing house would be a little weird. If there is to be a redirect IMO it should be to Iridology, the field in which he made his name (to the extent that he has one). --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 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 Food competition. —Darkwind (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Los Angeles International Extra Virgin Olive Oil Competition (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 cites two sources to support its notability claim:
- A news article on the NBC Southern California website. The article includes a total of three sentences about the competition, which is not enough.
- An Olive Oil Times article which reads like a press release. I suspect this is an unreliable source.
In summary, the article may be unverifiable. (Plus, it's a mediocre article.)
Redirect to Food competition. Or maybe delete: would deletion be wiser, or more foolish?
—Unforgettableid (talk); message last edited 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. I really liked the article about the Scripps College kids winning a prize, but it's not enough for notability for the contest. I was going to suggest a merge to Los Angeles International Wine Competition, of which it is a part, but I see that page has been made into a redirect to "wine competition" so apparently it was not notable either. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:GNG an all points. Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Unforgettableid, as a plea for WP:MERCY. It would be harmless as a redirect, and I'd very much like to improve the article to meet WP:GNG if I can find more sources, or if the competition becomes more notable in the future. For the record, the Olive Oil Times is a great source for olive oil, though they do have advertising sections which obviously wouldn't work as references. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to food competition; subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however those mentions IMHO do not add up to significant coverage therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. That being said, it is related to a notable subject, Food competition, and that article could be improved by adding a list of food competitions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be easy for you to create such a list. I gutted "Food competition" less than a week ago to remove some food-competition-comparison tables peppered with puffery. If you restore the left column of the removed tables, you'd have your list. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:46, 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 delete. No consensus on the target for a redirect to replace the article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kent Mesplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Perennial third-party candidate who never even got his party's nomination for anything, much less won any elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a high ranking official in the Green Party and has been elected to multiple posts within it. Not winning the election is not a measure of notability. Coverage is the measure, and he has received a significant amount of coverage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since he never got the nomination and really never achieved anything in a political capacity, his political notability is sufficiently limited to prevent him from having an article. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or even a redirect IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & others. Insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. No objection to a redirect, but unsure which page to target given that he is mentioned in both the 2008 & 2012 Green National Covention articles.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - coverage of his three presidential campaigns as well as his position as a high ranking official in the Green Party is significant enough to merit inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show us an example of that coverage? Because I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources about him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please open the link provided under your initial comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. I saw nothing that could be considered an Independent Reliable Source. Ballot Access blog? OpEdNews?? Pravda??? I ask again, which SPECIFIC items on that list provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources? --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll overlook your ignorance of Richard Winger and Ballot Access News, and ask how many sources you'd like for me to provide.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for one. --MelanieN (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to post just one. I need to know what you see as the threshold.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but so far I have not seen any significant coverage at all. Look, I have "rescued" lots of articles at AfD. The way you do it is by posting links - individual links to individual cases of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Or better yet, adding such references to the article, which is what I do if I truly believe the subject is notable and ought to be kept. Other people are likely to switch their "delete" !votes to "keep" if your sources are convincing. But you are playing games here and I am done. If you think the article ought to be kept, show us why. If you have examples of significant coverage by reputable sources, link to them. A link to a search page showing mostly passing mentions in mostly shaky sources is not going to cut it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your advice. In an ideal world, I would do those things. But I don't have time for that at the moment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but so far I have not seen any significant coverage at all. Look, I have "rescued" lots of articles at AfD. The way you do it is by posting links - individual links to individual cases of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Or better yet, adding such references to the article, which is what I do if I truly believe the subject is notable and ought to be kept. Other people are likely to switch their "delete" !votes to "keep" if your sources are convincing. But you are playing games here and I am done. If you think the article ought to be kept, show us why. If you have examples of significant coverage by reputable sources, link to them. A link to a search page showing mostly passing mentions in mostly shaky sources is not going to cut it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to post just one. I need to know what you see as the threshold.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for one. --MelanieN (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll overlook your ignorance of Richard Winger and Ballot Access News, and ask how many sources you'd like for me to provide.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. I saw nothing that could be considered an Independent Reliable Source. Ballot Access blog? OpEdNews?? Pravda??? I ask again, which SPECIFIC items on that list provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources? --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please open the link provided under your initial comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show us an example of that coverage? Because I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources about him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#Green Party; subject does not appear to have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources. Subject has received multiple mentions, but non that appear to be significant coverage, therefore the subject clearly fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. That being said, the mentions are related in the subjects failed runs in elected office; therefore WP:POLOUTCOMES come into effect. There are multiple potential redirect target, I just chose the most recent one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 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 Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Silk Route Museum (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 organization. No indications of any significant coverage of this museum in any reliable sources. The only mentions to be found are trivial listings in various travel sites. Associations with Yasheng Group (whether that article be deleted or not) are not material to the notability of this organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Note: KatieBoundary, who has made several comments in this discussion, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a disruptive user who has already been blocked in several accounts, over a period from 2009 onwards. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete Per nomination. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Waituntil someone who can read Chinese searches for sources. It is quite likely we cannot find RS because they do not exist in English, and may only be in Chinese.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not one single reliable source, primary, secondary, or otherwise. Policing articles with groups of editors ignoring WP:RS is also not possible. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - falls foul of WP:RS.--Launchballer 21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. An article doesn't have to meet RS. The sources may or may not meet RS, but while that's an argument one can make in a deletion discussion it cannot substitute for a deletion discussion which is, after all, about the topic, not about sources (though it can involve such discussion of course). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding me? For all we know, articles not containing any of them could be harbouring libellous content and/or copyright violations and/or original research. Are you out of your mind?--Launchballer 09:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. An article doesn't have to meet RS. The sources may or may not meet RS, but while that's an argument one can make in a deletion discussion it cannot substitute for a deletion discussion which is, after all, about the topic, not about sources (though it can involve such discussion of course). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The museum under discussion is in Gansu. I found nothing reliable on this place. There are other Chinese Silk Route or Silk Road Museums. One of the biggest is in Xinjiang: "Xinjiang Silk Road Museum", China Highlights; "China’s Africa Strategy Blossoms as Relationship Develops", China Briefing. Another one is in Ningxia: "China cultural news in brief: ancient residential site; Silk Road museum; French music festival ", People's Daily Online. An American Catholic priest wanted to build a Silk Road Museum in Kazakhstan, 20 miles from China.[16] There is one in Kyrgyzstan.[17][18] There is one in Kashgar near Kyrgyzstan.[19] There is a Silk Road Museum in Seoul, Korea: [20][21] There's also the Hirayama Ikuo Silk Road Museum in Hokuto, Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. "Istanbul's Pera Museum explores Japanese art through two exhibits", Hürriyet Daily News, Istanbul. [22][23][24]. With all of these organizations competing for the sightseer's attention, notability is not acquired simply by existing.
• Note that in the process of hunting for citations I found a trove of information on the 2009 Maritime Silk Road Museum or Marine Silk Road Museum located on a beach on Hailing Island adjacent to Yangjiang city in Guangdong province, China (China Heritage Quarterly, 2011, UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage. "The Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum", "Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum", Travel China Guide.) Somebody could write that article, about the museum built around the Nanhai boat preserved in beach sand. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Binksternet :) I shall write it when I get back on Saturday, if anyone here wishes to collaborate feel free. Also, could this article be merged into the Gansu article then instead of deleted?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "merge" is far too kind of a word. This text would overbalance the Gansu article, but perhaps the museum can be mentioned briefly. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but ideally, merge/refactor Let's hear Chinese speakers on the lack of RS please - that there's nothing in English means little. The museum site incorporates a royal tomb site, & an article on that (which must be notable), including the museum, would be ideal. Or merge to Jiuquan - why are we talking about Gansu? That there are other museums on the same very large subject is a strange argument for deletion indeed, and China has lots of internal "sightseers". Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a confusing field, and I gave other editors here a flavor of how difficult is the search for sources when there are so many results that are off-target. My argument for deletion was simple: that no secondary reliable sources discuss the Gansu museum in any detail. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, what is your source for saying "the museum site incorporates a royal tomb site" and your other assertions? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website, assuming of course the whole thing is not a fabrication. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So even if a Chinese newspaper cites this museum (so far no such source has been found), if the newspaper is owned by the same government that owns the museum, it would not qualify as a "third party source". Furthermore, reliability is required under WP:RS. Newspapers without journalistic standards that are censored by governments are not reliable. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum looks to be private to me, as many in China are, and most newspapers also. As no Chinese-speaker appears to have looked, it is hardly surprising that no Chinese sources have been found. Do you have any policy or RSN back-up or precedent for your apparent very POV suggestion that no Chinese newspaper is an RS? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that no Chinese newspaper is RS - I said that if an entity owns a newspaper, and also owns the entity that is a topic of an article, then it is not a third party source. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum looks to be private to me, as many in China are, and most newspapers also. As no Chinese-speaker appears to have looked, it is hardly surprising that no Chinese sources have been found. Do you have any policy or RSN back-up or precedent for your apparent very POV suggestion that no Chinese newspaper is an RS? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Changed my vote to strong Keep (see note below) - Merge the information here into the Gansu article. I could find nothing outside of the Silk Route Museum website, but everything there indicates this is a real entity. If someone amongst us can search sources written in Chinese, this would be helpful. Someone made a comment that newspaper articles in Chinese newspapers are not reliable. I think it depends on what is said and how it is said. If an article keeps a neutral tone in reporting, rather than a public relations tone, I think this could be considered a reliable source, provided the newspaper has some respect. Newspapers in China have to toe the government line, so no one is likely to find a newspaper that has western standards of press independence. That does not mean everything in such newspapers should always be considered false. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, why Gansu, the province? It is in Jiuquan the "city", in fact the area. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The evidence is that is is real, and it would make more sense to me to have this as a separate article , as we do most museums of more than purely local interest. Binksternet says , correctly, that it would overbalance the article on the locality, & when that is the case, a separate article is indicated. Rejecting a news source "if the newspaper is owned by the same government that owns the museum," is carrying "independent" in WP:RS a good deal too far. It would eliminate using any government source from anywhere for information about the country or anything in it. We could not, for example, use books published about national parks by the uS Dept of the Interior, or anything about the US government published by the Library of Congress. If this particular source on this particular topic is unreliable, we need some evidence of that, because official sources are presumed reliable about the plain facts of something. Attacking sources on this basis is the sort of radical skepticism which prevents writing anything at all, because it is conceivable that all sources on anything are prejudiced in some manner. (And I thank Binksternet for having identified a good many more museums about which we should have articles. Because of them, this should be retitled with a qualifier for the name of the place, and a disam page made. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG, , what is your source for saying "the evidence is it is real"? What is the "newspaper source"? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with DGG and Johnbod. I don't see the point of deleting this when it is clear that the thing exists and, if it exists in the way and size in which it exists, it's a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your WP:V source for "it is clear that the thing exists"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The website of the museum has photos that show a very large museum with artifacts of early China. The photos appear to show the sam very large building that is centered in the Google satellite map link that is also on the museum's webpage. I think the museum exists. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same image, with the same people standing in the same places, that was up on the Yasheng Group website press release link, long before the museum was supposedly "developed and built". Then when all this discussion started, all the press releases prior to 2010 suddenly disappeared from the Yasheng Group web site. So did all of the press releases for the fantastic geological mining claims of supposed huge operations in the Gobi. Most museums post an address on their webpage, so people can get there. I looked for awhile, but maybe I am looking on the wrong subpages. Could you find a posted address? KatieBoundary (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum's "location" page [25] has a link to a Google Maps page [26]. The Google map gives a satellite image of a large building with a long entrance drive, the drive cut twice by smaller lateral roads. The main road appears to be G312, a national road in Su Zhou Qu, Jiuquan, Gansu, China. I have no idea whether this area uses a familiar Western form of addresses. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That is about the weirdest google image I have ever seen, and I look at weird geological formations alot. Have you looked around at that map image? Beyond the fact that the photo image for its front posted on its website is identical (even having the same people in it) to an image linked to in a Yasheng press release that predates the construction of the museum... take a look. Is there a Wiki Google Earth experts Project? KatieBoundary (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum's "location" page [25] has a link to a Google Maps page [26]. The Google map gives a satellite image of a large building with a long entrance drive, the drive cut twice by smaller lateral roads. The main road appears to be G312, a national road in Su Zhou Qu, Jiuquan, Gansu, China. I have no idea whether this area uses a familiar Western form of addresses. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same image, with the same people standing in the same places, that was up on the Yasheng Group website press release link, long before the museum was supposedly "developed and built". Then when all this discussion started, all the press releases prior to 2010 suddenly disappeared from the Yasheng Group web site. So did all of the press releases for the fantastic geological mining claims of supposed huge operations in the Gobi. Most museums post an address on their webpage, so people can get there. I looked for awhile, but maybe I am looking on the wrong subpages. Could you find a posted address? KatieBoundary (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The website of the museum has photos that show a very large museum with artifacts of early China. The photos appear to show the sam very large building that is centered in the Google satellite map link that is also on the museum's webpage. I think the museum exists. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your WP:V source for "it is clear that the thing exists"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @DGG and @Drmies, what evidence do you see that this place really exists? This reference is a listing in a tourist site that the museum organization has most surely paid for; and this source actually links to the museum's own "about us" page as its "source". If (and I do say if) the allegations against Yasheng are true, and they are merely a fraudulent shell company, setting up a fraudulent charity in China (a fake museum) would be in line with the expected activities of Yasheng's founders. Since no reliable source can be found to verify the existence of this museum, any other claims made in the article about the size and significance of the museum cannot be verified either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See the note in the nom. Do you have any direct evidence it doesn't exist? Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable large museum, ergo notable. Museums in China are likely to have less internet presence and comment than those in the West. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your WP:V source for "Verifiable large museum"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's blatantly obvious that it exists. Are you saying it doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say "it's blatantly obvious that it exists"? Why did you say "verifiable large museum"? What is your verifiable source? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sources provided in the article are perfectly acceptable as verification that it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say "it's blatantly obvious that it exists"? Why did you say "verifiable large museum"? What is your verifiable source? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's blatantly obvious that it exists. Are you saying it doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your WP:V source for "Verifiable large museum"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maritime Silk Route Museum was also created without establishing notability, then the creator disappeared off Wikipedia. It currently has no reliable source supporting anything in it. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not try and connect the 2009 article creation of Maritime Silk Route Museum to this deletion discussion. To me the two articles look completely unconnected. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Jade Road article was created in violation WP:N, and has no sources. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Gansu Agricultural University was created in violation WP:N, and has no sources. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above three entities are unrelated to this discussion. I can't at the moment find the Wikipedia guideline on this, but it roughly says we cannot tie the merits of an article currently going thru an AfD discussion to other articles, as an article under discussion must stand on its own merits, regardless of the merits or faults of other articles. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This museum surely exists. A review of it on Tripadvisor exists. And, yes, I know that Tripadvisor is not a reliable source. However, this tidbit does help show this museum exists, although it cannot be used in the article. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your source for saying "This museum surely exists"? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about Merge or Keep decision - If enough sources can be found, this article needs to be kept. Short of that, the most important info on this museum should be merged into the Jiuquan article. There is currently a sentence about it in the Gansu article. Bill Pollard (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence in that article had no source and was deleted per WP:V. Please name a reliable source supporting "important info on this museum". KatieBoundary (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Copy of 2009 email discussion of this article by Silk Route Museum and Yasheng Group president, and the Yasheng Eco Trade executives and main Yasheng/Silk marketer is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.139 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. KatieBoundary, your strident and borderline aggressive comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you are not productive. Editors are putting across their point of view. You clearly disagree that this museum is notable, or even that it exists at all, but you are achieving nothing by questioning every contribution to the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a male enforces WP:V by asking for sources, it is called good editing. But when a female asks the same, it is called "strident" and "aggressive". "some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — “shrill,” “strident,” “pantsuit” and “giggle,” among them" - New York Times. I'm going on a break and change from a pantsuit into an appropriate skirt before coming back. KatieBoundary (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you think my comment was based on the fact that you may be female? Trust me, it wasn't. I in no way associate either word with being female. You really do seem to have attitude issues. It is foolish in the extreme to accuse another editor of sexism when you know nothing about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a male enforces WP:V by asking for sources, it is called good editing. But when a female asks the same, it is called "strident" and "aggressive". "some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — “shrill,” “strident,” “pantsuit” and “giggle,” among them" - New York Times. I'm going on a break and change from a pantsuit into an appropriate skirt before coming back. KatieBoundary (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep or at least mention in Jiuquan, possibly under a Tourism section.
- As Binksternet mentioned, there are quite a few Silk Route/Road museums (丝绸之路博物馆) in China. In Chinese, there are more hits for the Maritime Silk Road Museum (广东海上丝绸之路博物馆) in Guangdong than for this museum. However, searching for it with Jiuquan 酒泉 "丝绸之路博物馆" [27] or Gansu 甘肃 "丝绸之路博物馆" [28] pops up the Google maps location [29]. The building is quite prominent in Satellite view.
- The place exists and does seem to meet WP:CORP. [All in Chinese] There is provincial and national coverage of its opening back in October 2009 [30][31][32], this local article about an exhibition at the museum last May [33] and this German sourced pdf that digs a bit into its background [34] (end of page 3 to 4). Other sources tend to focus on the developing cultural tourism industry within Jiuquan and cite the museum in passing [35][36][37].
- Funding methods aren't usually listed on museum pages and I don't see why the Yasheng Group is any different. There doesn't seem to be any direct connection between that fraud allegation and how this museum is run. Whatever complications or difficulties a company finds itself in shouldn't be able to sneak its way into loosely associated topics.
- Redirects to Gansu are a bit premature - it's a province, whereas Jiuquan would be the city it's actually situated in. I think the museum warrants an article, but I don't think this private museum is notable enough to be mentioned on its county/province/prefecture/region/state page. Funny Pika! 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources cited by FunnyPika are "reliable" per WP:RS. RS is required by WP:V. V is required by WP:N. WP:N fails. (This is on top of the fact that not a single sentence in the article is cited by any RS, and each utterly fails V. And there is nothing tying that strange satellite image to any museum, especially as the same image was used by Yasheng Group in its adverts - before the museum was supposedly "built" from the ground up.) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Gansu Daily article satisfies WP:RS. Using Google's translation function I can see that the article is titled "Gansu Silk Road Museum was completed and opened". The reporter calls the museum one of a series of "foreign built cultural industry projects cum heritage conservation" and that it opened September 28, 2009. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From my point of view they meet WP:RS; specifically as facts from either news organisations, government organisations or NGOs. I don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion that a source is unreliable without actually reading the source first. All I can see at the moment is random policy pointing without an explanation on how they are relevant to this specific discussion. Please elaborate on why these are "unreliable" and what otherwise would be considered a reliable source. Funny Pika! 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to Keep above. The reason is I examined the above user's arguments and examined many of the sources. I also found the museum (at coordinates 39.7706, 98.4327). If this article is kept we need to incorporate the sources used in the above argument. Bill Pollard (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From my point of view they meet WP:RS; specifically as facts from either news organisations, government organisations or NGOs. I don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion that a source is unreliable without actually reading the source first. All I can see at the moment is random policy pointing without an explanation on how they are relevant to this specific discussion. Please elaborate on why these are "unreliable" and what otherwise would be considered a reliable source. Funny Pika! 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Gansu Daily article satisfies WP:RS. Using Google's translation function I can see that the article is titled "Gansu Silk Road Museum was completed and opened". The reporter calls the museum one of a series of "foreign built cultural industry projects cum heritage conservation" and that it opened September 28, 2009. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources cited by FunnyPika are "reliable" per WP:RS. RS is required by WP:V. V is required by WP:N. WP:N fails. (This is on top of the fact that not a single sentence in the article is cited by any RS, and each utterly fails V. And there is nothing tying that strange satellite image to any museum, especially as the same image was used by Yasheng Group in its adverts - before the museum was supposedly "built" from the ground up.) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A source must be established as reliable, not presumed reliable. Who are the owners of the publication? Who is the author of the article? What are the editorial policies of the publisher? Are there COI's here? What are the journalism standards of publication? Just claiming to be a newspaper does not make it a reliable source. If there is a source that can be established as reliable, and significant coverage, then I will change my vote to keep. I changed my first view of deleting the Yasheng article to a vote of "keep", based on finding a news article, but I changed it back to "delete" after finding out that the source was not reliable. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were supposed to "establish" a source as reliable instead of making a judgement call then the encyclopedia expansion would slow to a crawl. Every day hundreds of editors make judgements about what is reliable and what is not. Instead of having to establish reliability before use, we have the WP:RSN for questioning reliability, so your appreciation is somewhat reversed regarding how Wikipedia does it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, we must make judgment calls. But declaring something to be a reliable source must be based on evidence. The reason some news sources are considered reliable, and others not, is that some have standards or COIs that do not meet WP standards. Otherwise, anyone can create a Wikipedia article by simply putting "Daily News" on their website. I reviewed WP:RSN you linked to. Thanks. But I do not see the point of involving others unless evidence presented for reliability does not convince editors, who can go there. I will change my vote to keep, if there is evidence of no COI, and reliability of the article author and news source editorial policy, presented here. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a discussion that those of us who are not readers of Chinese will have difficulty pursuing - we should probably leave it those who are. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, we must make judgment calls. But declaring something to be a reliable source must be based on evidence. The reason some news sources are considered reliable, and others not, is that some have standards or COIs that do not meet WP standards. Otherwise, anyone can create a Wikipedia article by simply putting "Daily News" on their website. I reviewed WP:RSN you linked to. Thanks. But I do not see the point of involving others unless evidence presented for reliability does not convince editors, who can go there. I will change my vote to keep, if there is evidence of no COI, and reliability of the article author and news source editorial policy, presented here. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were supposed to "establish" a source as reliable instead of making a judgement call then the encyclopedia expansion would slow to a crawl. Every day hundreds of editors make judgements about what is reliable and what is not. Instead of having to establish reliability before use, we have the WP:RSN for questioning reliability, so your appreciation is somewhat reversed regarding how Wikipedia does it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A source must be established as reliable, not presumed reliable. Who are the owners of the publication? Who is the author of the article? What are the editorial policies of the publisher? Are there COI's here? What are the journalism standards of publication? Just claiming to be a newspaper does not make it a reliable source. If there is a source that can be established as reliable, and significant coverage, then I will change my vote to keep. I changed my first view of deleting the Yasheng article to a vote of "keep", based on finding a news article, but I changed it back to "delete" after finding out that the source was not reliable. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed my conclusion per evidence from FunnyPika. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yasheng 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)
Non-notable company. No reliable sources other than self-published SEC filings or NY Times business listings can be found regarding this company. Unfounded accusations of stock fraud cannot be verified (so the notability of this company as a notorious fraud cannot be upheld). It does not appear that any good information can be provided about this company other than that they exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: KatieBoundary, who has made several comments in this discussion, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a disruptive user who has already been blocked in several accounts, over a period from 2009 onwards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete Per Nomination. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the original voice for deleting as not notable. But I have now found a news article that establishes notability - Victorville Daily Press. The article only quotes what Yasheng executives say the company is, and what they are planning, then quotes commentary by he County Board of Supervisors and award winning academicians at CSLB university on the proposal. That does not mean the company is real, or it plans were ever real (especially as there are other news stories that are inconsistent with what is announced in this story - first Yasheng Group buys Yasheng Eco Trade, then vice versa, and meanwhile the land that skyrockets in value in a classic insider trading scheme). Duping a local government body and academicians to comment in the media on announced plans, even for a nonexistent company, establishes notability. The editors above might want to reassess their vote like I just did, in light of this new information. KatieBoundary (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot read the article as it is behind a paywall, but based on KatieBounary's comments, the article appears to be about a company proposing to buy property to build a facility, with comments on the proposal from county officials and some academics at CSLB. The fact that these commentators may have been duped appears to be Katie's own addition to the story. If (and I emphasize, if) it turns out that Yasheng is a fraudulent corporation, and the fraud turns out to be a notable crime, then we may be able to recreate an article based on that. As for now, we do not have evidence of that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I emailed you a copy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WIkidan61 is correct, there needs to be RS to say anything about fraud. It is certain that the geological and fossil claims on their website are impossible and therefore false, but that is OR on my part, and I have no secondary sources. In the meantime, the article can be kept using the careful wording of the news article, "Yasheng says it is this, and says it is that". These people may be shooting themselves by having created enough hoopla to get comments on their in government letters cited in the news. Duping the government in an insider trading real estate scam involving fake companies will likely piss off any honest politician or academician. KatieBoundary (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. No reliable source at all. There is a history of these articles being filled with WP:RS violating material, and its easier to just remove them and write a brief memo to the SEC. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dan - This says "Yasheng Group, a California incorporated holding company, was established in 2004". While this says "Yasheng Group, founded over 30 years ago, is a US holding company". 2004 is not 30 years ago. This appears to be the reason for the creation of a Wikipedia article for a company billed as the fourth largest in China, which no one has ever heard of, and with a museum larger than almost any in the world, which fails all searches of architectural reviews. Maybe FBI is more appropriate than SEC, given the news announcements for real estate "purchases" that never occurred, and recorded real estate documents showing the executives were personally buying and selling land in the area, using alias name changes galore. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all your claim is factually wrong about the museum claiming to be one of the largest in the world - it is a tenth of the size of the British Museum and a 15th of that of the Smithsonian. I appreciate the notability concern now, but why did you wish to delete the museum article before that; you made no indication it was notability.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their website press releases in 2009 had the museum as being built to be the biggest museum in the world. They appear to have recently pulled all thos claims off their website, and all the other outrageous claims. KatieBoundary (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dan - This says "Yasheng Group, a California incorporated holding company, was established in 2004". While this says "Yasheng Group, founded over 30 years ago, is a US holding company". 2004 is not 30 years ago. This appears to be the reason for the creation of a Wikipedia article for a company billed as the fourth largest in China, which no one has ever heard of, and with a museum larger than almost any in the world, which fails all searches of architectural reviews. Maybe FBI is more appropriate than SEC, given the news announcements for real estate "purchases" that never occurred, and recorded real estate documents showing the executives were personally buying and selling land in the area, using alias name changes galore. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources indicate that they exist but give no indication of notability with regard to third party observations. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Binksternet, what sources indicate they exist, other than as a bunch of words in a press release, or on paper in an SEC filing? KatieBoundary (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why I should spend another minute on this article, but the New York Times entry appeared to be independent rather than a press release. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the basis for you saying it "appears to be independent"? Who is the author? Which editorial division oversaw that author's source checking? KatieBoundary (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why I should spend another minute on this article, but the New York Times entry appeared to be independent rather than a press release. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Binksternet, what sources indicate they exist, other than as a bunch of words in a press release, or on paper in an SEC filing? KatieBoundary (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief. Delete asap.--Launchballer 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not an ounce of notability is shown. Ducknish (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a major international company. The date confusion cited in the discussion as evidence that none of it is to be trusted is cleared up if one actually reads the sources, which are, admittedly, quite extensive: the 10K says " We have been producing our premium specialty Agriculture products for over 20 years and some of our entities were founded over 40 years ago, to become the largest agriculture company in North West China. " The 10K is btw certified by a Chinese CPA, apparently one acceptable to the SEC; though accountants in various countries including the US have on occasion helped conceal frauds, this is not something frequent enough to make such statements unreliable. Rejecting sources such as we ordinarily use without evidence on unreliability sometimes indicates some sort of agenda: in this case, possibly that given in comments on a user talk p.and the discussions linked there. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherited_notability says - "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries". Whether or not a notable company in China really exists, a holding company that holds some interest in it is not notable. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @DGG: If this is such a "major international company" where is the significant independent coverage to verify that? I haven't found any, nor has any other editor. If you have some sources you are aware of, please share. The 10K statement is a start, but if the company is fraudulent, as has been alleged, then the 10K might have misstated facts. Surely a major international company of 15,000 employees should have made some footprint in the online press. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, Wikidan61. And if this is such a "major international company", why are they posting press releases for "mining claims" so insignificant a trailer park resident could afford them, and with pseudo-geology gibberish that no real company geologist would make. KatieBoundary (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N says "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It fails all three criteria. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Copy of 2009 email discussion of this article by Yasheng Group and Yasheng Eco Trade executives and marketers is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.139 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete mainly for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Verifiability also concerns me. My search for reliable sources got passing mentions that indicate that Yasheng Group is a real company in China and probably not an outright scam. Accusations of stock touting are out there but they lack a depth of coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mainly for failing WP:CORP. Not a huge fan of corporate articles but the company is real and stable enough to be listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange as SSE:600108. Searchwise, all I could find were financial PRs listed through stock market sites. Its Chinese site [38] is more detailed and up to date (as of yesterday) than its English version, if anyone cares to poke around. Funny Pika! 17:45, 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 as vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). (non-admin closure) Funny Pika! 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Iflaom (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:MADEUP W. D. Graham 16:56, 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 Redirect. There is a clear consensus that Kat Swift is not notable at this point and that this should be a redirect to "an appropriate page". Two such pages were suggested with no real discussion of either, and there is little to choose between them so I've slightly arbitrarily chosen 2008 Green National Convention, but this can be discussed or changed as a normal editorial action. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kat Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As a politician, she has never been elected. The previous AFD was kept primarily based on the belief she would be a presidential candidate in 2008; in fact she failed to gain the nomination for her party. This leaves only the WP:GNG to reasonably measure notability against. I see lots of mentions, and she is quoted a lot in her roles with the Green Party, but no songificant coverage about her that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect seems to be appropriate given the article on the convention noted below. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2008 Green National Convention, she is already mentioned there. Per nom. & Whpq, not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability in her own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: What has changed since the last attempted deletion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - In the previous discussion, most editors assumed that she would be the Green Party candidate for the 2008 presidential election; assumed that sources would be available as a result of running for president; and as such the article ought to be kept. Now that 2008 has passed, we know that not only did she not run for president, she didn't even win the Green party presidential nomination. The expected coverage didn't materialise. WP:CRYSTALBALL seemed to be the predominat reason for keeping, but that is really a reason for deleting. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most editors assumed she would run for president, which she did. If you do a search, there are a multitude of reliable sources available of her as a perennial candidate for offices in Texas, for her 2008 campaign, and her efforts as a Green Party operative. Therefore, I am inclined to Keep.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (And note that I nominated the article for deletion in 2007; the subject was not notable then, but is notable now)[reply]
- She did not run for president. She ran for the Green Party nomination. If you can point out some of the reliable sources, that would help determine notability. -- 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Running for the nomination = running for president. You can find plenty of reliable sources here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that runnign for the nomination is equal to running for president. But that's secondary to coverage. I did conduct a google news search and based on the results, did not find the type of coverage needed. Simply having a lot of search results is not the same as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. Running for the nomination is the same as running for president. As for your search, it must not have been very thorough since one should conclude that coverage is significant in the articles linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't conclude based on the search results. I actually pulled up articels and read them. They aren't significnt coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you read every article (about 100) listed in the search above from reliable sources including the ones that are only available by pay and from that you determined that the coverage was not significant?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No I did not. But I did devote quite some time to reviewing the results. I'll quite happily change my mind if appropriate coverage can be demonstrated. It has never been a requriement that every single possible search result be exhaustively reviewed before deciding significant coverage exists. Since you beleive it abounds, then please present some. I really am very open to keeoing this article, but not without the requisite coverage presented to demonstrate that keeping it is the right thing to do. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you read every article (about 100) listed in the search above from reliable sources including the ones that are only available by pay and from that you determined that the coverage was not significant?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't conclude based on the search results. I actually pulled up articels and read them. They aren't significnt coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. Running for the nomination is the same as running for president. As for your search, it must not have been very thorough since one should conclude that coverage is significant in the articles linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that runnign for the nomination is equal to running for president. But that's secondary to coverage. I did conduct a google news search and based on the results, did not find the type of coverage needed. Simply having a lot of search results is not the same as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Running for the nomination = running for president. You can find plenty of reliable sources here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She did not run for president. She ran for the Green Party nomination. If you can point out some of the reliable sources, that would help determine notability. -- 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Most editors assumed she would run for president, which she did. If you do a search, there are a multitude of reliable sources available of her as a perennial candidate for offices in Texas, for her 2008 campaign, and her efforts as a Green Party operative. Therefore, I am inclined to Keep.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (And note that I nominated the article for deletion in 2007; the subject was not notable then, but is notable now)[reply]
Here is a list, and it is not exhaustive, but it demonstrates significance:
- http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x101653042/Seven-questions-for-Kat-Swift-Green-Party-presidential-candidate
- http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-07-09/1050845/
- http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SAEC&p_theme=saec&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FA5D4B780B08629&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
- http://keranews.org/post/green-party-trying-ballot
- http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/es_crackberry_chronicles_080114.shtml
- http://www.texasobserver.org/just-how-green-is-the-green-party/?tmpl=component&print=1
- http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AASB&p_theme=aasb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11E759AE454B9B28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
- http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20100703-Texas-Supreme-Court-clears-way-for-4930.ece
--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not seeing in the links above "significant" coverage by my reading of WP:GNG. Mostly it is comments from her, but very little about her. Given that there are numerous references to her, I'm now leaning towards redirect as suggested above. If I can be shown significant coverage that is directly about the subject, I'll consider withdrawing the nomination.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've had a chance to review those links aside from the paywalled items. They are exactly the sort of items I reviewed and dismissed as not significant coverage and failing to establish notability. Those articles are not about her, they are quoting her or are just passing mentions. Based on the excerpts on the paywalled items, they don;t look to be any better. My !vote remains unchanged. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008#Green Party; subject has been mentioned in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said the subject has not received significant coverage in any of those sources, and it is my opinion that added up together there is not enough that will add up as a single significant coverage source. Therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN; that being said the subject was a nominee for a national office, as such WP:POLOUTCOMES is relevant and a redirect is prescribed where the subject has received some coverage (even significant coverage) for being a candidate for a notable event as the subject can be seen as falling under WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The stories linked above go into enough detail to establish notability. They are significant (WP:SIGNOV says they "need not be the main topic of the source material"). These sources notwithstanding, swift's chairmanship of the Green Party of Texas, and her participation in numerous elections, and activism for the Green Party, environmental causes, and ballot access, demonstrates a prima facie case of notability and significance. The deletionist impulse above reflects and fosters an ignorance of third party politics and American politics as a whole. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your claim of a prima facie case of notability by simply running in elections is directly contrary to WP:POLITICIAN which states "Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and goes on to indicate that these unelected politicians would be notable through significant coverage. As for the significant coverage int he articles linked above, the only one that really qualifies is the interview int he Metro West. The next most significant is a 4 sentence paragraph out the Fog City journal, a local San Francisico online volunteer news site. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She was elected as chairman of the Green Party of Texas. You mention two sources above in which coverage is significant. That comes from eight sources above, which I listed in a non-exhaustive search. There are many more out there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chairman of the Green Party is not a political office, but I'm sure you will argue it is. The two sources I mentioned represent the BEST of the lot. The others are passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She was elected as chairman of the Green Party of Texas. You mention two sources above in which coverage is significant. That comes from eight sources above, which I listed in a non-exhaustive search. There are many more out there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your claim of a prima facie case of notability by simply running in elections is directly contrary to WP:POLITICIAN which states "Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and goes on to indicate that these unelected politicians would be notable through significant coverage. As for the significant coverage int he articles linked above, the only one that really qualifies is the interview int he Metro West. The next most significant is a 4 sentence paragraph out the Fog City journal, a local San Francisico online volunteer news site. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The stories linked above go into enough detail to establish notability. They are significant (WP:SIGNOV says they "need not be the main topic of the source material"). These sources notwithstanding, swift's chairmanship of the Green Party of Texas, and her participation in numerous elections, and activism for the Green Party, environmental causes, and ballot access, demonstrates a prima facie case of notability and significance. The deletionist impulse above reflects and fosters an ignorance of third party politics and American politics as a whole. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 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.
- 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) 12:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dipayan Paul (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)
Club cricketer who has made no first-class, List A or Twenty20 appearances. The article falsely claims this chap is a professional cricketer, furthermore all references are WP:ROUTINE. Why is this chap notable? In short fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I have little doubt that he is a professional player: both the sources provided do back that up, and I was friends with a chap through school who became a professional cricketer, playing club cricket in England and South Africa, but that doesn't make a player notable. If he is good enough, then he will play high-level cricket, and meet WP:CRIN and WP:GNG, but at the moment he only has passing mentions in articles about other topics. Harrias talk 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both the above. Fails WP:CRIN. To be notable, it is the level of cricket achieved that counts, not getting paid for it. ----Jack | talk page 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRIN. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, category specific notability guidelines exist for a reason. Ducknish (talk) 21:43, 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 redirect to The Future of Freedom Foundation. —Darkwind (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacob G. Hornberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to The Future of Freedom Foundation.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the purest WP:PROMO flull'n'puff, with no real WP:RS to satisfy notability according to any extant WP policy. Qworty (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Future of Freedom Foundation, of which is founder & president. Per nom. & Qworty, not notable in his own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:49, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assault of the Killer Bimbos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable movie. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF.. perhaps because of the silliness of the title. Heck, even Roger Ebert found in worth reviewing in Chicago Sun-Times.[39] And it is also nicely covered in such as The Day,[40] and Sydney Morning Herald,[41] and quite a few others. Yes, the current article is in rough shape... but (sorry DC) we do not toss notable film topics simply because they are in rough shape or if we think the film unremarkable... specially if due diligence shows the article meets the primary notability guideline and is thus improvable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hungary:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- France:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Brazil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Update: What was first nominated for deletion (perhaps due its then poor format, style, and lack of use of available sources) has gone through a few minor and easy to do improvements... now looks better (and yes, more is possible). Might the nominator consider a withdrawal at this point? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has been reviewed in multiple places, as indicated in the article, in this AfD, and on Rotten Tomatoes[42], and therefore meets WP:NFILM. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Definitely! If Roger Ebert had reviewed it, it must be notable. But seriously, it definitely passes WP:GNG and the more specific WP:NFILM. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage in multiple different reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject. Also, hundreds of results in book search. — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's certainly received enough coverage. Ducknish (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - per suggestion of MichaelQSchmidt, who has done a great job of fixing this one up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:57, 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 redirect to 2000 Libertarian National Convention. —Darkwind (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Barry Hess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2000 Libertarian National Convention, he is already mentioned there. Per nom., not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability in his own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2000 Libertarian National Convention per rationale of nominator and JayJasper.--Rollins83 (talk) 02:58, 17 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 Boston Tea Party (political party)#2012 presidential election. —Darkwind (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Duensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was created mainly due to Duensing's presidential nomination by the Boston Tea Party in 2012. However, the party disbanded several months before the election, and Duensing never appeared on any ballots. He dosen't appear to notable otherwise, by either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The only significant coverage about him seems to connected to the tasing and shooting incident, which would seem to be an item of local interest and not notable for an encyclopedia (or at best would fall into WP:1E. Should be deleted or redirected to Boston Tea Party (political party) Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party), specifically to the 2012 pres. campaign section. I agree with the nom. that he is not notable enough for a separate article in light of the aborted pres. campaign. He is a significant figure to the BLP, however. --Cjv110ma (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given that he didn't appear on any ballots, and the party dissolved prior to the election, he isn't notable for the Boston Tea Party (political party) nomination, except in the larger context of being the last presidential candidate in that party's history; but since he's already mentioned on their page in that context, there's no reason to redirect. He lost all his other political campaigns too, so that isn't notable either. The "political commentator" claim is based merely upon a blogtalk account (with only three recent listeners noted by the site), so that also isn't notable. The police tasing and shooting incident is therefore his only potential notability as an individual, but since it was only a local story and the shooting has been ruled justifiable, there's nothing notable about that either.HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:18, 9 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, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party)#2012 presidential election as it was before the content was added and where he is already mentioned.--Dwc89 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party)#2012 presidential election. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to have received enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sideways713 (talk) 15:32, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark Flow (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Dark Flow (software)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Delete - Doesn't meet the requirements of software notability guidelines. Jjmitchell314 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 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) 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Same as last time, fails GNG with no reliable coverage or secondary sourcing available otherwise. czar · · 02:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - software article lacking 3rd party references to establish notability (only refs are developer's sites and a blog); created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:40, 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 Snow Keep - There is overwhelming consensus that the article should be kept. The article on the pilot can be merged into this article without need to run a separate AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)
- 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost three months have passed since this accident occurred and the article was created, the article is now quite stable in terms of additions and it fails to meet WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:AIRCRASH.
Even though the formal accident investigation has not been completed there is no public information at this point to indicate that the accident was anything other than a "continued VFR into IMC and collision with obstacle" accident, a very common scenario. There is no evidence that there were any equipment malfunctions nor any indication of service bulletins, airworthiness directives, changes to VFR routes or any other matériel changes on the way. While both the Lord Mayor and the Prime Minister indicated that there should be regulation reviews, there is no indication that these have happened or that these statements were anything more than the usual "someone ought to do something" comments made by politicians after one of these accidents, that are quickly forgotten.
As far as the reporting goes, all but two refs cited in the article are from the day of the accident or the day after. Two were from six days later, but essentially the story disappeared from the media completely in under a week and hasn't resurfaced since.
As far as the physical effects went, two people were killed (pilot and a ground bystander) and there were road closures in the immediate area for the rest of the day of the accident, but it seems that roads were reopened the next day. An article, Peter Barnes (pilot), was started on the accident pilot, but it is clear that his notability does not extend beyond being killed in this accident. Depending on the decision here at AfD on this article that article can be considered separately and later.
So what I see a month after the accident is that was a common type of helicopter crash, similar to hundreds of others that happen each year, with two regrettable deaths and so far no lasting press coverage or any other long term repercussions of any type. It seems that the only reason that this got any press coverage at all is that it happened in the built-up area of a major city and therefore in close proximity to many news outlets, making press coverage convenient to undertake. At this point in time as far as I can see it still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which is a Wikipedia policy designed specifically to exclude these types of common daily events that have no lasting effects.
Since there has already been some heated debate on the article talk page and on WikiProject Aviation I would suggest contributors to this debate review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting to avoid the classic arguments to retain the article "just because WP:ILIKEIT" or similar. Arguments to retain the article should show that it has enduring effects and thus complies with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question you say this is "a very common scenario", can you tell me when the last fatal helicopter crash over the city of London took place? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to exceed the requirements of our GNG by some margin. Enduring effects argument is countered by WP:NTEMP in our GNG: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a source from March 2013 has been added which states this could have been avoided had recommendations of a study been adopted. Plus what Dweller said. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above. Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yes, while single minor accidents are in general not very interesting, this was the first ever fatal helicopter crash over London, with remarkable circumstances (sensibly reluctant passenger, insistent pilot, dreadful fog, etc). This makes it not only newsworthy but permanently notable, and definitely not minor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Before anyone else jumps on the WP:GNG bandwagon, does anyone else care to refute the nomimator's WP:NOTNEWSPAPER case? If you read the notability opening lead carefully, it states that NOT policies tend to supersede GNG. Funny Pika! 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A very nice article now, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Despite the protestations above, the article still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--Petebutt (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of those has no particular relevance, as it's trumped by policies and guidelines. The third of those is basically a distillation of the second. WP:EVENT seems well covered by all sorts of aspects of our article, not least the following:
- Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced a review of the regulations concerning flying in central London and the safety of tall buildings.[20]
- David Cameron said, on the day of the accident, that there would be a review into the rules governing helicopter flights over central London.[21]
- Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Sourcing is obviously substantial so, per policy, why is this even questioned? Secondly, on the much more useful, albeit less carved in stone, aspects of interest and rarity, a helicopter crash "downtown" is pretty remarkable for any major city. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To be sure, helicopters crash a lot around the world, albeit not on a daily basis. That being said, this is a unique locale and environment, possible lessons [to be] learned. If the government acts on the recommendations (or fails to act), that has long term worth. Well sourced. I agree with Dweller. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dweller & others. Most helicopters crash in fields; they are not supposed to crash in the middle of a metropolis, or in this case even be flying over where they crashed. The pilot should be merged, I agree. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the pilot unless he is otherwise notable on his own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as WP:NOTIMELIMIT - even the nominator admits "the formal accident investigation has not been completed" so this nomination is premature at best. Having read the talk page and nomination I don't understand why one or two editors seem so determined to get this deleted ASAP. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And read WP:GNG next time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, highly notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above. Notable, as the first accident of its kind in London for a generation, and almost certainly of all time as no other like it has been found. Notable for being a news story breaking in many nations beyond mainland Europe. Notable for causing significant transport disruption in a major capital city. It appears that an editor or editors have issues with this article outside Wikipedia policy which should not be used as a "hook on which to hang". For the purposes of openness, I am the article creator, alongside Lugnuts, prior to a move. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This event was absolutely notable by WP:GNG no matter how many other notablilty guidelines it fails to satisfy. The event absolutely dominated most major UK news outlets for the entire day. Rolling news channels covered it exclusively for hours. The low number of deaths and injuries is irrelevant. It was a spectacular disaster which caused disruption to a portion of central London for several days. Moochocoogle (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (possibly with snow). As others note this easily meets the WP:GNG, there are at least two investigations and reports currently ongoing into this (the review ordered into helicopter flights over London and the AAIB investigation) - it is not speculation to say that there will be significant media coverage when these reports are released. Even if it isn't notable according to the latest guidelines for air accidents (which have gone through many changes), it is unarguably a notable event for London and for air transport in the United Kingdom (about a week's disruption to transport, several days intense media coverage, international media coverage and continuing national media coverage. And per all the other keeps. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 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. No prejudice against re-creation with reliable sources to establish notability, be they in Chinese or otherwise. —Darkwind (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guorui Jiang (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 appears to be using a page as a CV - per WP:NOT, we should not be hosting. Would require a fundemental re-write to become encyclopaedic. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: The sheer amount of publications seems to make him notable to me, but that's just an unconscious bias. Most of his stuff is pretty recent. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 13:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. GS cites appear to be tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per above as well as google books has only a few trivial mentions. Maybe it is better know in Chinese texts? SalHamton (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, no secondary sources Adblock2 (talk) 03:43, 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. As noted by several editors in the discussion, the core of this discussion was not "is it notable", but instead "is it encyclopedic", and the consensus was, it is not. I would be happy to userfy if anyone wants to merge the info into Green jobs using the sources linked here. —Darkwind (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Careers in climate change (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 sign of notability, and looks like a "Climatologists are doing it for the cushy jobs" type reason for this article existing, alternatively it may be an article created to advertise a particular website linked in the article. Implausible redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found some references quite easily.[43][44][45][46][47][48] It's still a stub but there is room for expansion. (I also don't think this is now pushing any POV.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a careers advice website or a directory for some, which those links above seem to support. I don't see how the term is notable as a standalone article - perhaps as a list but that might lead to a bunch of "Careers in..." pages, which goes back to my original argument. Funny Pika! 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete Still has POV pushing in the article (basically, the insinuation that people only study climate change for the money.... and there's a strong risk of this article being used as a coatrack for that POV). I've looked through the sources, and they talk about individual careers related to climate change, but not careers in climate change as a whole, thus tying them together presents a strong risk of WP:SYN. I also note that we don't have any comparable articles on "Carreers in X." WP:OSE suggests that shouldn't matter... but it seems strange to have an entire category of article not exist. Similar articles seem to have found their way to the deletion bin of history: [49] [50] [51] [52]. The main relevant policy cited in most of the previous debates is WP:NOTHOWTO. While Colapeninsula's sources make this a better case for retention than the previous cases, I feel the subject matter is not capable of breaking free from WP:NOT. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Colapeninsula's sources establish notability. There are also several books about green or environmental careers which cover the topic in a more general way. Our editing policy is to develop this material, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That editing policy has no connection to whether we should delete articles or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. The policy is explicitly referenced in WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Warden (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an incorrect application of policy. If a topic isn't notability we don't keep it anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also something where not everyone interprets policy in the same way. For an alternate interpretation, readily applicable in this case, see WP:TNT. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That editing policy has no connection to whether we should delete articles or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Warden, I agree that Cola's sources are a fair argument that the article passes the GNG. Could you explain how it can avoid violating WP:NOTGUIDE. For everyone's info, In my search for precedent, I also came across our article on Green jobs, which is fairly well-written and seems to avoid the problems of the current article. The topic of "careers in climate change" may well be notable in some form, but this article as written I don't feel is an appropriate form (or perhaps even title). Heck, the article as written is contradictory... start of with "climate change scientists are...." but then talks about non-scientist roles like consultants. All of these things are potentially fixable, but the current article has minimal value to an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTGUIDE is guidance about our style. It is telling how to write about a topic, not whether we should write about it. An encyclopedia, by definition, covers all types of knowledge. Warden (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. Are you saying wikipedia should have an article called How to change oil? Many reliable sources exist explicitly referring to the title. But I would argue the topic is inherently not encyclopedic and hence if someone made such an article it should be deleted. In that case, there's already Motor oil#Maintenance. There are numerous areas where jobs involving climate change could be referenced in an encyclopedic fashion, but this page and format isn't it. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTGUIDE is guidance about our style. It is telling how to write about a topic, not whether we should write about it. An encyclopedia, by definition, covers all types of knowledge. Warden (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and use new sources to improve Green jobs No one has made a cogent argument why we should emphasize this particular group of Green jobs with its own detail article. Is there a similar article on Careers in environmental remediation, or Jobs in food security as a function of geopolitics or Positions in biodiversity preservation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Warden, I agree that Cola's sources are a fair argument that the article passes the GNG. Could you explain how it can avoid violating WP:NOTGUIDE. For everyone's info, In my search for precedent, I also came across our article on Green jobs, which is fairly well-written and seems to avoid the problems of the current article. The topic of "careers in climate change" may well be notable in some form, but this article as written I don't feel is an appropriate form (or perhaps even title). Heck, the article as written is contradictory... start of with "climate change scientists are...." but then talks about non-scientist roles like consultants. All of these things are potentially fixable, but the current article has minimal value to an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable as an independent topic, also a sign of WP:RECENTISM. Compare Carreers in cell phone sales, Careers in flat screen TV manufacturing, and even Careers in Web Design. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These straw men are of little value because the most common keyword used on Wikipedia for this seems to be occupation, e.g. List of scientific occupations, Cleaning and maintenance occupations, List of healthcare occupations, &c. Warden (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be missing something but those are essentially lists of occupations, not articles about that occupation. This does seem to be a very recent topic and while those articles may be straw men, I don't see how pointing out that lists of occupations existing on Wikipedia means anything to this discussion. This isn't a list of climate change occupations. OlYeller21Talktome 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Delete and merge any useful information into Green jobs. This article seems to be pushing a POV about the increasing number of "green collar jobs" in the world while not actually describing "Careers in climate change" at all, outside of the occupation's growth. That's not a reason for deletion but even is the subject of "Careers in climate change", WP seems to already have an article about this topic at Green jobs. The small amount of POV information here isn't showing me that an independent article is warranted and that information can be easily merged into Green jobs if it brings new value to that article. OlYeller21Talktome 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NewsAndEventsGuy has it right. What makes this particular topic worth its own article? I'm not seeing it, certainly not from the current version of the article. Prioryman (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term or concept of "careers in climate change" could be notable for perhaps a category (perhaps), but not an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge/redirect This is one of those cases where those who argue "there are sources discussing it and therefore there must be an article" seem to be ignoring that the reader comes first. If what we can say about "Careers in climate change" is essentially that there are "careers in climate change", it doesn't need to be in a standalone article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 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 keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Circular analysis (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: "Appears to be a neologism used in this sense only by Kriegeskorte and his collaborators to describe a longstanding habit in scientific malpractice." Illia Connell (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The term seems to be in use in sufficiently wide scholarly circles. Kriegskorte's use of the term is discussed here, for example, and a number of journal articles. Deltahedron (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The concept is a form of circular reasoning or begging the question, which has been common in this field, as discussed in Foundational Issues of Human Brain Mapping. Kriegeskorte's presentation of the issue seems influential, e.g. "Kriegeskorte and their colleagues deserve unending commendation...". Warden (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is unclear whether this topic is similar enough to any other articles to be merged into. This [review] highlights the topic's importance and suggests it may be a version of selection bias, but it is unclear whether that article uses the term in the same way. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge (seems quite plausible) as original prodder; I've taken a look at such references included above as I can, and I find nothing to indicate the phrase is in wide useage. Certainly the concept is significant (and well understood to anybody who's ever observed a freshman lab at work) - I would support a mergeto something like Selection bias, but this does seem to have a different twist than the standard bias, and so may not be a good merge targetto something like Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, below RayTalk 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The combination of "the concept is significant" and "does seem to have a different twist" sounds like an argument for a separate article? Deltahedron (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more concerned that this is a very old concept, certainly older than Kriegskorte's papers, and I've only seen it called "circular analysis" in recent years. Back in school, we called it "adjusting the data to fit the model." RayTalk 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The combination of "the concept is significant" and "does seem to have a different twist" sounds like an argument for a separate article? Deltahedron (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google scholar gives 563 citations for the nature paper[53]. Highly infulential. Also happy with a merge.--Salix (talk): 07:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, leaving a disambiguation page that also points to Directional statistics. Devoting an article to a new term for an old concept would give it undue weight. Statisticians have been thinking about these issues for ages - see Exploratory data analysis, Data dredging, Post-hoc analysis and Multiple comparisons. Judging by searches on Google Scholar, both "circular inference" and "double dipping" were first used for this concept in 2007 (Baker, C. I., et al. "Circular inference in neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping." annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA. 2007). Before that, "circular inference" mainly applied to analysis of directional data - hence the need for a disambiguation page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]Merge to Testing hypotheses suggested by the data.Keep Circular statistics is what I thought of when I saw the title. I agree that this concept has been around a long time, with some neuroscientists rediscovering it for themselves just recently. I think it is worth a mention as an alternative term in Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, but not more. Update: In the interests of consensus, changing to keep with a discussion of where to merge to take place on the talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase testing hypotheses suggested by the data is not a catchy title and that article is not well supported by sources which verify the usage as anything more than a general phrase. Post-hoc analysis seems more succinct but, again, the references in that article do not support the usage as a title. Warden (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's not a catchy title, and the article needs work. Maybe the statistical community doesn't have a technical term for it - in which case a non-catchy title that clearly describes the subject is appropriate. To keep this article is to imply that some neuroscientists have done anything more than explain a well-known concept to a new community. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Testing hypotheses suggested by the data should be merged with Statistical hypothesis testing (see also Exploratory and confirmatory approaches). But I don't think it's necessary to solve that problem in this AfD. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this is not an elegant title. I'm open to other semantically similar targets, such as Post-hoc analysis. That the neuroscientists have created their own term for it is fine, but it is not mainstream outside of neuroscience. As far as I can tell from Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask, their conception of circular analysis boils down to two things (both mentioned in the paper, so no OR on my part): (1) ignoring corrections for multiple comparisons and (2) inflated effect estimates due to selection bias of experiments that produce at least a certain size effect. Ignoring corrections for multiple comparisons involves ignoring negative results, so is also a kind of selection bias. Perhaps selection bias would be a better target? --Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I've seen the concept, but under different names and guises -- circular reasoning, intellectual dishonesty, academic dishonesty, and, in its honest use, iteration. But I don;t knwo what to do with this one. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also circumlocution. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 8 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) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Salix alba points out that Kriegeskorte's paper has 563 scholar citations (actually 566 when I looked). This is a very high number, for comparison Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity, which I would expect to be off the scale in terms of citations, gets 2232 only x4 as many. Not only that, many of the citing papers are themselves respectably cited and some of them are addressing the same subject. For instance Fiedler cites Kriegeskorte and calls this effect "voodoo correlations", which term itself gets a number of book and scholar hits. Even if there is some subject overlap with other articles, it is quite clear from the sources that Kriegeskorte's take on this is highly notable. I am not opposed to a merge, but it needs to be done in a considered manner as part of the normal editing process and not forced by an inappropriate AFD decision. SpinningSpark 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't let the process distract you. By all means register your protest that this is being discussed at an AfD, but keep in mind that it has become a merger discussion. How would you respond to a normal merger proposal? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: a short subsection in Misuse of statistics might do best. The above discussion has mentioned both "Testing hypotheses suggested by the data" and ""adjusting the data to fit the model" as possible meanings, but these are clearly very different faults. It may be both ae covered by the original paper. Melcombe (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think a merge is the correct decision, but quite a few destinations have been proposed, and we don't seem to be converging on one. It would be better to discuss the merge separately. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that after two weeks there are no !votes at all for deletion, since merge is not delete, and this is not the venue for merger discussions. Presumably this can be closed now? Deltahedron (talk) 06:18, 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 Delete. There is a consensus that there is not (yet) enough firm encyclopaedic information available for this to be a viable stand-alone article. While there was support for merging it was correctly noted that this wasn't really necessary as all the information was already in the Tron: Legacy article. Therefore as the title is not useful as a redirect I'm closing this as delete rather than merge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled Tron: Legacy Sequel (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)
Hasn't yet started filming. Per WP:FILMS criteria, articles should be deleted if they haven't started the filming stage. Suggest userfication or maybe merge to Tron: Legacy. — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the studio hasn't even confirmed it's making the movie yet. The article doesn't really need to be merged; it appears to be the two paragraphs from Tron: Legacy#Sequel copy-pasted as a production section, and then an enormous cast list that includes a ton of actors who don't seem to actually have anything to do with a Tron sequel. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, There are many other films which is in early stages but have articles. The criteria is general notability which can be deduced from coverage and coverage has shown strong interest. There have been some recent incidents in other Tron-related media which has made heightened media coverage. Pass a Method talk 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not yet in production. I'd say redirect, but I already have a redirect called Tron 3. Plus, half the info submitted is false.Rusted AutoParts 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete at this point. Without any reliable sources, nothing can really be confirmed quite yet, unfortunately. Reading at Tron: Legacy, it does not appear it has left the script phase. Recreate article once something is more solid. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The if kept or restored at a later date, the title should be Untitled Tron: Legacy sequel in lowercase per WP:MoS. jhsounds (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep as a topic meeting WP:GNG or, at minimum, Incubate as being so imminent. From its coverage over 4 years, we can easily see that the topic of an anticipated 3rd Tron film exceeds the requisites for coverage as set by the primary notability guideline. As WP:NFF cautions that unmade films should generally not have their own articles, what we need do here is decide whether or not the extensive and persistent coverage of this topic merits it as areasonable exception to that SNG. The project has been in planning since 2009,[54] and was confirmed at the screening of the Tron: Uprising promo trailer at 2011 Comicon, Bruce Boxleitner stated plans for a sequel film was "a done deal" and that it could be in theaters as early as 2013.[55][56][57][58] Yes, he was wrong about the date... but through 2012 there was a great deal of continued independent coverage on planned cast and proposed plot.[59] Into 2013, the media continues to seek information as the plans firm up... And note: less than a week ago we learn that a finished script is imminent. While the topic of a 3rd Tron film can always be discussed in the various Tron articles, we have enough information to allow this topic its own article... one which will be edited and improved over time and through regular editing as more information finds its way into the press. It is not policy to disallow articles which speak toward planned projects. WP:CRYSTAL does NOT state we cannot have a forward looking article... it simply advises that editors must avoid original research, and through its stating "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified (unsourced) claims", requiring editors to properly source anything in such articles. We are less concerned about the truth of what a reliable source might report than we are that it has been reported in a reliable source. Period. A cogent point is that IF the project were announced today as cancelled, we'd still have an acceptable level of notability established through 4 years of coverage. The key here, as with any article, is topic notability is established through WP:SIGCOV of that topic. I think it serves the project and those readers seeking such information for us to allow in this instance and carefully maintain a properly neutral and encyclopedic article on this highly anticipated film. There is no demand for immediate perfection, just so long as we work toward that goal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 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, J04n(talk page) 10:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The film is untitled, its plot undetermined; with little real information, the article's primary purpose seems to be promotional. Miniapolis 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but when one reads the policy you cite, one can see that WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid forward looking articles, and instead rather instructs editors in being careful in how they present forward-looking information. And as we neutrally report what is offered in reliable sources elsewhere, and as long we do not ourselves create an unsourced speculation or unduly hype a topic, WP:NOTPROMOTION is not a worry. That internal and external coverage of a topic is incomplete, and can be improved over time as more information comes forward, calls for editorial attention, and not deletion of a topic that has met the primary notability guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MQS. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Tron: Legacy#Sequel. If you remove all the unreferenced and speculative info in this article there is little here that expands upon the information already at Tron: Legacy#Sequel. Actually a merge is not really required as the initial article is mostly a direct copy and paste, without the required attributions required per WP:CWW, of the Tron: Legacy#Sequel section in the first place. What was added was the infobox, summarizing lede and a cast list derived from IMDb. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to either Tron: Legacy#Sequel or even Tron (franchise)#Films per the notability guidelines for future films since filming has not begun and is not guaranteed to. The topic is not notable on its own; news coverage exists solely because of the Tron franchise, which is why my aforementioned links are good targets for merging. If this was a no-name, no-franchise production, we would think twice before having a stand-alone article. In addition, this topic is inherently unstable in its very own lack of notability. If the film is never made, then coverage (bloated here) is readily relegated to an overview article. That capability means that this is not a rooted topic, and it is too premature to plant it as stand-alone on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To refer to another guideline, WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia articles are not news reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The key word here is "enduring", and here we just have a compilation of transient news coverage about plans to create the topical work. Not to mention that per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and this topic is nowhere near that approach (hence the recurring concern about promotional tone with such premature articles). Per WP:CRYSTAL, coverage can indeed be included in some capacity, and that capacity is the umbrella of the related franchise. Of course we cannot create a stand-alone article just because a famous director signs on to a project. Of course that film would be notable if it did get made, but there is no guarantee of that. Such events like signing on and scriptwriting do not lend themselves to topics of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy WP:NOTNEWS cautions us to avoid dependence on recent news blurbs in creating articles and it is the appiclable guideline which explains, just as you have above, that it is through enduring and persistent coverage that we weigh the merits for inclusion under WP:GNG and WP:NF to decide if such enduring and persistent coverage brings us an reasonable exception to the SNG WP:NFF. As there is not yet a finished film, we are not dealing with a work of fiction but rather are discussing ongoing production plans just as per policy specifically instructing "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". We have significant coverage of these plans from as early as 2009 (4 years of media attention is not exactly transient news) and as the topic is "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", we can definitely discuss this planned somewhere. I have no issue with it being discussed within related articles as suggested above, but if not "kept" [Remember The Hobbit (film project)?] an incubation of the article takes the topic it out of mainspace and yet still allows interested editors involving themselves in collaborative and ongoing regular editing as more information comes forward. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, you're arguing for a historical article related to a topic that may not even be. None of the news coverage lend itself to "the enduring notability" of a film because there is not one. All the news coverage is forward-looking; this encyclopedia cannot do that because it is essentially overshooting and declaring the existence of a film for all time when someone is just writing words on paper. WP:CRYSTAL is also contradictory for our purposes. If there is excitement about a director signing onto a project, the passage "sufficiently wide interest [to] merit an article if the event had already occurred" contradicts with, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A famous director's signing-on would certainly mean the film will be notable if it is produced, but in the film industry, such an action does not make the film "almost certain to take place". WP:CRYSTAL is also not straightforward about the structure of such content. The consensus is that we can include coverage; it is not straightforward about the form it should take in an encyclopedia. The fact that this topic is transient, meaning that if no new developments ever occurred from hereon, then we have no real topic or article that can truly stand alone. The general notability guidelines are too broad to fully account for the niche of films, which is why the notability guidelines for future films adequately addresses including such coverage in a stable manner.
- The default ought to be one-way growth; a headline for a possible film appears because of some already-notable element (famous director, studio acquiring rights for popular literature), and a summary is inserted under that element's article. If nothing happens, we've adequately recorded a slice of history in the appropriate spot. If something tangible, the film itself emerges, then we can expect a stand-alone article with much more coverage, especially Wikipedia's policy regarding fiction: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works." What we have here is just bloat that has minimal encyclopedic value if no film is ever made. Forward-looking news coverage cannot sustain a stand-alone article, but it is flexible enough to fold into broader articles. A situation like the development history of The Hobbit was essentially an exceptional sub-article based on the level of detail involved. We do not have that here at all; the content is easily relegated elsewhere until we can sight a topic of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference to The Hobbit (planned film) was only a reminder of an earlier discussion that allowed that exceptions to WP:NFF are allowed, nothing more. If consensus here allows this topic to be written of, it will be.
- And let us be clear, as it does not yet exist I am NOT arguing about a "film" or about a "work of fiction", but rather instead about a topic of planning which has been discussed in independent sources since 2009. Policy tells us "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur." We do not report a future event as happened, only as something planned and discussed in sources. So I bow to policy and it specifically allowing discussion about a proposed future project. No film is "certain" (unless filming is confirmed... and even then there could be setbacks) until it actually hits theaters. It does not matter if a topic ever happens or not... coverage is the key for inclusion. Let's just decide where to best speak of it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy WP:NOTNEWS cautions us to avoid dependence on recent news blurbs in creating articles and it is the appiclable guideline which explains, just as you have above, that it is through enduring and persistent coverage that we weigh the merits for inclusion under WP:GNG and WP:NF to decide if such enduring and persistent coverage brings us an reasonable exception to the SNG WP:NFF. As there is not yet a finished film, we are not dealing with a work of fiction but rather are discussing ongoing production plans just as per policy specifically instructing "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". We have significant coverage of these plans from as early as 2009 (4 years of media attention is not exactly transient news) and as the topic is "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", we can definitely discuss this planned somewhere. I have no issue with it being discussed within related articles as suggested above, but if not "kept" [Remember The Hobbit (film project)?] an incubation of the article takes the topic it out of mainspace and yet still allows interested editors involving themselves in collaborative and ongoing regular editing as more information comes forward. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To refer to another guideline, WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia articles are not news reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The key word here is "enduring", and here we just have a compilation of transient news coverage about plans to create the topical work. Not to mention that per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and this topic is nowhere near that approach (hence the recurring concern about promotional tone with such premature articles). Per WP:CRYSTAL, coverage can indeed be included in some capacity, and that capacity is the umbrella of the related franchise. Of course we cannot create a stand-alone article just because a famous director signs on to a project. Of course that film would be notable if it did get made, but there is no guarantee of that. Such events like signing on and scriptwriting do not lend themselves to topics of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:57, 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 delete. See detailed rationale at the bottom of the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 17 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}} . |
- Hindu Taliban (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:NEO & WP:POVFORK "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. The article fails on neo as the sources used only mention it in passing, none go into in-depth coverage to explain what the neo is actually about. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : A term used by some journalists that too many using it in passing need not have an article.--sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the discussion for the first AfD nomination seems to have been a rather clear keep, while no real consensus was reached on the second. I don't see why this needs to be nominated for a third time, actually. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the first AFD was flawed, those voting AGF on the sources, however most of the sources were in fact about Hindutava and those that do mention "Hindu Taliban" mention it only in passing, per WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, man. The Dawn and France24 sources seem to mention the term not merely in passing. Not sure if Rediff is RS, though (not saying it isn't, just that I'm personally not sure). I'm still leaning toward keep but I see that others indicated delete. It would help if we could get answers from a larger pool of editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dawn sorce has two mentions of the term, other than the article title. "Gujarat continues to be in the grip of Hindu Taliban" is one line, and that is it. The second mention is "Compared to the Hindu Taliban, the Muslim Taliban may be less active. But they are very much there." I would not call that in-depth coverage, would you? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, man. The Dawn and France24 sources seem to mention the term not merely in passing. Not sure if Rediff is RS, though (not saying it isn't, just that I'm personally not sure). I'm still leaning toward keep but I see that others indicated delete. It would help if we could get answers from a larger pool of editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, Mezzo, the first AFD was an instance of unplanned lazy nomination, the 2nd saw a no consensus bordering on delete (because two delete votes were discounted rather with a poxy rationale). Hence, it was not that clear. It is not a vote. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the references in the article, this appears to be a fringe term. A sentence elsewhere should take care of this in a more than adequate way. --regentspark (comment) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep In my opinion i think the article should not be deleted,but as another editor pointed out the sources are really weak.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't expect you to change your stance but will try anyhow, if you already acknowledge that the sources are weak (which BTW is downplaying the real deficiency of in-depth coverage), why vote for a keep? I mean what can trump the violations like non-existence of in-depth coverage in WP:RSes, WP:NEO among other issues? Not to mention what a Propaganda-spilling inferno it has been. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pointless WP:POINTY nomination by a user who has a clear of WP:COI. The results in the previous AfDs were clear. And the term has a heck lot of coverage online in a breadth of sources. If the nominator can't be bothered to see them, it's not the problem of others. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:COI and then be so kind as to redact your absurd allegation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments should be made on policy, not on users. If you only object against a certain user starting this discussion, but you cannot counter his actual arguments, your "vote" is not valid. --RJFF (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why delete.... just as it reflects the extremism. There‘re lot of articles of the same nature for which no one raises any question. The nominator may not like this article that doesn‘t mean have to delete it. MehrajMir (Talk) 12:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments fall in line with those that are to be actively avoided. See WP:LIKE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Uncletomwood's comment below against Faizan applies to you too. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Are not Hindu extremists there? Why reducing Wikipedia's coverage of them? Extremism is there, and the article should be kept. Faizan(talk) 12:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Faizan, yes there are Hindu extremists, which is why we have the Hindutava article. At all the other keep votes, where are your sources which discuss this neo indepth? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Faizan,assuming you are muslim,your point of saying keep is because hindu extremism is there,a Bloody brilliant reason to say KEEP.Wikipedia is not for propagation..I hope you know that.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Faizan, yes there are Hindu extremists, which is why we have the Hindutava article. At all the other keep votes, where are your sources which discuss this neo indepth? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Taliban a student movement, a protegee of the CIA/ ISI that took Afghanistan back to the middle ages. Isn't it the new Godwin's law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 13:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC) diff
- But isn't it a term used by Hindu Extremists? Faizan(talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is just a term for the Hindutva movement. Did you not see the source I added with the nomination? "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. This term is just a NEO for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the same is the case for Islamic extremists, they are also referred by some. Faizan(talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Do you mean the Taliban? They called themselves that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Faizan Al-Badri, have you lost it? You really think "Hindu extremists" assuming they are remotely as violent and as pernicious as the real 9/11 terrorists, call themselves Hindu Taliban? Given that these so-called Hindu extremists are the number one rival of Islamic fundamentalists in India, why on earth would they call themselves the Taliban? Is there no limit to this absurdity? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, Taliban weren't the ones behind 9/11. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. This article is over the use of the term in relation to Hindu fundamentalists and we have plenty of sources and coverage showing that this is a widely used term. 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the same is the case for Islamic extremists, they are also referred by some. Faizan(talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is just a term for the Hindutva movement. Did you not see the source I added with the nomination? "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. This term is just a NEO for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: per Nom, per the lack of WP:SIGCOV. It's just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. These are living people we are talking about. WP:NEO. More if an article about a very popular and well-noted topic as "Civilization Jihad" can be speedy deleted under WP:G10 and can be framed as figment of imagination, I believe this is also an attack page a fictitious construct. FYI, even the draft about Civilization Jihad is MFDed. This issue and those who are voting "Keep" need to be taken to a noticeboard or at least monitored very thoroughly.
"Hindu taliban" doesn't make sense, they don't exist, even the suggestion is preposterous. [60], [61], [62].How is Tunku Varadarajan now a taliban expert? This is a promotional attack page put up to smear an entire community. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: guys, the constant back and forth debates from both sides along with instances of uncivil behavior seems - at least to me - likely to lead to another "no consensus" result. I think it would be better if each editor simply states their vote without responding or engaging with others. Though at this point, unfortunately, this discussion has gotten so out of hand that "no consensus" already seems very likely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, mind it. Your argument here like everywhere else, seems to fall in line with "Just does not belong and don't refute others".
Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, not straw votes. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- It's very clear here by the nature of the back and forth arguing, and the discussion boiling down into usage of the F-word, that this isn't consensus building. It's an argument that seems headed toward another lack of consensus. Please consider what I say instead of simply trying to formulate a response to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you let the admin decide? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the original point I was making, sir. And that's a bit difficult when you appear to be engaging in mildly aggressive behavior with a number of editors who simply express different views than yours. Again, please consider this general advice I gave to everyone here, including myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you let the admin decide? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very clear here by the nature of the back and forth arguing, and the discussion boiling down into usage of the F-word, that this isn't consensus building. It's an argument that seems headed toward another lack of consensus. Please consider what I say instead of simply trying to formulate a response to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, mind it. Your argument here like everywhere else, seems to fall in line with "Just does not belong and don't refute others".
- Keep-Hindus are extremists.Page must be on wikipedia.Msoamu (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh...Hindus are extremists? You mean as a group of people? You might want to qualify and/or entirely change that statement, it looks really, really prejudiced and offensive as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the poor way that vote was put across there are of course Hindu extremists, it is commonly referred to as the hindutva movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, that's right all Hindus are extremists, talibans, go ahead!! Wow! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Obscure, rarely used term. --RaviC (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to reconsider that. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hindu Taliban" is just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. You might want to reconsider your poxy attempts to mask the lack of notability. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mar4d, with all due respect, I stand by my original judgement that this is an obscure term that does not add any value to Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hindu Taliban" is just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. You might want to reconsider your poxy attempts to mask the lack of notability. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to reconsider that. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I sincerely beg Wikipedia to promptly delete this page, or else it will be sending out a strong negative message to an absolute peace loving religion on this earth called "Hinduism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramukh Arkalgud Ganeshamurthy (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia usually should not have articles on neologisms and the like (WP:NOTNEO), unless they are of high notability, which could not be shown in this case. (Some uses of the term here and there do not make high notability.) Especially, POV forks must be deleted at any rate, which is the case here. We already have articles on Hindutva and Hindu nationalism which are the established terms for this phenomenon, so a separate article on "Hindu Talibans" (a clearly derogative=POV term referring to the supporters of Hindutva) must be a POV fork. --RJFF (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep - Mar4d has shown evidence that the term does indeed exist. Hindu nationalism and the Hindu Taliban are different terms. Reliable sources attest to the fact that the term exists and organisations such as this exist. Acknowledging the previous nominations, the article should be kept given that there are no reasons to delete it. Further, Tunku Varadarajan a clinical professor at the Stern School of Business, also a lecturer in Law at Trinity College, Oxford University and a graduate from there, his opinion as an academic is tantamount in confirming the existence of such a movement. As an academic his work is scholarly and therefore relevant. As a teacher and an observer of the world around him, it would seem strange for his work to be disregarded and the article deleted. Therefore a strong keep is what is needed. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) -block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does Wikipedia need articles about obscure neologism. Anyhow the terror activities by Hindu extremist groups are already there in Saffron terror. That way, a new phrase Internet Hindus is also in use these days. Do we create an article about that also? --Vigyani (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons given by RJFF and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The closing admin might want to regard the simultaneous discussion to merge this article into the existing article Hindutva: Talk:Hindutva#Merger proposal. --RJFF (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Compare to the deletion of Christian Taliban, a redirect to Christian fundamentalism. It's highly inappropriate to use "Taliban" as a pejorative for any fundamentalist group. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources showing usage of the term "Hindu Taliban"
[edit]....But we are worried about In-depth coverage -
- The mainstream Hindu right is a second incarnation of National Socialism or a Hindu Taliban, and shows no signs of being a threat to representative democracy as a form of government.. The Upside-Down Tree: India's Changing Culture, p. 161
- ...The project was conceived in the shadow of the exiling M.F. Husain on a ridiculously spurious 'charge' hatched by the Hindu fascists, and the beginnings of the resurgence of the Taliban goons in Afghanistan; the volume comes out in the shadow of the assault by the Hindu Taliban on young women drinking in a pub in Mangalore... Electric Feather, p. XI
- Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.” Others point out that a small number of extremists have “highjacked” Hinduism... India: A Global Studies Handbook
- ... order to display the glories of India's Hindu past and downplay the role of Muslims, and minority groups of Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs often regarded the BIP as biased against them, the BIP did not turn out to be a Hindu Taliban. Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs - Page 280
- The most fanatical representatives of these taboo- driven attitudes today are India's arch-conservatives — the Hindu Taliban. First it was Hitler, now it is the Taliban. A logical mind would say the Brahmins of India are the Hindu Taliban. NGOs, activists & foreign funds: anti-nation industry - Page 202
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- A logical mind would say the Brahmins of India are the Hindu Taliban - wow? Brahmins are living people and all of them are compared t terrorists. If this is any example of in-depth coverage then I am not impressed. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Shukla (2003) has very effectively chronicled the philosophy of the Hindu Taliban. They mimic the jehadis in their action and philosophy. These pseudo-religionists, the Hindu Taliban and the Muslim Jehadis, are birds of the same flock.. Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times, p. 151
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- How is it saying anything at all about Hindu Taliban other than a man's ill-equipped comparison between Taliban and Hinduism? Can be merged to Hindutva, per WP:NEO. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the Hindu Taliban be Indianised? ...One of the worst fallouts of the destruction of the Buddha statues in Bamyan, as far as India is concerned, is the re-emergence of Talibanism in this country. Not among Muslims who have by and large condemned the acts... (cont.), Russia and the Moslem World: Bulletin on Analytical and Reference Information: page 41
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- It is a question. Not in-depth coverage. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hindu Taliban had consciously desired it Already disturbed for more than a decade, the sacrilegious acts provoked such a wave of angry protest and at a few places even communal clashes... Russia and the Moslem World: Bulletin on Analytical and Reference Information: p. 42
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- Same case. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the Hindu Taliban don't give a tinker's damn to concepts like democracy and social harmony, to secularism and rainbow plurality mat... Hindutva: An Autopsy of Fascism As a Theoterrorist Cult and Other Essays, page 145 (by Professor I.K. Shukla)
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- Same here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- lamented the growth in India of "a sort of Hindu Taliban movement" and said that the anti-Christian violence had placed in clear peril the country's... India today international (1999), page 118
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- Trivial. Can be merged to Hindutva. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gujarat continues to be in the grip of the Hindu Taliban. The sainiks destroyed the NDTV office at Ahmedabad a few days ago because the channel reported that M.F. Husain, a world-famous painter, was one of the personalities chosen by.... Kuldip Nayar
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- Kuldip Nayar is a Taliban expert now? Can be merged to Hindutva or RSS. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- prefigure the nationwide shattering of mosques or the emergence of a Hindu Taliban. The strictures of the Constitution and the broader Indian allegiance to secularism.. India: A Portrait (Patrick French), 2011
- ...communal, ultra-sectarian dispensation— a kind of Hindu Taliban, which will push India back towards the Middle Ages. This will be a social and political nightmare. Alternatively, the BJP, and with it, the NDA, will come tumbling down like a... Rashtriya sahara vol.10, page 41
- ..This once-invincible national party will look more like a fringe Hindu Taliban as the year goes by...Business World - Volume 24, page 119
- ...Compared to the Hindu Taliban, the Muslim Taliban may be less active in India, but they are very much there. They demonstrated against the Godrejs, a house of industrialists, a few days ago... Institute of Regional Studies, 2008, p. 28
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- Subjective claim ..Speculation. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Govind Nihalani, a leading filmmaker, said: "I fear we are witnessing the emergence of a Hindu Taliban, a growing intolerance to freedom of expression... Spotlight on regional affairs - Volume 18 - Page 189
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- filmmaker is a Taliban expert now? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ....The images of the Ayodhya movement reinforced the worst stereotypes of eastern fanaticism and fuelled fears of a Hindu Taliban.... India Today - Volume 27 - Page 24
— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]
- can be merged to Ayodhya dispute or Hindutva or whatever but it is not saying much about Taliban's association or similarity with Hinduism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Below are the Links haphazardly sorted
- India`s Hindu Taliban, DAWN News
- Catholics fear Hindu 'Taliban', The Australian
- Indians send pink underwear to 'Hindu Taliban' in revenge for bar attack, The Daily Telegraph
- Women say 'pants to Hindu Taliban', The Guardian
- Expose the Hindu Taliban!, Rediff
- Beware the Hindu Taliban!, Rediff
- Attack on women at a bar in India raises fears of 'Hindu Taliban', Los Angeles Times
- Indian bishops fear Hindu "Taliban", Catholic News
- 'Hindu Taliban' enraged by modern Indian women, quote: Hindu nationalists in India have been accused of behaving like Afghanistan's hardline Taliban after women were attacked... Baloch Unity Conference
- Hindu Taliban' enraged by modern Indian women, AFP News
- Hindu Taliban, Sri Ram Sena, Vow To Attack Valentine's Day Couples, Huffington Post
- HINDU TALIBAN: Anti-Valentine's Day Protests In India Get A Frilly Response, Huffington Post
- 'Hindu Taliban' fear over pub attack, Gulf Daily News (Bahrain)
- The Hindu op-ed on Hindu Taliban
- Delhi looks powerless before ‘Indian Taliban’, DAWN News
- Women plan pink panty response to 'Hindu Taliban', France 24
- "Hindu Taliban" drags women from bars, France 24
- “Sanatan Sanstha is the Hindu Taliban”, The Milli Gazette
- Anatomy of Indian Taliban, DAWN News
- 'Hindu Taliban' enraged, GEO News
- Hindu extremists 'will attack Valentine's Day couples', The Daily Telegraph
These sources on the term are in addition to the ones already present in the article. As can be seen, this is a proper term that is extensively used for Hindu fundamentalism, as can be seen in the breadth and large mix of sources above that are from all over the world. Those who appear to be claiming that the term is "obscure" seem to have no idea what they're talking about. Claims like "This is a promotional attack page put up to smear an entire community" are also dumb and unfounded. Just because something has presumably negative connotations or is offensive to the national sentiments of some is not an acceptable reason to get an article deleted. Who freaking cares!? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED! If a term is widely used, there will be an article of it, regardless if someone does not like it. Mar4d (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all trivial mentions. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. See WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers.
Bombarding an article with sources that only trivially cover the topic doesn't make the topic notable there is nothing that cannot be merged with Hindutva. This is typical neologism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a forum, okay? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mar, read NEO again, all of those sources are single use only, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." How many times must this be pointed out? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all trivial mentions. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. See WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers.
Closer's comments
[edit]Given the length of this discussion, the multiple rebuttals, and so on, I felt it necessary to outline my closing rationale here -- it's too long to shoehorn in up at the top with the result.
First, the article itself. I will take no position on the neutrality of the article itself (concerning the way it is written), but since one of the core arguments here is the notability of the term, I did take some care to evaluate the sources currently cited in the article:
- India: A Global Studies Handbook: Not significant coverage; it just says "some [people] refer to [Hindutva] as a 'Hindu Taliban'."
- The original NYTimes article: Also not significant coverage. It was an opinion piece, uses the the term just once, and only says "a sort of Hindu Taliban movement" (emphasis mine), using the term Taliban as an adjective substitute for "right-wing" or "extremist".
- The Frontline piece: A column, not significant editorially-reviewed reporting.
- Dawn.com: Can't really evaluate the reliability of this one, it doesn't say what part of the paper it's from, but the Dawn does appear to be a reliable Indian newspaper.
- The several Rediff pieces cited: Not reliable, Rediff.com is an Indian Yahoo-style web portal.
- France24: A reliable source, but only says "critics have called [Sri Ram Sena] a 'Hindu Taliban'". Does not address any possible significance of the term
- India Today: It is an opinion piece merely quoting the original Times "Zeal in India" column.
- Second NYTimes link: This is just a letter to the editor in respons to the "Zeal in India" column, and is disputing the use of term anyway.
- Outlook India: bad link
- Times of India: Another opinion column.
Taken together, none of this is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In fact, almost none of these are secondary sources to the use of the term at all, and the ones that are (the handbook, France 24, India Today) are not significant coverage. Therefore, any argument that the term has received significant coverage lacks weight, Mar4d (t c)'s (likely well-meaning) attempt at BOMBARDment included.
Now, to the arguments made in the discussion. On the keep side, we have MezzoMezzo and Mar4d as the only users citing a valid policy-based reason to keep, which is the coverage in the sources. As I noted above, that reasoning has very little weight after a careful evaluation of said sources.
On the delete side, we have several arguments being made by various editors: that the term is a neologism, is not notable, the term is a POV-based attack or POV fork, that the article duplicates information in other articles such as Hindutva and Saffron terror, and that the term is an inappropriate pejorative.
Given the sources cited and the way the term is used in them, I readily agree that it appears to be a term that is not used in serious scholarly or political discourse in regards to the Hindu nationalist movement (i.e. a neologism), and that it does appear to be strongly pejorative in nature. Unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan and its related movements, the Hindu group in question does not use this term to describe themselves -- it is an attempt by certain individuals, those writing the cited opinion pieces among them, to draw comparisons between the fundamentalism of the Muslim Taliban groups and Hindu extremists and evoke an emotional reaction from their readers.
Taking all of the above into account, then, I see no reason under Wikipedia policy to justify keeping the article, and am closing this discussion as delete. I will be happy to provide (userfy) a copy of the references used for adding any relevant information to Hindutva or Saffron terror as appropriate, especially considering the merge discussion. However, due to the non-neutral nature of the term and the acrimony of this discussion, I don't feel a full userfication would be appropriate. —Darkwind (talk) 17:01, 17 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. The IP's !vote does not appear to be grounded in policy/consensus. King Jakob C2 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
- 2006 Serena Williams tennis season (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)
She played a whole 4 tournaments! This is excessive and overkill. All should be summerised in the main page; or if someone really wants to create individual years then combine years together as Williams had a very low tournament count for quiet a few years. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Who Cares? I support a creation of a article that lists her tennis seasons.72.198.210.219 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Radioactiveplayful[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep - as much as I believe this pages are against Wiki guidelines, consensus has generally been that the Tennis WikiProject want these to exist for the major players. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Whether I agree or disagree with these yearly pages, consensus was to allow yearly pages for each and every year, forward or backward, as long as the player in question won at least one of the four Majors. Roger Federer has them for every year plus: Roger Federer's early career, Roger Federer junior years, and who knows what else. As long as there is enough info and it's summarized properly they can stay. This particular article is well done and formatted nicely. The flag icons are correct and the scoring in prose is thankfully omitted. At least it's not a mess of prose detail-bloat like 2012 Serena Williams tennis season. Yes this one is sparse because Serena played little, but no real harm with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 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) 23:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfraCityLink (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 doubt that AfraCityLink has ever been an airline company at all. It much more seems to be a mere branding for certain flights by Afra Airlines and CTK – CiTylinK. I cannot find any reference that any flights were operated under that name at all. Even if this project was notable, I cannot see the need for a separate article. This bit of information could well be covered at the other two airline articles. FoxyOrange (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I barely found anything on the web, mostly just short blurbs that look very similar to this article. Whatever it actually is, it doesn't seem notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Proutist Economics (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 believe this is the 22nd article nominated for deletion on a book written by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. This book is one of several collections of his lectures and writings on his PROUT economic and social philosophy. Like all of Sakar's work, this is self-published (he set up Ananda Marga Publications specifically to publish his own work). And like the majority of the articles on Sarkar's book, no discussion of the book exists in either the popular or academic press. While there are a handful of citations to the book in the literature, these do not discuss the book and do not establish notability. Garamond Lethet
c 07:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons stated above and after trudging through this discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and does not inherit notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Theresa Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As an artist, doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Only claim to notability seems to be through being very old when she died, which would fail WP:NOTABILITY per WP:1E. Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can find quite a few reliable sources mentioning her, enough to meet WP:GNG. This one states "Her paintings are in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution, the Chicago Art Institute, the New York Public Library and the Brooklyn Museum", which means she does meet WP:ARTIST.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is definitely notable based upon her paintings being in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, and other world-renowned galleries. The article therefore should be edited with much additional information, and the emphasis should be placed on her art, rather than her personal life. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep based on the scope and breadth of her work, as supported based on reliable and verifiable sources about her. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above keeps. If we get two or three more, this can be closed by SNOW.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 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) 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prout Research Institute of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small organization belonging within the global Ananda Marga social movement. No third-party coverage evident. Existing references point to their articles of incorporation, youtube, and their own website. Doesn't meet WP:ORG wrt notability. Garamond Lethet
c 07:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the sources given absolutely don't suffice for notability or even reliable sources in the case of the official website and Youtube link. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self-promotion, as no notability has been established via reliable third-party discussions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle Milty. Promotional and not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 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: WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, early close on advice of WP:SNOW. The article when nominated was in a poor state but the subject is notable; it just needed clean up and attention. Rkitko (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Iris persica (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 is too short to give any significant view to the topic. Reference is too weak as well. WP: Notability all over again The Wikimon (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is inherently notable as a species of plant. Also, being short is not a reason to delete as articles can be expanded over time. More references can be added as well, although I don't see what is weak about a link to Project Gutenberg . Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - every species has a proper citation available, namely the original description published by the describing scientist, so notability is never a concern. Iris persica was described by Linnaeus. Ahem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It does exist [63][64] and plant species are generally considered notable like animal species. WP:WikiProject Plants aim to document all known species, if anyone would like to contribute. Funny Pika! 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if this little charmer hadn't had its praises sung by Vita Sackville-West,[65] Gertrude Jekyll,[66] William Robinson,[67] and over 2,000 other writers,[68] including Linnaeus, it would still be notable, since all named and accepted plant species are inherently notable. First Light (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep quickly. Notable by virtue of being a species. Ducknish (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest Speedy (WP:SNOW) Keep to close, now that things are clear. I've added image, taxobox, description and cultivation sections with a quote and several references, not that they were needed, but it makes a nice historical article for an attractive species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 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. I did not close as redirect or merge because the band does not appear to be notable either, and I am creating an AfD for Bad Astronaut presently. Should that AfD close as keep, I would be happy to userfy for merging, or create an appropriate redirect. —Darkwind (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- War of the Worlds (Bad Astronaut 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, fails WP:GNG and hence WP:NALBUMS.
Currently referenced only to the band's own website, I searched "War of the Worlds" "Bad Astronaut" review -wikipedia
for reviews, but found nothing that looked like a reliable source. Allmusic.com has only a track listing, but no review. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No strong feelings either way, but instead of deleting it, if that's where this discussion ends up, I think redirecting would be preferable. Jasper420
- 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) 02:56, 2 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 05:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it's been without reliable sources for five years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the Bad_Astronaut discography, since I can see no reason why the album is notable on its own merits. I'm also not sure that the band or its members are notable, since the only external link is the band website (which is inactive), but I'd prefer someone with far more experience nominate them for AfD if desirable. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:09, 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. Courcelles 18:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mabris (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)
Very short, unsourced article about a non-notable surname. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 16:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 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) 03:35, 2 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 05:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's a pointless article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could see keeping this if there were evidence that it were in some way a notable surname - references discussing its history and lineage, for example. But not only do we have one sentence with no ref, but we also have no inbound links - so there's nothing on the wiki that refers to this article, either. I know that's not a criteria as such, but it's useful data. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimmy the Greek (restaurant) (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 restaurant lacks notability. I couldn't find any independent sources on it.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while I can't find much on plain web either, I strongly suspect that an editor with better access to archival sources (e.g. Toronto newspaper microfilms) than I've got would probably have an easier time reffing this one up. Keep if it can be improved by close; delete if it can't per Paul Erik's improvements. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Well-known Canadian restaurant franchise with locations in the United Arab Emirates as well. I've added multiple reliable sources just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:30, 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 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though it still needs further improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep restaurant chain with several dozen locations including some international. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanessa Prager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability guidelines, was written by a single source seemingly related to subject, reads like a resume, link is to biography on subject's personal web page, did not meet readability criteria, has not been edited since May 2012 Hungryweevils (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources currently included in the article are not the strongest, but multiple additional sources found by simple Google search include the Los Angeles Times [69], LA Weekly [70], Elle [71], Flaunt [72]. Appears to pass WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 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, J04n(talk page) 10:22, 2 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 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A poor article in desperate need of a critical response section, but thanks to links posted she does just about meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: a bad article about a notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based upon additional sources noted above, the subject appears notable, and the article just seems in desperate need of a rewrite. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep per WP:BASIC and the sources presented above by User:Arxiloxos. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:45, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sara Woodhatch (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)
Most of the references don't mention the subject at all, those that do have her down as an assistant (in most cases to Hugh Grant, admittedly!). Also concerned over the fact this page has been variously created and edited by User:Sara Woodhatch, User:Richard dreu and User:Randall fines, created on 21, 24 and 25 March respectively. Contested prod by the latter. That aside, in summary, not sure about the notability, certainly not sure about the verifiability of it, and bothered by the proliferation of new accounts making a beeline for this new article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Doubtful if notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 2 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 04:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the behavior of the users mentioned by the nominator is troubling. There seems to be the possibility of someone from IMDb trying to create an article about themselves. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the subject co-produced Before Midnight (film), acquired by Sony Pictures, and since she's previously been credited as Post-Production Coordinator of Mickey Blue Eyes and Associate Producer of Did You Hear About The Morgans? (both of which are major motion pictures) I think she's notable enough for inclusion even if she did start out as Hugh Grant's assistant. You have to break into Hollywood somehow, after all. The problem as I see it is that it probably was written by the subject, as others suspect, so there are a lot of irrelevant sources regarding non-notable facets of her life, and not enough about notable facets. I therefore think it should just be rewritten by a neutral third party.HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did an "associate producer" of a movie and a "post-production co-ordinator" meet the notability guidelines? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Being the co-producer of a movie is not inherently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 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 no consensus. Courcelles 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Roadworthiness (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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The article has the potential to go beyond a dictionary definition: while a dictionary would simply say that roadworthiness means meeting legal requirements to go on public roads, an encyclopedia can discuss the technical requirements and the various legal standards for roadworthiness. However, if there's a suitable redirect, that would be fine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving advice on the hundreds of state and national legal requirements and regulations violates WP:NOTHOW: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise)". Possibly a redirect to Automobile safety or Vehicle inspection could work, though roadworthieness includes factors other than safety, and not all jurisdictions have formal vehicle inspections to determine roadworthiness. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to prevent information on legislation without violating WP:HOWTO, and many articles on legal topics do this, e.g. Defamation#Defamation laws by jurisdiction, Obscenity, Adultery#Law. An encyclopedia should also provide the history of laws, which is certainly outside the scope of a HOWTO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a dictionary. There seems to be nothing to say about the concept other than its definition.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:04, 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 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY Davey2010 Talk 06:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." There's plenty to say about the topic as evidenced by works such as The Effect of Vehicle Roadworthiness on Crash Incidence and Severity or Roadworthiness: Industry Best Practice. Such works establish the notability of the topic and it's then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.Warden (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep followed by mandatory improvements, and perhaps another AfD nomination if nobody follows up with it. There are other articles on various worthinesses, so I don't think this article should be deleted on dictionary grounds unless we delete all the others as well...which of course we can't do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Via some basic Google searches, I found multiple sources which collectively suggest that the article has enough WP:POTENTIAL to be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition (e.g. Google Scholar and Google Books). I agree that the article needs a fair bit of work by editor(s) with the time and inclination to sift through the published legal statutes and technical papers covering multiple national jurisdictions to put together a proper encyclopedic article. Nonetheless, it can be done and hence deletion is not a necessary remedy (WP:SURMOUNTABLE). Also, I agree with a previous comment that it is possible for an article to provide a descriptive overview of what the law states across multiple jurisdictions without violating WP:HOWTO: i.e. an encyclopedic article simply provides a summary of what the law states, while a how-to guide gives advice on specific applications of the law. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The only problem is not that there is "nothing to say about the concept other than its definition", as claimed above, but that there is so much to say that, if this is expanded beyond a stub, it will be difficult to select what to include and what to leave out. That is an editing issue, not an existential issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Litklub (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 marginal magazine, discontinued in 2009 Badvibes101 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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 04:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm almost laughing at having to write out the reasons why. How was this ever notable enough to be created in the first place? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:43, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disaster Kleenup International (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 small company with little third-party coverage. Having gone through the refs the majority were either dead links or didn't even mention the company, found one article about it here BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep found 100+ articles about it or its officials in google news. While some are poor, quality there is multiple non-trivial sources about it. SalHamton (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you identify some of those sources that are not poor? On a quick run-through of the results of a Google News archive search I can only see press releases and the like. As an aside, because I understand that this not a policy-based argument, I find it very difficult to take seriously any company that has such a childish misspelling in its name. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 8 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 04:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unredeemable WP:ADVERT. So ridiculously over the top that it needs TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 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 merge to Optare Toro. Merging seemed the best move here. I've merged some of the content over and attributed it. Anything I've missed can be copied over from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Optare Viedo (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, It seems this bus was never built, or If It was there's not one bit of information about the bus anywhere.
Davey2010 Talk 04:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, unlikely to progress from stub due to that reason. Not notable.Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Optare Toro as a variant of that model. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 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 redirect to Gippsland Soccer League. —Darkwind (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Traralgon City Soccer Club (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 removed without reason. Original rationale was "No indication this club has played at a notable level or been the subject of significant coverage." C679 04:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 04:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article does not assert a sufficient level of notability for this soccer club. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gippsland Soccer League; not independently notable but plausible search term. GiantSnowman 19:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gippsland Soccer League. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Same as above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:04, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eavesdrop (film) (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'm nominating this along with Osiris Entertainment for a lack of notability. This is one of several films they made, almost all of which are non-notable. A search brings up nothing that would show that this film is notable. No reviews, no big awards, nothing that would show that it passes WP:NFILM. It might have had some notable people involved, but notability is not inherited by having notable persons involved in production. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say keep, weakly, because this is an example of Wikipedia doing some good: without this entry, we wouldn't know about this film (probably); it alerts other people who might name a film 'Eavesdrop' about potential copyright issues. Also, the entry does no harm. But perhaps there is a case that it does not meet the criteria.Sophiahounslow (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this film needs to be included. The Eavesdrop DVD is readily available in nearly all major retail outlets. Eavesdrop is also available on Netflix and as of 4/9/13 has 2,142 ratings. Also, Osiris does not make films as stated by Tokyogir179. They distribute them. This film was directed by Matthew Miele who also directed the film Everything's Jake currently distributed by Warner Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.168.129 (talk • contribs) 07:35 9 April 2013)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a film does not mean that it's automatically notable. We also cannot keep an article because it would "do no harm". That's not how Wikipedia works. And as far as notable persons being involved with the film in any context, notability is not inherited by them having worked on the film at any point or to any extent. (See WP:ITEXISTS, WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOT in general.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete In expanding searches, we find the film exists, yes.... but has not received coverage or commentary in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 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. Courcelles 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Madaline Zanni (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)
Deletion requested by subject at OTRS; non-notable - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Davey2010 Talk 06:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seriously. The only sources are her personal website and her Facebook page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as my default vote when someone of low or unclear notability requests deletion of their own bio. Wikipedia shouldn't cause article subjects undue grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and subject's wishes. Andrew Lenahan has put it perfectly. Mabalu (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMODEL. A quick Google search chucks up a load of self-published social media and I can't find any news sources that can be used to establish notability. Funny Pika! 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Sideways713 (talk) 15:07, 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 redirected by the article creator to The Dresden Files#Books in the series --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Skin Game (novel) (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)
Upcoming novel without a definite release date (definitely not until late this year, possibly longer). Doesn't meet any criteria at WP:NBOOKS and fails WP:GNG as the only actual sources are self-published by the author - all potential secondary sources are just quoting the author's tweets. Recommend redirecting this to The Dresden Files until notability is established. ElHef (Meep?) 03:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: for the reasons stated by the nominee. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The_Dresden_Files#Books_in_the_series. This is way, way too soon for an entry. We don't even have a firm release date for the book, let alone a synopsis or any in-depth coverage. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:01, 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (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)
my original nomination stands. fails WP:BAND. no major awards. no charting albums. coverage only local. this is an amateur group. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little positive effort has been made since the last nomination. 90% of the references are first "Self" in that they're publications of the 2 organizations who merget to form the subject, or the subject themselves. Article still reads as promotional (MBSO will continue to work with the organisations traditionally worked with by both RCO and SSO in order to continue bringing music to the Moreton Bay region. Some organisations/venues that will be co-worked with in the future are) and almost an information dump rather than an explanation of the notability of the subject. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing to make this orchestra stand out from any other local music group. Maybe in a few years if they achieve something notable but not now, without non-local news coverage. Shiftchange (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero Google News results, showing no coverage from even notable local news sources. No major awards, albums or anything of that sort either. Cannot say it meets WP:GNG. Richard Yetalk 08:05, 18 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. No assertion of notability, clearly an A7 candidate Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James B. Lanagan IV (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 evidence of notability, no sources other than a Facebook page or local news site, doesn't fit the criteria for CSD A7 Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with a local news site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manthejim (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 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 speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criteria A1 and G3. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lipstick penis on car (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)
Prank / inappropriate humor teratogen (talk) 01:01, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heather Von Stackelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:Notability (academic). Teaches Math at Yellowhead Tribal College and holds two research posts (assistant at Grant MacEwan College/Associate at Athabasca University. Checks on Google (once facebook, wikipedia and blogs are eliminated has about 32 "relevant hits"), mainly online articles Alive.com or institutional information. Coauthor of one chapter in a collection of articles. This article itself was originally a course project. Jpacobb (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the only sources which are about the subject (instead of about the subjects work) are tied to the institution at which the subject teaches, it seems. Fails the academic notability guideline as mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. What she does in her job is par for the course. What she does in her spare time reflects her personal interests. Most teachers do all this and often more.--Zananiri (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed with all of the above. There's no claim of notability nor any evidence of it. Kabirat (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I raised a concern about this article previously at its talk page, on the grounds that not only was her notability not clear from the content, there wasn't even any real claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, being made in the first place. I'm still not seeing the notability — it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources — and I'm still not seeing the first speck of a credible reason why she would even have been given as a topic for a "contribute to Wikipedia" course assignment. Nothing against her as a person, but WP:ACADEMIC is pretty clear that university or college professors are not automatically entitled to articles on here just because they exist. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. fan page. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No WP:RS to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. In fact, the level of absurdity in this article is so high that it leaves it perhaps just short of being a WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 06:34, 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 --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Me-owemart (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)
Completely unsourced, promotional, written from a personal POV and does not employ proper use of grammar and spelling whatsoever. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as it is clearly an attempt by the establishment itself to advertise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 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. This one-line under-stub can be easily re-created if sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sedatephobia (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 isn't a "real" medical term or condition. It seems to have sprung up on the Internet quite recently. At the least, I believe it should be transwikied to Wiktionary (but I'm fine letting it stay on Urban Dictionary for the time being). —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: there's no reason to put the word real between quotation marks, because this condition quite literally isn't real. Just because some Internet writers have used it doesn't make it a real phobia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as WP:NOTNEO. No references for a novel usage of a term. Don't see why it makes sense for a transwiki as even at wictionary, it'd be deleted for lack of references. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - one could find needles in the haystack of Google, but I can't find any scholarly articles about the topic. File under Subconcious. Or, better yet, under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of films broadcast by TCM (UK & Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no such thing as List of films broadcast by TCM (U.S.) or List of films broadcast by AMC. In fact, I don't see any reason to keep this list. Why was this list created in the first place? This list is fully trivial and should belong elsewhere outside encyclopedia. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it's been made before 1980 and isn't terrible or not a film in their library, TCM has carried most films. Not an appropriate use of the "List of programs" article template at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not an appropriate list for Wikipedia. They show a lot of films, as do many other TV channels. Recording every film shown by every TV channel in every nation would fill Wikipedia with trivia. There seems a consensus over multiple AfDs that lists of things broadcast on a channel aren't notable, but lists of things made/commissioned by a channel are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 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.
- ^ http://www.myspace.com/officialmarchviolets
- ^ http://www.futureplc.com/2006/08/17/magazine-abcs-classic-rock-and-metal-hammer-post-double-digit-abc-growth/
- ^ http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/1145894/"
- ^ http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/table/0,,2079382,00.html
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/may/27/popandrock.features
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2007/may/27/post40
- ^ http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=C4D5E39C4F3817F680257961004019B9
- ^ http://news.sky.com/story/1073632/hate-crime-goths-punks-and-emos-recognised
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888