Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 4
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Angela Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The documented awards are minor or local, and I do not see how anything here amounts to notability DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Added documented national awards and additional in depth coverage documenting her contributions. Her contributions exceed what a journalist typically contributes and are notable.
Keep.Angela Hill has make signification contributions as an American Journalist with her documentary on China in 1979 and the Golden Fleece Awards, in 1978. Schwartzenberg (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and salt as failing WP:BIO. There is no in depth independent coverage here. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the notability looks minor but real. DS (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Different editors have different thresholds for notability on local newscaster bios, but she readily passes mine. She has been a highly visible and influential presence in New Orleans for decades. There's no shortage of coverage about her: here, for example, is a selection of coverage in The Times-Picayune illustrating her career as an "news icon for nearly four decades"; here is a Boston Globe article (paywalled) noting that her marriage with and divorce from Garland Robinette "captured the public's imagination". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Would like to see more third-party sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added additional third-party sources and citations. The coverage is in depth and independent. The documented awards are national and local. Fits criteria as defined in WP:BIO. Schwartzenberg (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Awards are either local or if national, are minor in nature. Longevity at a job is not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself. No in-depth coverage. Insufficient third party sources. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's certainly a Big Deal™ in New Orleans. And it's been puzzling to me for years that Garland Robinette, her one-time partner and an arguably rather less notable figure, is covered here when Hill isn't. GreenGourd (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards listed are both local and national (the national awards are listed on Wikipedia). "Minor in nature" is not true. "Longevity at a job is not sufficient grounds for notability in and of itself." This is irrelevant, the article discusses her career and her contributions. "Insufficient third party sources." Not true. Schwartzenberg (talk) 02:40, 12 August 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. Nom was withdrawn several days ago, but not SK-eligible due to other deletion arg. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Adriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article's tone requires cleanup for one thing, and though it is a sourced BLP, the reference given does not even mention his name (WP:V) For the source listed there is a link to a "full list" which also does not mention his name. CSD withdrawn by me per reasonable article creator's request. Per WP:BEFORE, I tried to fix it, but Google News or Google Books failed to reveal any significant coverage therefore failing #3 of WP:PORNBIO and WP:SIGCOV. He obviously exists, as Google reveals numerous results coming up for him regarding his works, but nothing that can be cited (they are all sites to watch porn). According to 29th AVN Awards and 30th AVN Awards he has been nominated for four awards, but one is a scene award, therefore failing #1 of the pornbio guideline (he has to win an award, or be nominated for several - three is not several). The nominations in those articles are also not sourced. He also does not appear to satisfy #2 of pornbio, no information could be found regarding his influences/unique contributions. — kikichugirl inquire 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per arguments below and WP:SNOW. All issues addressed in my nom have been fixed enough for me, even if some improvement to the article would be nice. If this article were to just now be submitted and be seen by me as a NPP, then I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, so it is only reasonable that I withdraw now. — kikichugirl inquire 21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' unless WP:RS can be found to demonstrate genuine notability. I have tried and failed to find any. I have previously placed a BLPPROD on this article and was content to let that run its course, but, since we are here, am as content to !vote for deletion based upon ack of notability. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since WP:RS now exist. !vote altered after seeing them. Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes up short on WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. GNG: Only coverage is in the trade press. XBiz coverage reads like press releases. Adult Video News coverage is reprinted press releases. PORNBIO: A 2013 XRCO nomination for best male performer and a 2012 scene-related AVN nomination are all I could find. Not enough. FILMMAKER: I found a 2012 AVN Win for best oral release. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. I added what I could find to the article. A closer reading of the scene-related awards and nominations credit Adriano as director. Notability as a filmmaker is borderline, but I can be persuaded to change my vote if more evidence emerges. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to weak keep. With additional awards and nominations added by Guy1890, the subject just passes WP:FILMMAKER criterion #4. Multiple works have received significant critical attention. If the article is kept, the unsourced fluff in the article needs to go, even if that means reducing the article to a bare stub. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TNT as well as the above arguments. Even the subject were shown to be notable, virtually all the text that could be retained consists of the subject's name, various forms of the verb "to be", and the occasional definite or indefinite article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. WP:TNT doesn't justify deletion when the subject is notable. Herzlicheboy (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, which state, in part: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The article subject has won 3 AVN awards and has been nominated for 4 in total, as well as having been nominated for 2 XRCO awards. Clear pass. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets WP:PORNBIO for having been nominated for several awards. Several means multiple. Check the dictionary definition [1] 2a: "more than one" b: more than two". Dream Focus 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/addendum. Not only has the article subject received several nominations for AVN and XRCO awards, but he indeed won three separate AVN awards at the 2012 ceremony. Clear keep. I respectfully suggest the nominatrix withdraw this AFD. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to search for an official webpage for the guy, and find information about him to add more information to the article. The article isn't even a day old yet, so is fine for a stub. You could add a list of notable films the person has been in. Dream Focus 01:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Although like I said I'm not too good at using search engines. Question: wouldn't one's own "home page" be considered a non reliable (self serving) source? Herzlicheboy (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article subject won exactly zero individual awards at that ceremony. Scene awards don't count; "release" awards don't count. The PORNBIO criteria apply only to awards for work as performers; otherwise, the GNG is the primary standard, and right now the subject appears to fall short of that by a wide margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would advise against adding a complete list of films that this subject (or any other subject in the adult film industry) has either performed in or directed. We generally try to stay away from complete film lists in an article in favor of just having some external links to well-known sources for adult film listings (like IMDb, IAFD or AFDB) or, at the very most, a partial film listing in the article of some more notable films only.
- "Question: wouldn't one's own 'home page' be considered a non reliable (self serving) source?" There are some things that a subject's homepage can be used for as a citation. For instance, notable infomation that only they would know about for sure (like being gay, lesbian, etc.), but, in general, I would try and find other independent sources that substantiate any notable info that's contained on a subject's "official site". Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Although like I said I'm not too good at using search engines. Question: wouldn't one's own "home page" be considered a non reliable (self serving) source? Herzlicheboy (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to search for an official webpage for the guy, and find information about him to add more information to the article. The article isn't even a day old yet, so is fine for a stub. You could add a list of notable films the person has been in. Dream Focus 01:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/addendum. Not only has the article subject received several nominations for AVN and XRCO awards, but he indeed won three separate AVN awards at the 2012 ceremony. Clear keep. I respectfully suggest the nominatrix withdraw this AFD. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - "This article's tone requires cleanup for one thing"...AfD is not cleanup. "he has to win an award, or be nominated for several - three is not several"...as has been basically stated above, the relevant standard in PORNBIO is: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times." In this case, the subject here has been nominated for at least 7 major adult awards in just the last few years. As for the "'release' awards not counting", I'm not aware of any guidelines that state that at all, and the above number of 7 major awards doesn't include the 2 award wins & 9 other nominations for Best Releases that this person here has under their belt as a director, so it really doesn't matter in any event. Does this article here need more work? Yes, but it currently meets the relevant criteria for it to be kept. Guy1890 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see more awards now. It now appears to satisfy at the very least, #1 of WP:PORNBIO. — kikichugirl inquire 04:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, even not considering the less significant awards having been nominated for "Director of the Year" and "Male Performer of the Year" clearly satisfies PORNBIO requirements. Cavarrone 04:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: However, I am still of the opinion that it does not satisfy WP:GNG - there isn't any mainstream coverage on him, only in porn-related areas. Per pornbio, the scene awards don't count for #1 however. Per Gene93k, if the article were kept, all of the fluff needs to go. I am keeping my nom right now. And to clear things up, Herzlicheboy (talk · contribs) is the article's creator. — kikichugirl inquire 04:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I believe that WP:PORNBIO supercedes GNG here. Herzlicheboy (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's basically always been my feeling that if one meets PORNBIO, then by inclusion, they also meet the necessary GNG requirements of "a topic receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "there isn't any mainstream coverage on him, only in porn-related areas"...which is not very uncommon at all for adult film-related subjects. You're not going to find many articles about adult industry individuals in the New York Times, etc....it does happen, but it's kind of rare. Also, no one (that knows what they are talking about above) is really talking about "scene awards" and them possibly meeting PORNBIO. As for "all of the fluff needing to go"...it's basically all gone now. I don't have a problem if the AfD nominator here doesn't want to withdraw their nomination, but this will likely be a pretty obvious keep for the closing administrator. Guy1890 (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I believe that WP:PORNBIO supercedes GNG here. Herzlicheboy (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Three non-scene-related award noms in different years (Director of the Year in 2011, Best Director in 2012 and Male Performer of the Year in 2013) more than satisfy point #1 of WP:PORNBIO. (The article creator might want to read WP:BETTER if s/he wants to write more articles in the future, but as Guy1890 pointed out, AfD is not cleanup.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:47, 5 August 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 Cleveland State and Bowling Green, keep Kent State. Jujutacular (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 Cleveland State Vikings baseball team (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 am also nominating the following related pages...
- 2009 Bowling Green Falcons baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2012 Kent State Golden Flashes baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
College baseball seasons (certainly non-championship seasons) aren't notable. All coverage is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Minor league baseball season pages have been deleted similarly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The Cleveland State page marks their last season of college baseball, Bowling Green won their Conference in 2009, and the 2012 Kent State team won their conference and advanced to the College World Series - a small program from the north, both of which are exceedingly rare. Kent State in particular received a lot of in-depth coverage nationally in 2012, and certainly justifies having a page. I disagree that college baseball seasons are not notable, as the coverage around college baseball continues to expand with multiple outlets covering the sport on a national and reginal level year-round. Note that, for the most part, the season pages which have been created to date are for teams that won conference or national championships, advanced to the Super Regional or College World Series, were highly ranked for most of the season, or had another rare event such as first or last year of competition. Most of the others received regular coverage beyond just reporting game summaries, on at least a regional level. I agree that prose needs to be added to improve the pages beyond stub and start class, but I oppose deletion of all three pages, most strongly for the 2012 Kent State page. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete for Cleveland State and Bowling Green. I'm ok having articles on championship seasons for college, but something like those two is pointless to have. Weak Keep on Kent State because it was a College World Series team, so should be notable enough. Wizardman 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose I agree completely with Billcasey905. These articles are well sourced and contain large amounts of content. As Bill notes, college baseball is becoming increasingly more popular and is certainly more notable than a lower-level minor league team. We have incomplete pages for the lowest-tier Division I men's basketball seasons, so I strongly believe that college baseball seasons are certainly notable. I fail to see how coverage is for a power conference team in baseball is less routine than coverage for a SWAC team in basketball. Mpejkrm (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not here to debate college basketball pages. College basketball gets far more attention than college baseball. Please provide evidence that "college baseball is becoming increasingly more popular" with sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sport's popularity doesn't change the coverage. If we can't have college baseball pages because the coverage is just "routine", then we would need to delete half our college basketball pages, right? And if you want more evidence that CBB is becoming more popular, look at the TV deals ESPN is signing. Fox Sports 1 will be showing college baseball as well. ESPN gave the CWS a lot of coverage this year and played the CWS finals on ESPN. They didn't do that in previous years. There'a s reason for that. Mpejkrm (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- College baseball rarely gets covered outside of the CWS though.. I know i can never watch UCLA play baseball on TV until they get to the Super Regionals and they have been one of the best teams in the country lately... let alone little schools like Cleveland State. Spanneraol (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't true. Go read Baseball America. Go read College Baseball Daily. There are a lot of magazines and websites which provide regular college baseball coverage. You can also find most games online. I still am failing to see how these are being deleted, yet little schools in the SWAC and MEAC in basketball, which are of far worse quality, are not even being discussed for deletion, despite them getting NO coverage at all. Mpejkrm (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of game results and stats in specialized trade magazines isnt exactly the same as having the widespread coverage needed for GNG.. And you can certainly not find most games online. I don't know if there are season articles for SWAC basketball teams but if there are I'd favor their deletion as well. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't true. Go read Baseball America. Go read College Baseball Daily. There are a lot of magazines and websites which provide regular college baseball coverage. You can also find most games online. I still am failing to see how these are being deleted, yet little schools in the SWAC and MEAC in basketball, which are of far worse quality, are not even being discussed for deletion, despite them getting NO coverage at all. Mpejkrm (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- College baseball rarely gets covered outside of the CWS though.. I know i can never watch UCLA play baseball on TV until they get to the Super Regionals and they have been one of the best teams in the country lately... let alone little schools like Cleveland State. Spanneraol (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sport's popularity doesn't change the coverage. If we can't have college baseball pages because the coverage is just "routine", then we would need to delete half our college basketball pages, right? And if you want more evidence that CBB is becoming more popular, look at the TV deals ESPN is signing. Fox Sports 1 will be showing college baseball as well. ESPN gave the CWS a lot of coverage this year and played the CWS finals on ESPN. They didn't do that in previous years. There'a s reason for that. Mpejkrm (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not here to debate college basketball pages. College basketball gets far more attention than college baseball. Please provide evidence that "college baseball is becoming increasingly more popular" with sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bowling Green & Cleveland State, Keep Kent State per Wizardman. Spanneraol (talk) 21:44, 6 August 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 under criterion G7: the sole contributor has withdrawn the article (blanked the page). —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Miles James Jones, jr. (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)
Strong doubts that this is more than an attack page on a recently deceased person. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:44, 4 August 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. The article seems to pass a guideline which I overlooked. Beerest355 Talk 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson Temple (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)
Stubby article that makes no attempt at proving notability. Being a supreme court justice doesn't guarantee notability. Beerest355 Talk 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:JUDGE which does seem a reasonable guarantee. See History of the Bench and Bar of California, for example. Warden (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A state supreme court justice passes WP:POLITICIAN. His New York Times obituary is here and a more detailed one from a California paper is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:12, 4 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 13:19, 12 August 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}} . |
- Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance (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 have my doubts about the notability of the company. The references used are basically human interest stories, some of a totally trivial nature--the emphasis put on them in my opinion pretty much amounts to promotionalism.. I would not have accepted it from AfC , but another editor did. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found nothing but press releases in a Google News search. The article provides two human-interest-type stories and a "Denver Business Journal" item which is probably a press release; everything else is self-referential. Not sufficient coverage for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added sufficient coverage for notability. All cited from external reputable sources. The article "Angel MedFlight finds better ways of patient transport" found in the Denver Business Journal was written by one of their reporters. The Denver Business Journal is part of the American City Business Journals, which according to Wikipedia, is an American newspaper chain. The fact that Angel MedFlight was cited for its entrepreneurship and innovations in the air ambulance industry makes it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation geek (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Aviation geek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I second the deletion motion. Every time I read it, it reads more and more like an advertisement. I agree that it appears that all references appear to be either press releases or articles derived from press releases. Secondly, going through the history of the ariticle it appears that Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers may have been created specifically for this article. Both users have never contributed to any other article on Wikipedia and any time any contraversal information has been added to the article it has been deleted by one of these users. Their edits only occur between noon and 5 pm when the time stamps are adjusted to local time in Phoenix, AZ. I believe the article can be deleted for several different reasons.
- . I believe that Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers are "sock puppets"
- . The article lacks sufficient nonbiased coverage for notability.
- . The article writters have tried to use it to build links to Twitter, Facebook, and other webpages in an effort to create a link wheel.
- . Article is written for Advertising and Spam
- . Article is most likely written by either Angel Medflight Worldwide Air Ambulance or person/company contracted by Angel Medflight.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepThe references are NOT all press releases as stated. At least a dozen references have been added that are from reputable news sources, i.e. newspapers, television reports and business journals. Research shows these cited news stories were not written by company personnel or by persons contracted by the company in question, but by journalists. To rebut the previous Delete comments point by point:
- . Accusations of "sock puppets" are irrelevant. Furthermore, I call into question who the sock puppet is here. There is no record of a user page for Icarus1980 or previous postings.
- . There are obvious examples of non-biased coverage. The article lists at least a dozen non-biased sources for notability.
- . The links to Twitter and Facebook were added by an editor and deleted by editors, a normal occurrence on Wikipedia.
- . This accusation is hearsay.
- . The article is written in a neutral point of view, contains no advertising or spam and meets notability guidelines.
Wikipedia is an open forum. What time zone the editor is in is irrelevant to this discussion. Aviation geek —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Aviation geek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You can only !vote once in a deletion discussion. As you have already !voted above, I've struck the "keep" portion of your comment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCompany seems to be remarkably adept at getting its press releases plastered across the web, but there's nothing in the way of reliable third-party sources.Icarus1980 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- You can only !vote once in a deletion discussion. As you have already !voted above, I've struck the "delete" portion of your comment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are numerous examples of notable stories reported by reputable third-party sources. I cite as examples some of the links that show up in the articles references list:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22757656/2013/07/03/angel-medflight
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130207/NEWS03/702079883
The letter from the U.S. Congressman is also seems to be a valid endorsement of the company’s notability. - MidWillametteValley —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — MidWillametteValley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear MidWillametteValley is another sock puppet for Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers
The editor identified only as 67.216.17.3 is resorting to unnecessary name-calling in a forum designed for debate on the article's notability. This person then maliciously removed relevant and notable content from the article. Aviation geek (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In spite of the fact that many of the references are to stories about the transported people rather than about the company, the many press realeases, and in spite of the drama above, there are a number of sources here which do have solid information about the company. I believe that there is enough coverage to establish notability, even though it has to be gathered from a number of of sources. The letter from a congressman is not a published source; if he had written it as a letter to the editor of a newspaper, that would have been different. I added one more reference from Aviation Online Magazine. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that allegations of sock-puppetry are relevant to a deletion discussion when a vote is being taken, and that none of the accused have denied it, or denied being closely connected with the company. Perhaps they would like to do so, or declare a conflict of interest? The issue about removing or changing content is a separate one from this deletion discussion and should take place on the article's talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, both OregonBeavers and MidWillametteValley pass the duck test as socks - ironically though, so does Icarus1980. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that allegations of sock-puppetry are relevant to a deletion discussion when a vote is being taken, and that none of the accused have denied it, or denied being closely connected with the company. Perhaps they would like to do so, or declare a conflict of interest? The issue about removing or changing content is a separate one from this deletion discussion and should take place on the article's talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: User:MidWillametteValley has been blocked as a sock of User:Aviation geek per WP:DUCK (see SPI). Aviation geek has been blocked for the duration of this AfD for using a sockpuppet to !votestack. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 2 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article states "The company received national media attention in May 2013 when it transported a homeless hit-and-run victim from San Francisco, California to Columbus, Georgia" but of the two sources given, one doesn't mention Angel MedFlight and the other is a passing mention in a sentence. Basically there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a paramedic there is so little out there supporting EMS and EMS services, compared to Police or Fire systems. It's hard to prove that they have notability when Fire or police get most of the PR coverage in media. Most times medics are long gone by the time the press get to the scene. With all the external reputable sources, letters from government and articles of human interest stories. I think this article should stay.jbignell (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some Admin abuse of power here. MidWillametteValley and Aviation Geek are completely different people. Proper CheckUser will find IP is listed as in Oregon while Aviation Geek's is from Arizona.WP:DUCK should not stand as MidWillamettValley Voted and made a case against DGG's reasons for this Deletion with six 3rd party News Stories from recognized regional and local news sites. There are over 20 now listed on the article. In addition, as a medical carrier news stories about patients and the special cases that Angel Medflight is able to fly is certainly significant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.110.119 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:INHERITED. As for the duck test, if you have issues with CU, raise them with the CU who was involved with the case, although I wonder how you know Aviation geek's IP is from Arizona as he edits logged in? And the nature of MWV's !vote supports a duck-test result, while the WP:BOMBARDMENT doesn't provide significant coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 9 August 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 New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012#Martin Singh. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Singh (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)
Minor candidate in NDP 2012 leadership race. No other notability. Doesn't meet WP:Politician requirements. Recommend delete or redirect to New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012. Suttungr (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012#Martin Singh. Fails WP:Politician. PKT(alk) 20:31, 31 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, our practice many years ago, when Wikipedia's content rules were still being made up on the fly, used to be that anybody who was a candidate in a political party's leadership race, no matter how major or minor, always qualified for an independent article on that basis even if they had never attained any other claim of notability whatsoever — which is why you still see this happening in actual practice even though that criterion never actually made it into WP:POLITICIAN as a valid claim of notability. Given the considerable tightening of WP:BLP rules that has taken place since the practice was first established, however, it just can't stay that way anymore — a person who is notable only as a minor leadership candidate, but has never served in any other political role that would make them notable, now fails WP:BLP1E and should therefore be mentioned in the article on the leadership race itself rather than being given their own standalone article. Merge to New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012#Martin Singh. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012. Same kind of article as Martin Singh and thus should have same result. Atrian (talk) 18:50, 5 August 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) 09:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Monthly Sultan-ul-Faqr Magazine (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)
Having considered at first that this topic may have notability I have taken some tome to look at the English version of its web site. Having done so it appears to me that this is some form of evangelical website rather than a necessarily notable entity, and thus it concerns me that it both may have no genuine notability and may also be both an attempt to gain notability by being listed in Wikipedia, and may be seeking to use Wikipedia as a set of inbound links to enhance its reputation.
Wiser heads than mine may disagree, but I am proposing it for discussion in order to reach a consensus on whether it should remain here or not. For the moment please take this as a neutral nomination. I will consider my opinion further and give an opinion when I have it fully formulated. Fiddle Faddle 14:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A "neutral nomination"?? Is this a deletion discussion or not? If yes, please provide a valid delete rationale. If not, please withdraw this nom. Note that links from WP do not do anything to enhance a websites standing on, e.g., search machines like Google, because they are all tagged as "nofollow". --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That the nofollow attribute is present is not known to those who seek to use us for link purposes. Links here also drive traffic. The rationale that you missed is lack of notability, stated above. Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's a neutral nomination? And are you sure that an islamic magazine might be "evangelizing"? --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources means no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 29 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete having made a neutral nomination I am persuaded that deletion is the sole route forward. Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 4 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nansenflua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(This is my first AFD, so please don't get mad if it's inappropriate!)
This is quite an obscure subsea rock. The first reference is only a quick trivial mention of the rock, the other is apparently from some book. I don't think this makes it notable. Kebabipita (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What disqualifies "some book" from being an adequate source?--Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I was unsure about this one, but a cooperative effort has doubled the number of references and I think it now squeaks by as a named geographic place. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Five books and two web sources now. Manxruler (talk) 20:44, 11 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina (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 falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FUTURE at very least. Also, most of the sources are based on Twitter, blogs, and interviews of the involved parties. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, unsurprisingly, as the first person to revert one of the four attempts so far to get this deleted (with a different rationale each time, natch). One could maybe make a tenuous case for WP:NOTNEWS but you're not making it. WP:FUTURE has nothing to do with this and I don't think it means what you think it means. Given the widespread coverage of this particular sign, as opposed to the protests in general, I don't think it's appropriate for merging to a more general article on the protests, while your weird claim about the sources is just bizarre - since when has "based on a interview with the creator" been grounds for disallowing a source regarding a work? Mogism (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews, press releases, blogs, personal posts on social media have always been considered PRIMARY and therefor not RS. Technical 13 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for "interviews are not considered a reliable source", since it's not mentioned in WP:PRIMARY and you appear to have just made it up? Some of the sources are blogs, yes, but if you seriously think (for example) Svenska Dagbladet and The Guardianaren't a reliable source you're seriously barking up the wrong tree. Mogism (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews, press releases, blogs, personal posts on social media have always been considered PRIMARY and therefor not RS. Technical 13 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interviews are mentioned in footnote 3 on the page containing WP:PRIMARY. The point is that, whereas interviews can in some cases be used to support particular statements in articles, they are relatively worthless in establishing a topic's notability. Deor (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, (perhaps surprisingly?) I did decline the speedy deletion because it was not a clear attack page, but I don't think the article should be kept. I take little issue with the sources being based on blog/twitter/etc. posts from the subjects, but I do agree with T13 that this article is premature. It appears to be a pretty clear news article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I see nothing wrong with merging it to a general article about the protests and leaving a redirect to a relevant section. I doubt that this sign will have a huge shelf life. Of course, if duplicated and used by others, I will be proven wrong about the shelf life. There are sufficient WP:RS to make it notable and verifiable. No thunderbolts have arrived, so it can't be blasphemous. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections to it being merged into such a thing... This is an "Articles for Discussion" and not "Articles for Deletion" so that would be a fair compromise to me. I just don't think it is worthy of its own article. Technical 13 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is one incident, based on something written on a young lady's placcard. It's WP:NOTNEWS at the very least. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N(E) Single event with to lasting notability. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As amusing as this is, it certainly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. It's probable that one or two sentences could be preserved in a more general article, though that would be at the editorial discretion of editors on such a page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yet another wonderful example of why WP is NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not news. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - when a shock/offensive placard such as this is paraded at a major demonstration it will inevitably get widespread media coverage. This is why, for news events, we need evidence of a lasting or broader effect to justify an article. This appears to have neither. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N does not include fad-of-day-which-goes-viral. This kind of new item is the raison d-être for WP:NOTNEWS—come back in a year when secondary sources have done an analysis of the significance of the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty cut and dry. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per notnews and Single Event. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, obviously. I could note a whole assortment of other reasons why a 14-year-old girl's sign talking about her vagina is not a good thing to have an article about on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of lasting significance fails WP:NOT/WP:NEVENT. Is it getting cold in here ? LGA talkedits 04:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was expecting that it would fail NOTNEWS, but actually reading the policy, journalism is about using wikipedia for first-hand reports, clearly not applicable; news reports seems to be concerned with routine coverage of announcements, sports, and celebrities, while this article is about a specific, non-routine event that has received international coverage; who's who doesn't apply, as it's not about a person; and diary is completely irrelevant. Including FUTURE just baffles me, as this article says absolutely nothing about any event yet to happen. The article has several Reliable Sources including international news organizations, so it looks like it's passing every objection raised in the nomination. There's one source that should maybe get axed, but other than that, this looks pretty good, at least on all the nomination criteria. Sorry LGA, it's plenty warm around here. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the sign/placard held by protesters, seem pretty routine and minuscule to me. Technical 13 (talk)
- Delete Wasn't "Change" a placard that we saw in recent elections? (And I'm sure there was lots of RS that talked about the "Change" campaign.) If millions of such placards don't deserve (and wouldn't get) an article, why does this one? – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Ansh666 06:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's crazy to have an entire article based on one protest sign. This is a slippery slope that would justify articles for hundreds of semi-humorous protest signs. If you keep this page, why not keep one for every other sign strikes an editor as funny? I did a quick survey and no one I asked had heard of this before. While this is anecdotal, I don't think it meets notability standards. It seems like the main reason people want to keep it is because it is because the language is shocking to more conservative readers. I don't believe in censorship but I also think keeping an article just because it is provocative is a flimsy reason for inclusion. Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I really really don't think this fails NOTNEWS, and I find the arguments in favor of deletion unpersuasive. But I also don't think we need an article on one protest sign. Since this sign is documented and has been commented upon, perhaps there's another article into which we could insert some of this information? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a protest over the bill that followed the one Wendy Davis helped block with her epic filibuster. Honestly, though, I would not support a straight merge as I think a very brief mention of this controversy in an article on the legislation is all that can be justified and do not like the idea of needlessly preserving this sort of content when associated with a minor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: (1) Not wp:NOTNEWS nor is it wp:FUTURE, it confirms Wikipedia:Notability#Events, there is significant coverage in reliable sources around the world, Sweden, India, UK, France, Australia that don't just mention the event in passing but critically analyse it from various angles,(a) charges of child abuse (b) religion (c) women's rights. The Guardian gave its platform to one of those involved to defend his case. Covered by The Guardian, The Daily Caller, Boing Boing, Salon, Daily Kos, News Corp Australia, Svenska Dagbladet, XOJane, Daily Bhaskar. (2) I share The Devil's Advocate's concerns, however the child is under parental guidance while being a part of this protest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't about charges of child abuse, religion, or women's rights, it's about a sign/placard that was held up in a protest. If it was truly an article about the Texas Abortion bill, and there was a fair amount of lasting coverage, then we wouldn't be here. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about reaction to the legislation that is seen as an intrusion into their rights based on religious doctrine. It is about how the reaction was perceived by others and the reverberation that the reaction received. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article title and lead in to the article strongly disagree with you. Like I said above, I wouldn't be opposed to this being a section in an article about the bill or about protests in general, but it does not qualify for its own article. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) When I write that the article is about reaction to the legislation, I am referring to the said placard, the title of the article. (2)The article briefly discusses the various reactions to the placard. Where is the alleged disagreement? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article title and lead in to the article strongly disagree with you. Like I said above, I wouldn't be opposed to this being a section in an article about the bill or about protests in general, but it does not qualify for its own article. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about reaction to the legislation that is seen as an intrusion into their rights based on religious doctrine. It is about how the reaction was perceived by others and the reverberation that the reaction received. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't about charges of child abuse, religion, or women's rights, it's about a sign/placard that was held up in a protest. If it was truly an article about the Texas Abortion bill, and there was a fair amount of lasting coverage, then we wouldn't be here. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vanisaac and Yogesh Khandke. Not really routine news, so it passes WP:NOTNEWS. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very laudable and I'd be proud of her if she were my daughter, but not every tiny little news speck is encyclopedic, no matter how broad the coverage on the temporary radar screen of our twitter culture. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is worth maybe a couple sentences in a larger article about the protests. We do not need articles on every individual protest sign that news agencies find temporarily interesting. LadyofShalott 13:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per LadyOfShalott and Drmies' explanations. I too would think that it would be nice to see this mentioned in a couple of sentences in a larger article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 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. Those in favor of merge can continue discussion on the article's talk page—consensus here is to keep, albeit with weak arguments from policy. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals (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)
Fork of Martyred Intellectuals Day. O had redirected it but that was reverted Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you mean the article Jesus should be deleted as we have an article on Christmas? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the same article, read UCN. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article Martyred Intellectuals Day is about the state observation while this article is about the historic event. Both the topics are significant enough to have their own separate articles.--Zayeem (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- the topic is sufficiently notable to have its own article, but there isn't the content sufficient for two articles YET. As it stands it seems like a POV fork. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This AFD stinks of censorship. Nominator redirected claiming they were the same, that failed, and now this AfD. Articles are 95% different, and neither is a stub.--Elvey (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' nothing wrong with notability or verifiable and reputed sources, the scope is clearly different from the observation of a day. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per arguments above for Keep votes. I agree with them. - Jethwarp (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- to Martyred Intellectuals Day. Agreed with Michael. The same content is copied from either articles. Seems to be a POV fork, immense reference errors. Faizan 16:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable event, argument that a corresponding remembrance day exists and this event as such should be merged to it makes no sense. A m i t 웃 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per arguments above for Keep votes. I agree with them. - Samudrakula (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -The topic is notable to have its own article and well referenced.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 12:26, 9 August 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 C.D. Marathón. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marathón Reservas (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 confess to knowing little about football and nothing about Honduran football clubs and the notability guidelines for sport leave me little the wiser. But it seems to me that a reserve team cannot possibly be notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reserve teams can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Therefore I suggest we merge and redirect with/to parent article C.D. Marathón. GiantSnowman 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to parent article C.D. Marathón per GiantSnowman. --MicroX (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per GS, although I think there is little in the article to merge, not sure what an unreffed list of non-wikilinked players addes. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into main article, then delete – Certain article for reserve squad is unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am confused here. Is the Honduran 2nd Division a national league or is it a national league with a bunch of regional divisions within it? If it is the former than the reserve team of Marathon should be notable as they play in a national league but if it is the latter then it should be deleted or redirected. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 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. Please see Wikipedia:BLPCOMPLAINT#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself for further help and information. That is the best way for you to go about updating the article. Your account will also need to be verified via the ORTS system should you wish to contact the foundation as yourself requesting certain things to be done to the article (i.e. deletion, etc.). (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm also going to leave a note on Rabanes talk page following up on this. Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Abanes (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 the article's subject, claiming that he is not a public figure [2]. The core reference, of which this article is largely a copy, has been a dead link since 2011 (though a copy is still available via archive.org). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking wiki editors to please allow this article about me to be deleted. I'm no longer a public figure: i.e., no longer writing books, speaking publicly, or doing any radio/TV interviews (and I haven't done so for several years). Moreover, I'm on a new career path that has nothing to do with this material about me as an author, which is incompatible with, and disruptive to, the current direction of my career. Consequently, I'd very much appreciate the article's deletion, especially since the primary source of this material was self-written biographical material that has not been public for years. My previous website, for instance, has been non-existent since 2009. I'm simply asking wiki editors to please respect my wishes. Thank you. Rabanes (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Richard Abanes[reply]
Mike, I'm asking you to please allow me a few changes to the article until the whole issue is resolved. Please. Rabanes (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Richard Abanes[reply]
- Keep Seems highly notable within wikipedia guidelines, and with an impressive bibliography. We cant allow the subjects of biographies to decide on their elimination. What if George W Bush (also on a new career path) wanted his article deleted?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think the President of the USA (arguably the most powerful man in the world) is analogous by any stretch of the imagination to a minor, niche author who the average person walking down the street has never heard of. Be that as it may, night I at least request that you and the other editors (who seem so interested in me), please work with me to make the article less intrusive in my current life & career goals. I do not think this is asking too much of you. I have a version in mind that I've posted that would be acceptable. Can you work with me? Rabanes (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Richard Abanes[reply]
- For that you need to stop edit warring and start building consensus on the talk page. Its not you ppl are interested in but the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly seems notable, if not as notable as George W. (And if George W wanted his article deleted, surely we'd add that fact to the article!) Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because Wikipedia isn't censored and per Squeakbox, subjects of biographies can't decide on their elimination. (Sorry, Rabanes.) However, if we were to keep this, it needs to be cleaned up and some of the promotional content removed - general wikifying. Seems notable enough, though. — kikichugirl inquire 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD probably isn't the best way to approach this since the sources are notable. Maybe writing a letter to the San Francisco offices of MediaWiki. Explain to them you have a notable article and thus can't delete it via normal AfD process. No idea if they will or can help. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:12, 10 August 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) 09:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Youth Correspondent (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 Magazine - references are from own site. Fails WP:PERIODICAL. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it gets some independent sources. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:22, 6 August 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 Foot Locker. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CCS.com (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 tagged this when it was first created but little has been done since to add anything in the way of sources. I couldn't find any then and I can't find any now. I can't see how the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wondered about the notability of this group. They do sponsor the number of quite well known riders so I think a case could be made for notability. --Salix (talk): 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'd considered that, but surely they don't WP:INHERIT notability from their "team members"? Anyone can sponsor a skateboarder, or a team of them (most small companies and local skate shops do). Surely that doesn't make them notable? Stalwart111 14:41, 28 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Foot Locker A Google News search for "ccs.com" turns up only one relevant result (not counting the ccs.com site itself), a story [3] which mentions that the brand is owned by Foot Locker. The whois record for ccs.com shows Foot Locker as the owner. —rybec 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no objection to that. Stalwart111 02:27, 5 August 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. Sandstein 07:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Community Health Index (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)
Some discussion some years ago, google search shows one discussion on this outside commercial interests where it is deemed difficult to implement and not well understood. This seems to be advertising.
There is a defence on the talk page by the author of a whitepaper. This has not become an industry standard as hoped (assuming good faith). BananaFiend (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 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, Monty845 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, it looks like somewhat of a neologism or buzzword coined by this one company? W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 4 August 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. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Adam Davies (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a football player who has not yet played in a fully proffesional league (WP:FPL) and therefore article is not considered notable (WP:N) according to WP:NFOOTBALL. QED237 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've reverted these edits, which made the article look like it was about a footballer born in 1992, when it is about a footballer born in 1987. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then I guess it dos not have to be deleted since it is not the same player as the one I nominated. What should I do now? QED237 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you withdraw your nomination, someone else can close this AfD (or you can close it yourself by following these instructions). Mentoz86 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am not an administrator I dont think I can close this AfD. How do I withdraw the nomination? QED237 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply state that you withdraw the nomination. :) I'm not an admin either, but I'll close this for you as "nomination withdrawn". Mentoz86 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am not an administrator I dont think I can close this AfD. How do I withdraw the nomination? QED237 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you withdraw your nomination, someone else can close this AfD (or you can close it yourself by following these instructions). Mentoz86 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then I guess it dos not have to be deleted since it is not the same player as the one I nominated. What should I do now? QED237 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 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. and userfy to User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Death by ice cream (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:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. I will note that the boy in the one documented case in the Guardian article didn’t really die of ice cream proper, but rather of the biscuit (he had gluten allergy), so if that death should be included in an article, it should rather be in an “Death by breads” article or Death by allergy. But also, the main point in the article is that the shop requested payment for the ice cream after the boy had died – it’s not really about the death in itself. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note to closer: The page creator has requested that the article be userfied if the result is delete. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very courteous to nominate this minutes after creation, but anyway, keep as a legit topic bound to have more documented occurrences. No point in deleting... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if it's against custom to nominate so soon after creation. But my thinking is pretty much that this topic is to particular to warrant its own article anyway. We can't have a lot of "death by ice cream", "death by cake", "death by pudding, "death by candy" etc. articles in my view. The scope for a possible article must be much broader, like for instance "Death by allergy". Regards,Iselilja (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two examples are put together using WP:Original research. One is WP:Not news, the other might or might not deserve its own article under its own name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as news. Sad, but deaths because of allergy are hardly rare; this wouldn't qualify for the List of unusual deaths. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Not much more I can say. Ansh666 06:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahahah I've been struggling to find a legit topic to write about these days. To be honest I just wanted this to be like a "sequel" to Death by coconut. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivia not deserving an article. Show me serious studies of death by ice cream or even reviews of the Miles Kington article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold your horses I am adding more encyclopedic content. Prepare to change your minds. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article thoroughly. As you can see from the examples listed, this is not just a one-off thing. Death by ice cream has happened throughout the ages of ice cream. While not exactly conventional, it is worthy of the project. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Bonkers. I'm sticking with delete. The article is still original research created by putting unrelated items together. Also I don't see even one case where the ice cream itself was the cause of someone's death. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly confident that it did not "froze up his stomach" [sic] even if a "reliable source" reported that it did. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's such thing as a brain freeze, why not stomach freeze? :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered the case of the woman who died eating salmon and ice cream? The ice cream wasn't poisoned, the combination was. This time ice cream was the cause of death. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an old wives' tale AKA urban myth. There is nothing wrong with the combination of fish and dairy. I eat them together all the time and have never had any problems from it. Almost certainly the poor woman died of food poisoning, which is caused by micro-organisms in the food (in this case as likely the fish as the ice cream) not the food itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered the case of the woman who died eating salmon and ice cream? The ice cream wasn't poisoned, the combination was. This time ice cream was the cause of death. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's such thing as a brain freeze, why not stomach freeze? :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly confident that it did not "froze up his stomach" [sic] even if a "reliable source" reported that it did. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Bonkers. I'm sticking with delete. The article is still original research created by putting unrelated items together. Also I don't see even one case where the ice cream itself was the cause of someone's death. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of these deaths are from poisoning or freezing (in a freezer). Ice cream was just the substance that was poisoned or happened to be present at the time of death. So, the ice cream wasn't the cause of death. Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking at the sources, you see titles like "Dies from eating ice cream", clearly implying ice cream to be the main subject. Ice cream played an important role in all these deaths. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from deletion, has anyone considered a merger to an appropriate page such as, say, ice cream? If all else fails, can you userfy this article for me? Possibly guidelines on Wikipedia will change in the near future... :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess userfying is best done by the closing administrator if the result is delete. I will add your request to the intro. As for merging, my thinking is that articles on death should in most cases focus on the underlying medical reason, like food allergy or poison, not particularities as whether the poision was in a ice cream, chocolate cake or pudding. And I think specific cases of food poisoning or poison are rarely relevant in such articles, unless they have drawn specific medical attention. (Some cases may also be notable as criminal cases or because the deceased is a notable person, but these cases will be more relevant for list articles). Honestly, the news reports you have included seems to me to fall into the WP:Notnews category. Newspapers regularly report of people who die by falling off a mountain, drowming during swimming, fire in their homes, traffic accidents etc. but these deaths are seldom relevant for Wikipedia, and I don't see why deaths that involves ice cream should be different. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was honestly expecting this to be nonsense, and instead it is a meaningful and surprising collection of sourced deaths. It is not WP:SYNTH because no conclusion is reached: it simply lists together related cases. Nor it is WP:OR, for the same reason: this is not a primary essay on ice-cream related deaths, it just summarizes what sources say. Other rationales like "it's trivia" or "we can't have deaths by X articles" are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments. I think the delete !votes should look beyond the fact that the article title sounds funny or trivial, and reason by policy.-- cyclopiaspeak! 12:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Teehee, I was honestly going to write nonsense too, but then I thought, "Naw, we Wikipedians must be serious folk." ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Sorry Bonkers. I think it's worth mentioning a few of the more notable cases in the history of ice cream or a condensed version in a paragraph at the bottom, but as a topic in its own right it's pretty trivial the content in the article and most of them are not even caused by consumption of the actual ice cream.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:15, 10 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jurassic Shark (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 notability, no Rotten Tomatoes rating, virtually empty IMdB listing, flopped and unremarkable 'straight-to-DVD' B-movie. Yintan 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:48, 4 August 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)
- AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep and fix. It may be a crappy movie, written by a little-known director and with a little-known cast, but so what. A film's notability is not dependent upon having notable production members, but rather on being covered in independent sources in a more-than-trivial manner. Just a little research find this film spoken of in sources acceptable for indie horror films such as Dread Central[4] (and yes, many that are not so reliable). What serves the project is addressing issues and not deletion. SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A C-Film that got a lot of negative reviews. The WORST film ever made ... as one of them wrote. But in the moment he wrote this, he made the film notable. There is no criteria in WP:MOVIE that says, a movie has to be good to be notable. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see plenty of unreliable sources, but not much else except for the Dread Central article, which is short and about the film's trailer, not the film itself. Even if you accept it, it's still just one source. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable, unremarkable movie, lacks coverage and its only reliable coverage is from Dread Central, other sources are unreliable or have passing statements. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry... but even for a film that is "unremarkable" if you check you'll find that Fangoria and JoBlo have been determined as reliable for such, and both discuss this one in a somewhat more-than-trivial fashion. SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The fact that this movie sucks has no bearing on its notability. I've seen worse articles on lesser movies. Atrian (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural close - wrong venue (is a file, not an article). (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 14:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Denno.ogg
[edit]- Denno.ogg (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)
Health concern. The information for this says "and the low resolution and quality of the clip reduces the risk of seizures." Reduces but does not eliminate. On the talk page someone said you still have a one in four thousand chance. Well, more than four thousand people have seen the article it keeps getting added to, so that is a legitimate threat. Dream Focus 10:59, 4 August 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 August 4. Snotbot t • c » 11:20, 4 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucy Saunders (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 almost put this in CfD thinking it was CVs for deletion; this is an appalling WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NOTHOST, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN failure, with little improvement in four years. I propose redirecting to Sanctuary (Gareth Emery song) since there is another Lucy Saunders notable for being a featured artist on that song. Launchballer 10:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As was shown in the first AfD, her work has been covered in numerous newspapers (see [5]) including some already cited in the article. That the footnotes are now deadlinks doesn't change the fact that the news coverage existed. She appears to be a bona fide recognized beer expert. Examples: [6][7][8](GNews excerpt:"one of the foremost authorities on the subject") [9] ("one of the most knowledgeable and exuberant authorities on the subject of beer and food"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Saunders is a well referenced author and expert. Wikpedia lacks articles on alcohol experts and writers. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:21, 4 August 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 RBS-15. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobilni obalni lanser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was prodded with the rationale "Could not find any reliable sources on the subject. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG", but the prod was declined. I feel this concern is still valid, because the sole source does not mention the subject at all, and even if did, it is a primary source, and is as such not sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge into the unit article? The unit could be notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be upmerged into the unit article (but it does not really seem to be notable) or into Croatian Navy (the image is already there). However, the problem is that the content to be merged is currently completely unsourced. GregorB (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / redirect to RBS-15. I'm pretty sure sources can be found for this, but give the extent of coverage present, I don't see a need for a separate article from the missile this launcher fires. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The truck mount is mentioned here; you can use that as ref for the main article. Extent of coverage is below WP:GNG at the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, this appears to be their new launcher.
The one mentioned in the book above looked like this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, the book says the T-815 based launcher has four missiles, so it is this one. The pce.hr source confirms the type of truck used. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:23, 5 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are sources referring to the mobilni obalni lanser (MOL): [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I'm just wondering if mobilni obalni lanser is a descriptive term (literally translates as "mobile coastal launcher") because all these sources specify the term in lowercase - and I'd expect a name to have an initial capital letter. The Hidra source may mean that the term mobilni obalni lanser is used as official reference anyway though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right that the phrase is generic in the Croatian language. I suspect however that the second source, nacional.hr, refers to a specific one as "mobilnih obalnih lansera MOL". But it's too brief a mention to be certain. The slobodnadalmacija.hr source clearly refers to this one, because it says it has four tubes and a command cabin. The morh.hr source has a picture of the new truck (in the gallery below the article), but with only two tubes installed. But all these mentions are textually too brief to be able to make much use of them. There is little doubt the system exists. But there seems to be too little coverage of it, and the info is at a level of vagueness that doesn't justify a separate article from the missile. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm reading those sources right, they now have a grand total of 3 MOL units that are operational; the 2007 book said two. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mobile Autonomous Launcher (MAL), which is based on the same type of Tatra truck (although a 12x12 in that case) is only covered in the article of the missile it carries, BrahMos. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to RBS-15#Current operators, worth mentioning there. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:02, 12 August 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of Object Pascal and C++ (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. Reason was: " This topic fails notability as a main criterion. It is original research. Since it lacks notability the fact that it is unverified is broadly irrelevant. Despite the obvious hard work put into the article it has no place in Wikipedia." Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research. It looks like this is a newer user who's not familiar with Wikipedia policy. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the referenced source for this is a set of pretty much identical tables. This makes it a borderline WP:COPYVIO. However, if the topic is deemed to be notable and to remain then there is no way of avoiding similar tables in source and Wikipedia article. The comparison is the comparison. Having read the source I am in two minds about Speedy Deletion as a copyright violation. I am 55:45 in favour of letting the AfD run its course on this one. Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a copyvio: the page bears little similarity to the source and even if it would then it still would not be a copyright violation due to "lack of originality". For the same reason this article would not be "original research". On its suitability as an encyclopedic article: we have several similar comparisons, which can be found in Category:Programming language comparisons. —Ruud 12:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That other articles exist is interesting but is not a reason for this one to exist, nor, indeed, for them to exist unchallenged either. The key criterion for an article's existence is notability. To remain here this article in this discussion must be deemed to be notable. I contend that it is not. Regarding copyright issues, there is an apparent direct correlation between the table(s) in this article and in the quoted source, sufficient to call issues of copyright into question. In addition, the source does not fall into the class of reliable sources. Rather, it is a primary source. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a copyvio: the page bears little similarity to the source and even if it would then it still would not be a copyright violation due to "lack of originality". For the same reason this article would not be "original research". On its suitability as an encyclopedic article: we have several similar comparisons, which can be found in Category:Programming language comparisons. —Ruud 12:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The reference shows it is not OR, and primary sources can be used under certain conditions (see WP:PRIMARY). But the article will need an introduction, as per WP:NOTJOURNAL. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:33, 26 July 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) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seriously, this is obvious garbage that does not belong to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 1 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Did Timtrent (talk · contribs) consider a merge to Object Pascal WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion? ~KvnG 05:53, 5 August 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) 09:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- David Staples (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 local politician. Ran for a minor post, and didn't win. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Georgia Public Service Commission is voted on statewide along with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, etc. Is currently exploring running again in 2018 (this office is a six year term). Comparable pages: Tim Echols, currently holds this office; John Monds, did not win, but previously set the record in Georgia before David. The "notable" link from WikiDan61 includes: "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There are plenty of reliable sources independent of the article that will be included shortly. Just didn't have all the time in the world when initially creating the article. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkGA (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable losing candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. We can't evaluate claimed sources that are not in the article or linked here, but if they are routine coverage of a losing candidate, they are insufficient to be establish notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 July 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) 16:21, 26 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 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 Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wilshire Highlands, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication as to Notability. No sources. This is another in a series of sub-neighborhoods or housing tracts within the P.I.C.O Neighborhood Council but which have no Notability on their own. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or Redirect to Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 23 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 4 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdalhadi Alijla (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 doctoral researcher fails both WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. His publications appears to be primarily conference presentations and working papers as he is very early in his career. I was unable to find significant citations to his work. I was also unable to turn up any significant independent reliable source coverage for GNG. It appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON indeed. No evidence of influence that can be independently verified. Fails all applicable WP:PROF categories.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability criterion, and the sources do not pass muster. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 6 August 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. Secret account 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has only two sources that are not on the software developer's site - one of them is to 'OMG! Ubuntu!', a blog. The other on storagenewsletter.com, is a repost of a press release and is not independent. These are not the multiple reliable sources that are required. This article does not meet the general notability guideline or the guideline on software and should be deleted. This was PRODed with a request for more sources, but that was removed by a SPA with no sources added, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At best deserves one or two sentences in the Barracuda Networks company article. Clearly too early to be independently notable from the company. So far the company article did not even mention it (update: added one line). So not enough to even be considered a merge. W Nowicki (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013-07-25: I've updated the page with some more information, and was able to cite a few more third-party sources, specifically a technical conversation on the Qt Framework Mailing List, as well as an article on Android Central. User: Thomas Hunter II —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 25 July 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, Stifle (talk) 17:52, 27 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The title is quite generic and so the page gives undue weight to a particular instance. Warden (talk) 20:54, 4 August 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 14:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thierry Antinori (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)
<cautious on>This looks like a piece of self promo from somebody just holding a job. Never landed a real top job. Number of Google hits (abt. 31k) not really convincing and the checked hits cast even more doubt. The value of his numerous marketing and management awards stays unclear.<cautious off> The Banner talk 16:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you want to google what an Executive Vice President of a global Airline is - and then re-think your statement that this guy never held a "real top job"... Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Parker (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is high, but not number one. The Banner talk 22:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you want to google what an Executive Vice President of a global Airline is - and then re-think your statement that this guy never held a "real top job"... Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Parker (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was 12 years a member of the board at Europe's biggest Airline, was appointed CEO of Austria's national carrier and is now #2 or #3 at one of the world's most important companies... (His decision to skip the CEO post in Austria was reason for something like a small national crisis in that coutry.) If this is not relevant, what is? Perhaps you should check the German and French press articles, then you get a clue of how important that guy really is. Delete the article if you want to, but it would be a mistake. Rgds, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Parker (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if you would have done a proper research you would have known that he was promoted even further to the position of CCO of Emirates [15] in June 2013. Just noticed it. So, come on, add that to the article, make it even more relevant, but don't delete it. Especially now with these new it would be very wrong to delete it! Rgds, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Parker (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cant see anything of note for somebody who is a salesman like many others in similar non-notable positions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 19 July 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, Stifle (talk) 17:55, 27 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 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 Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of Notability. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or in The Thomas Guide. This is another article which attempts to list individual tracts within the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council as Notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or Redirect to Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles. I remember noting previously that someone had created a whole bunch of articles about sub-sub-divisions of the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council (in itself not notable). None of the these smallish development areas appeared to have any claim to notability. Thanks for nominating them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 July 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, Stifle (talk) 18:02, 27 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 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. Secret account 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined a request for speedy deletion under criterion G4 for this article, as the current version is quite a lot longer than the one that was previously deleted. However, all of the sources in the article seem to either be affiliated with the awards, or to fail our guidelines for identifying reliable sources, and I couldn't find any more likely-looking sources online. Because of this, I think the subject fails the general notability guideline and should probably be deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Car dealers come together and give each other awards. No independent sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I want you to spend some time on article and the video uploaded on moneycontrol.com (one of the most reliable and reputed business websites in India managed by CNBC TV 18.) it is not a Car dealers come together and give each other awards. It is given by FADA (Federation of Automotive Dealers Association of India) to the auto dealer. --Nitin.kunjir (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 July 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, Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trade association awards should be presumed non-notable absent significant external recognition (in particular, more than routine news reports of the awards/ceremonies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 4 August 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 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- George Takach (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 sure why this page was created. According to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/George Takach this page was declined but it was created anyway. Only claim to fame is that he was a minor candidate for Liberal Party leadership. Recommend delete or redirect to Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. Suttungr (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a lot more notable in my opinion than some of the pages that have been created and are still active. As well Martin Singh, who ran for the NDP leadership, still has a Wikipedia page and it doesn't seem to have been disputed. If Takach's is deleted then there are many others that's should be too. As for whether it should be deleted or not I don't really know. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is much like others that are created prior to elections for candidates. They get deleted or redirected once they fail to get elected. This article must be able to stand on its own merits. Right now Takach's only notability is for his candidacy for leadership. He didn't even stay until the finale but withdrew prior to the convention. Thanks for the mention about Martin Singh. I've Afd' that article too. Suttungr (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 28 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, our practice many years ago, when Wikipedia's content rules were still being made up on the fly, used to be that anybody who was a candidate in a political party's leadership race, no matter how major or minor, always qualified for an independent article on that basis even if they had never attained any other claim of notability whatsoever — which is why you still see this happening in actual practice even though that criterion never actually made it into WP:POLITICIAN as a valid claim of notability. Given the considerable tightening of WP:BLP rules that has taken place since the practice was first established, however, it just can't stay that way anymore — a person who is notable only as a minor leadership candidate, but has never served in any other political role that would make them notable, now fails WP:BLP1E and should therefore be mentioned in the article on the leadership race itself rather than being given their own standalone article. Merge to Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. This has been the fate of such articles as these that I have seen. Atrian (talk) 18:49, 5 August 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) 09:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gran Priorato Rectificado de Hispania (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 GNG; its only source is WP:SPS (the org's website). This is a body of the Rectified Scottish Rite, and it doesn't cover "Spanish speaking countries" as stated in the article, it covers "Hispania" (hence the name). Assuming 1778 is correct for founding, it has chartered 9 lodges (numerically) and only has six at present, two of which were chartered within the last two years (according to the website). Its eswp article (where I would expect to find more info) has no other sources, and a Google search also turns up no other sources. MSJapan (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Keep It's got pages in both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia which indicate (although certainly do not prove) notability. However as Christian Freemasons they're probably about as common as land based fish. JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I looked at that, just in case, and that creates a bigger problem. The Catalan and Spanish articles are about a different group with a different website. Enwiki EL is going to Gran Priorato de Hispania and the ELs in Spanish and Catalan go to Gran Priorat Rectificat d'Hispània, which is a Spanish site that says Gran Priorato Rectificado De Hispania. I've adjusted the interwiki so those link to each other and not here, but the "Rectificado" makes a big difference; it was only formed in 2010, and apparently what they both are is signatory to a document dated 1778 which has nothing to do with their respective founding dates. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think the Spanish and Catalan articles indicate notability, given that they are completely without references. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable; nothing in Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar. MSJapan has discovered this organisation was only founded in 2010; this makes the lack of notability unsurprising. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A clear case for deletion has been made and I concur that this is a non-notable organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The first thing we should have is an article on Freemasonry in Spain, before we can have articles on individual branches. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 11 August 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) 09:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Željko Jurić (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)
Vanity article which does not establish notability. It's possible I overlooked something in searching for this person but the article text does not indicate this artist qualifies as notable. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article is right. It was created by a WP:SPA whose only contribution was creating the article, though I suspect he's also the IP who keeps removing the AfD template. No notability apparent from the article or a quick Google search. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 2 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nom's sound assessment. Finnegas (talk) 09:28, 7 August 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. Secret account 03:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of films that won the Golden Globe and the Oscar for Best Picture (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 list seems to peculiarly conflate two separate lists. We have a list of Oscar-winning films and we have a list of Golden Globe-winning films. I don't really see the point of having the two lists combined into one page. If this had been - as can easily be assumed by the title - a list of those films which had won both awards, then it might be useful, and perhaps the current list can be rescoped in that way (with an improved title, say List of films that have won both Golden Globe and Academy Awards for Best Picture (not "Oscar"!)), then it might be okay. Otherwise, I see no point in this list existing. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial intersection. Winning two notable things does not in itself justify having a list about them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point here is that it isn't even an intersection. The title suggests it is, but this is just two separate lists. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was expecting a list of films that won both, not two lists crammed together. Useless. Beerest355 Talk 16:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial intersection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lists already exist separately, no need for them to be crammed into one article.LM2000 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a trivial comparison of what won Best Picture in each respective year. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 8 August 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 Grandfather paradox. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hitler's murder paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not a recognized time travel paradox. It is simply a variant of the Grandfather paradox. The page is uncited and appears to be simply the speculations of a few anoinymous editors. Serendipodous 08:19, 4 August 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 August 4. Snotbot t • c » 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "recognized time travel paradox" sounds like an oxymoron: time travel is not possible anyway, and time travel paradoxes do not exist. There is no Time Variance Authority in the real world to tell what is and what isn't a time travel paradox: the thing is if they are used in works of fiction or not. There is a big list of examples at Hitler's Time Travel Exemption Act. In fact, of all the times a work of fiction has someone going to the past to change world history, two of each three times it is to try to kill Hitler. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you got a reference to 2/3 times it was to kill Hitler. I can only think of one film where it was discussed. Even Dr Who did not attempt to kill Hitler, even when they met. Of these top 20 time travel films, none seems to include killing Hitler.Martin451 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge with Grandfather paradox which covers the subject much better. A google search shows the term is quite common. I'd suggest a brief mention in Grandfather paradox would be sufficient.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grandfather paradox (editing to remove original research/speculation). I did a quick search for sources and the first 2 both claim it's a variation of the grandfather paradox (which is well-studied and absolutely notable):
- There's some other brief discussions of this ([18]; A critical history of Doctor Who on television by John Kenneth Muir pp230-1) but not enough to make it notable in its own right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or possibly move, since it seems to be more commonly called the Hitler paradox (though that might be ambiguous), and killing Hitler does not necessarily involve the crime of murder. It is a notable science fiction trope, so the article should not be deleted. I have added some references to the article. If the consensus is that it is not notable in its own right, there is an argument for merging several temporal paradoxes into one article, but this paradox is different from the grandfather paradox: it is a variation on the grandfather paradox, rather than a variation of the grandfather paradox; it raises ethical issues and is based not on the impossibility of the situation (given the normal rules of causality) but, for instance, on the lack of motivation to return in time if Hitler was already killed by a time traveller, thus changing history (though already is an unclear concept in the event of time travel). --Boson (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Changed. See below.--Boson (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a variation of the grandfather paradox; first, because going back in time that far and altering history to such a massive extent is likely to change history so radically that the time traveller is prevented in some way from performing his mission and second, because removing all reason to travel, and all knowledge that there was a reason to travel in the first place, has the same effect as physically preventing travel. Serendipodous 06:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but there is a major difference in that (assuming classical physics and causality) the grandfather paradox is a true logical paradox, whereas the Hitler paradox does not present the same logical impossibility. I'm not sure it's even legitimate to call it a paradox at all (except that Wikipedia rules allow us to use incorrect classifications if they are popular). I suppose one could define the grandfather paradox to include such improbabilities but that rather defeats the point of the name. It would also mean re-writing the Grandfather paradox article, and I'm not sure whether that would be supported by sources. So I would prefer to refer to the two types of "paradox" as sub-classes of something else - either a temporal paradox (in a loose sense) or an intermediate sub-class of temporal paradox. --Boson (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a variation of the grandfather paradox; first, because going back in time that far and altering history to such a massive extent is likely to change history so radically that the time traveller is prevented in some way from performing his mission and second, because removing all reason to travel, and all knowledge that there was a reason to travel in the first place, has the same effect as physically preventing travel. Serendipodous 06:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Different than Grandfather Paradox because of both ethical and logical consequences. The time traveler having killed Hitler, in the time he would leave to kill Hitler there is no reason to leave to kill Hitler! (Perhaps someone else would be targeted?) The two are similar in some ways, but they are different. One of the great classics of these paradoxes is Heinlein's short story All you Zombies.htom (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grandfather paradox; specifically killing Hitler is not notable enough to justify a stand-alone page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grandfather paradox. This is not sufficiently notable in itself for a distinct article. Claims that 2/3 of time travel SF are about this are absurd. This is simply a time travel paradox.Martin451 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this, Grandfather paradox, Bootstrap paradox, and Predestination paradox to Temporal paradox. The other opinions have persuaded me that this is only marginally notable in its own right, but it is not the same as the grandfather paradox. However, all are fairly similar types of temporal paradox. The five articles cover very similar ground, and the reader would benefit from having all the discussion in one place, rather than scattered and/or repeated in several places. --Boson (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a really good idea. Serendipodous, would you be willing to withdraw this and instead submit a merge proposal as described by Boson above? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because the predestination paradox/bootstrap paradox are not exclusive to time travel, but also apply to prophecy. Only the grandfather paradox is exclusively a time travel paradox. Serendipodous 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Let's see how this one goes, and if anyone wants to they can make a proposal along the lines of what Boson proposed later. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because the predestination paradox/bootstrap paradox are not exclusive to time travel, but also apply to prophecy. Only the grandfather paradox is exclusively a time travel paradox. Serendipodous 19:22, 11 August 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) 09:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Next Sarawak state election (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)
Nominating on behalf of IP: Well into WP:CRYSTAL territory here. There's no meaningful content here, just rehashing of the results of the previous election, for which there's already an existing article. Not even a precise latest-date for the election, though I assume at least that much could be determined. No suggestion of what likely content is even likely to be for the next three years. No references whatsoever. Unless Wikipedia wants to systematically create "Next [subnational entity] election" on a wholly speculative basis as soon as the previous one has concluded, having a handful of these articles on an ad hoc basis seems to raise more questions than it answers. [19] NeilN talk to me 06:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I though that was the usual practice on Wikipedia. E.g. Next Tasmanian state election. The fact that it is unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. It's not crystal-balling at all, any more than 2024 Summer Olympics is crystal-balling. It is a scheduled event, it is just that in this case (as with Tasmania) the year is as yet uncertain. StAnselm (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such examples make it "not unprecedented", not (at least necessarily) "usual". I won't claim to have done an exact count, but I get the strong impression that the majority of such articles that could in principle exist, i.e. one per entity whose previous election already has an article, do in fact not. So I see no practical presumption that they should exist, regardless of meaningful content. That other "election" example has at least some irredundant content, and is sourced. The 2024 Olympics is actually scheduled, as opposed to merely "likely to occur at some point", which is considerably weaker. The lack of sources is material: if there's nothing of substance to be said about this topic, and no sources can be provided, then no notability or verifiability has been established. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Do not see the need of a future political event article when so little information of value is present. The information provided in the article should be mentioned at Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. This is not a question of notability, or policy/guideline/essay being violated or not, but a case of common sense deletion of an article not having warranted existence to serve as a blurb of information. Judicatus | Talk 06:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per own nom. (Thanks to NeilN for facilitating.) No present evidence of notability for event at uncertain time in future. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 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) 09:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- El Muerto (Marvel Comics) (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)
El Muerto is a non-notable super villain and is insignificant to the Marvel Universe. The character has no coverage and only appeared in a few volumes. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search found nothing meriting a page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Judicatus | Talk 07:27, 4 August 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) 09:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosewood Ghosts (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)
Band fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. No merit to article according to mentioned WP:GNG standard policy. Judicatus | Talk 07:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The band doesn't seem to have received sufficient coverage and there seems no other justification for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 12:23, 4 August 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. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Measure (SA) (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)
Band fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND via coverage from Allmusic ([23]), Exclaim! ([24], [25]), Big Cheese magazine ([26], [27]), and maybe Punknews ([28]). --Michig (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability has been show by Michig. SL93 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, thus changing vote, again thank you Michig. Judicatus | Talk 06:09, 5 August 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. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grip Weeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources are unreliable: one is an associated act of the band, the other is a non-notable "recording studio". I will just mention the sourcing of the band's own press release from it's associated website not even existing anymore on their page, just for the humor of it.Judicatus | Talk 08:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Coverage includes Allmusic ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]), The Guardian, Goldmine, Exclaim!, Blue Suede News, Courier-News, Astbury Park Press, Sun Herald, Home News Tribune, and while they may be slightly less meaningful than some of their other charts, they appeared on both the 'Coolest Garage Songs' and 'Coolest Garage Singles' charts in Billboard ([35], [36]). Judging notability solely based on the sources within an article is inadvisable. --Michig (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I stand corrected. Thanks for the information Mich. Judicatus | Talk 17:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability has been shown by Michig. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:BAND, as noted above. — sparklism hey! 07:41, 8 August 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. Consensus here is for the article to be retained, and that the topic is notable per the availability of reliable sources that cover it. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Science Barge (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 related promotional article to the one above. I think this might just be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while some of it may need to be re-written, there's plenty of coverage via a google news search. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are some links that show up in a Google news search. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the amount of coverage, though I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT solution for the reasons outlined by DGG. Needs work. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 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) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Definite keep, there is plenty of reliable sourcing for this article and the attention it has received merits it due to WP:GNG. The goal section and others could be reworked to not include any original research or weaseling (not to mention adding some depth to the sections), and even in this stage those seem fairly minor in scale compared to the size of the article. Surely, deletion is out of the discussion in this case. Judicatus | Talk 08:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Made a few minor changes to article lead. Judicatus | Talk 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable per a simple Google News search. WP:TNT is an essay that isn't even in line with policy. SL93 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, more just a generic push for a clean-up than anything else. I still support keeping it. Stalwart111 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per dusti (talk · contribs) (even through some of those links are dead) and a bop on the head for DGG (talk · contribs) for bringing a flawed but clearly notable article to AfD. ~KvnG 00:24, 5 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Salfino (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)
Page that was recently blanked by its subject with the rationale "want to delete page". As he wasn't the page's only author, it doesn't qualify for speedy on that basis — however, he was the page's original author, thus raising conflict of interest issues. The page also isn't particularly well-sourced and doesn't make a particularly strong claim of notability, and thus despite not qualifying for speedy it is still a fairly clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.He is a syndicated columnist, in the Wall Street Journal, among others. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Nothing much seems to have been written about him, so I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 30 July 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) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cut and dry per nom. Also: "He believes that looking beyond conventional statistics allows for better performance projections in both baseball and football."; says who? Judicatus | Talk 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being a columnist for a major newspaper does not in and of itself establish notability, and there is little reliable sourcing that discusses him. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Article has been improved and nominator has withdrawn. Being a discusssion which has not seen any traffic, and thus no outstanding deletion votes, I am closing this AFD Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Passage (2009 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 found no reliable sources covering this short film. The article is currently referenced to a press release. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 09:42, 21 July 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)
- Comment: Sometimes there are news articles linked to a film's page at IMDB. Through it I found a few which speak positively toward the film and the filmmakers, including [37] [38]. The official website seems to indicate there is German-language coverage.[39] and so I choose to await input from Wikipedians able to search for and offer additional non-English coverage, as we have a possibly addressable issue of an article simply needing better souring. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:20, 22 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 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) 03:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:NF. Though a short film and a short article, this project and its production has been spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner in enough independent sources to meet WP:GNG. While the nominated version had issues, these have been addressed to serve the project and its readers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 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) 09:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg Ammon (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, attempt at inherited notability. Deleted at first AFD in 2010 for lacking notability. There have been several attempts at recreation but he is still not notable: "youngest ever board member" of a charity isn't a claim to notability, and his company "Fido Features" has produced a single film, which like everything else in this story, is about his father's murder, where this has previously been redirected. The only coverage of his film work is mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 09:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 09:51, 21 July 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:49, 28 July 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) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg Ammon is directly addressed in multiple articles, which sources for are provided at bottom of page. Notability is also established by source for Board of Directors for the Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute. Notability should no longer be an issue.Ms348911 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited. Also, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is utterly unnotable, and the source provided is primary. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Taylor and nom Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 12 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- World Supremacy Battlegrounds (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)
Written in April 2013, no effort has been made to improve and verify the information provided. The article is an orphan, has been tagged previously as advert and with notability concerns. Suggest consideration that the article be deleted. TRL (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 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) 03:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacking notable participants. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 6 August 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) 09:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Waheed Majrooh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, no RS coverage, obviously promotional. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No controversy here, a very obvious promo piece. The "references" do not establish notability and hardly mention the subject. Nothing of substance on google either. Tigerboy1966 08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an LA Times reference that seems to talk about him. Don't know if this establishes his WP:GNG however. --Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's about the subject's grandfather and doesn't mention the subject at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 4 August 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) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete quite promotional - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted yet. non notable, promotional and spammy. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:11, 12 August 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) 09:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss International (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has been sourced by one primary source for years. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC) (added rationale at 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Miss International. —teb728 t c 06:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These appear to be two completely separate organisations, judging by their websites http://www.miss-international.us/legal.php and http://www.miss-international.org/en/aboutICA.html Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are not enough sources for a stand-alone article (the best I found were local news pieces of the "Local person to go to the Miss International pageant" type), there is nothing to merge, and the title is not a likely search term so a redirect doesn't make any sense. Huon (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually the only recognized Miss International in both the US & the EU. This Miss International is the only one to carry the registered trademarked name. The Japan one is not recognized in the US or the EU as the legitimate Miss International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.242.248 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles of THIS - THE ONLY RECOGNIZED and TRADEMARKED MISS INTERNATIONAL BRAND (STATE & COUNTRY TITLEHOLDER) in the media:
http://www.cw23.com/dpp/winging_it/meeting-miss-international
http://www.ukdentalnews.co.uk/?p=1383
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/03/miss_international_hoboken_con.html?fb_action_ids=10104201863917914&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.242.248 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of this Miss International Social Media:
http://theinternationalpageants.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/intlpageants
https://www.facebook.com/groups/352336657220/
http://pinterest.com/intlpageants/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.242.248 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BJTcZIPCUAE0yxo.jpg This photo features a former Miss International (this US based - but not US only system) titleholder on the cover of Supermodels Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.242.248 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite you to read WP:CORPDEPTH which is our inclusion criteria for such things. What we are looking for is in-depth independent coverage of the organisation as an organisation. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.trademarkia.com/miss-international-85652392.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntlPageants (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a machine-generate page by Trademarkia based on a trademark application / registration with the USPTO by the subject. The trademark application was produced by the subject (and /or it's representative) and is thus not independent. The machine-generated page contains no independent coverage, because it is purely based on the USPTO-derived content which is not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, given the discussion here. Wikipedia is not the place to litigate trademark disputes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BeamNG (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)
Brand new product, no claim of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Lots of sources. cilliang (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC). — cilliang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - no independent sources. And I wouldn't exactly consider 3 to be "lots" even if they were independent. Fails WP:GNG - not much more to say about it. Stalwart111 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Software with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing wrong with 3 sources, considering that this is new software. Nothing has been extrapolated, everything on this page has been stated by official developers. More sources and information will be added when more official sources are offered, but as of right now, all the information needed has been taken directly from the developer's words. Person.de.fantastic (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC).— Person.de.fantastic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You are misunderstanding the concern; the dilemma is not the accuracy of the information, but the importance of the topic. Wikipedia has guidelines on the notability required for a topic to deserve an article. I suggest that you review those; it will give you a better sense of what's being challenged here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Faisl all notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant RS coverage, no notability. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in no way affiliated with the Developers of this project, the page was fan made and there is nothing "promotional" about it, please stop spitting out lies on here cilliang (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC). — cilliang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please be careful not to move other people's comments when you add your own. Stalwart111 14:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Seems more like a vanity article than a promotional article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Aliffi (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)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above, has never played in a FPL, nor appears to have generated any significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 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 Manos: The Hands of Fate. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Harold P. Warren (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)
100% of his notability hinges on Manos: The Hands of Fate. The article says more about the film than it does about him. Almost no biographical info exists anywhere, nor is there anything out there about him not tied to Manos. Suggest deletion or redirection. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything of value and then redirect to the film article. This is essentially notability for a single event (in this case, the event is a movie) and, given the lack of any other information, condensing the information in that article would be appropriate. A biographical section (which would be extremely short) would be fine there. --Kinu t/c 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:FILMMAKER: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." Manos is a very notable film, consistently listed as one of the worst of all time, and he had a large involvement in it, being the director, actor, and screenwriter. I agree that John Reynolds, an article you prodded, wasn't very notable (it could've been anyone playing Torgo), but seeing as how this guy had a large and unique role in the creation of the film, I think he passes. (Heh, I just noticed the nominator voted keep in this article's previous AfD, which was nominated for almost the exact same reason. I guess things change over the years. Beerest355 Talk 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- I love how everyone who cites WP:GNG misses the crux: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." As I said, the article says far more about Manos than it says about him. The film is notable without question, but where's the info on him? A notable film can be made by a non-notable director, especially in a case like this where the person in question did literally nothing else that the world felt was worth noting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As TPH said - Notability isn't inherited. The article does largely focus on the film - not the subject. At the very least, this should be redirected to the article. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Jessie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The tone of the article leaves much to be desired, but more importantly, the article claims that Ms. Jessie has been nominated for AVN awards, yet neither of the sources in the article state such thing. I tried Googling for award noms (not just AVN noms) myself and couldn't find any. Contested prod (although I didn't originally post the prod). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Herzlicheboy (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's analysis. Her claim of notability fails verifiability. Cavarrone 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I prodded the article. To paraphrase my prod rationale: ...fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Claim of AVN Award nominations appears to be false. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the sound and accurate analysis of the original PROD, which was removed for spurious reasons by the article creator. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable, has plenty of sources, and plenty more to be found on line and in the libraries. This article has plenty of room for expansion. Give this article a chance. Wikipedia is better for it. Herzlicheboy (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's "sources" are a press release from a modelling agency and an image gallery. Neither supports the content in the article. If there are plenty more sources, please produce them. My searches of Google News and Google Books found nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't buy that there are "plenty of sources" as I was unable to find any. And I doubt any will be found in libraries. Sorry, but fails WP:PORNBIO. Beerest355 Talk 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, and to clear up any confusion, Herzlicheboy is the article's creator. Beerest355 Talk 15:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF, Herzlicheboy is a newbie, so I bet he simply found several false positives in his searches. There are a lot of sources for "Sarah Jessie", just Google Books gives 1160 results, but the problem is that these "Sarah Jessie" results have nothing to do with this specific person. I suggest the article creator to take a look at our guidelines, specifically WP:GNG, to understand which type of coverage is required for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 17:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, and to clear up any confusion, Herzlicheboy is the article's creator. Beerest355 Talk 15:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not really proficient at using the google search engine. But I know there have to be many print and reliable sources for this lady. Anyone that watches tons of porn will know that this lady is definitely notable. How can we show that? Herzlicheboy (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Gene93k. The tone of this article is... off. It also fails #2 and #3 of WP:PORNBIO, and whether or not it fails #1 is currently in question. If there are "many print and reliable sources" then please add them. And we don't want Wikipedia to become too technical - not everyone watches tons of porn. Note: currently the only "keep" rationale is from the article's creator. — kikichugirl inquire 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WELL, I hate to be contrarian, but I must take issue with your unfounded assertion that "not everyone watches tons of porn." I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Wikipedians (who are almost exclusively white males between 16 and 25) do, in fact, watch "tons of porn." If you, for some reason do not, you are plainly missing out. That probably explains why you argue to delete good articles such as this and Mike Adriano. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith has already been mentioned in this debate. It should apply here too. And WP:No personal attacks applies to the edit summary for your statement. Let's keep it civil. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be able to have an article that shows the person is notable without having to have done anything beforehand. If I show some random guy who doesn't watch porn the Randy Spears article, he'll be able to tell why he is notable. If I show him this article, he won't have a clue. Simply saying "it's notable" isn't going to work. I also would like to say that I'm much older than 25. Beerest355 Talk 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1 - nominator proposes merge and no deletion arguments. Take it to the talk page, or do it yourself. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 02:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Timeline of Cape Canaveral (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)
Catchall article should be merged with whatever article applies: Cape Canaveral, Florida, Kennedy Space Center, etc. This seems just an attempt to evade proper classification. The area "Cape Canaveral" is not defined, whether it is the entire Cape, the city itself, the place where rockets lift off, or what. Therefore it morphs into all of them. "Timeline" are bullets rather than explanation of events, which is unencyclopedic. These can be expanded in the proper articles. There is no reason why CC should have a "timeline" and other similarly small places do not. One of the primary contributors to this article has a WP:CONFLICT of interest, being historian for CC. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 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. Could also have been deleted under WP:CSD#A10 or indeed WP:CSD#G5 Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas & Friends (U.S. Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
delete, this is a duplicate of an existing article Thomas and Friends the only contributed writing to it was a copyright vio that has since been removed. This should have been speedied as both but was declined. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article was created by User:Plong26, who is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Thomasfan5034. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thomasfan5034 ). As indicated by the nom, it duplicates an existing article. Well, not quite. It's almost devoid of content and is unreferenced now that the page creator has split out an episode list article that contained the only reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reading the first sentence of the article at Thomas & Friends shows that the supposed duplicate is on "a British children's television series." The place for this discussion is on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's misleading because further in that article it talks about it being in the US. I removed the part about the a British show, it is aired in both countries. There is no need to have a duplicate article on the same show. If you look in the history the only text that had previously been in the article that wasn't the episode listing was a copyright vio from PBS. As it is the article creator was a sockpuppet now blocked indef. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prism magazine (New Zealand) (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 magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Only source is webpage for the magazine. Adabow (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Below threshold - SimonLyall (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not only is the magazine non-notable, the article is an advertisement. The article states their aims and goals, which sounds like nothing more than advertisement in such a short article. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 5 August 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.