Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deborah Hutchison (edit | 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:BASIC notability requirements and all WP:AUTHOR criteria. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep following sourcing - absolutely nothing beyond the most minor of mentions (which may not even be referring to her) in a preliminary Google News/Google Books search. Incidentally, why was this discussion listed under Fashion? Mabalu (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet WP:BIO through coverage in several articles in the Chicago Tribune. I've added a couple to the article, though the one that has greater depth of coverage is paywalled. Searches for "Deborah Rosen" and "Rosen-Knutsen Casting" bring up more sources. Her "Bill Your Ex" system and other idiosyncratic legal documents have been written up in some places. Gobōnobō + c 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She hasn't done anything very impressive, but she meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. I added more refs: there's press covering over 20 years. Not sure if we need to list her Alumni Outstanding Service award, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Good work on the sourcing. I'm still not wholly convinced, but it's good enough for me to change my vote. Mabalu (talk) 20:03, 19 February 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 04:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Stitches & Craft Show (edit | 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 topic with no reliable sources. Andrew327 18:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits one being WP article. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per above. Lacks RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone had a chance to look through Australian craft magazines? I expect that is where the best coverage would be. --99of9 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- why was this relisted? LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked the most obvious location for reliable in-depth coverage? (Not GNews... industry magazines). --99of9 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES, in any case you need wider coverage than industry magazines. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am simply asking if the most obvious due diligence has been done. Nobody has answered me so far. Please cite policy for your latter claim - the GNG does not include the concept of wider coverage. For example, many biological species are only discussed within the context of academic taxonomy journals. Prominent national craft events would usually only be discussed in industry magazines and by the guilds. --99of9 (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- why was this relisted? LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide 5 indepth sources I will happily change my !vote. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I conducted an extensive lit review and found one fluff piece in a small town paper that exclusively describes the event. The article then invites readers to submit the most creative thing they have ever made for a chance at a free ticket. Most of the references in the press have been in passing, like these two:
- Milton Ulladulla Times (21 November 2012): "The Little Red Riding Hood-inspired gown and cape will be among the state’s best textile projects to be exhibited at the Stitches and Craft Show at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse in March next year."
- The NewsMail (28 November 2011): "At one venue, Grandmother's Garden in Gordontown, the quilters were greeted by the proprietor, who had visited Bundaberg for the Stitches and Craft show last October and commented very favourably on the city."
- In summary, even professional databases don't indicate subject notability. Andrew327 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sounds like a solid search. Delete. --99of9 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary, even professional databases don't indicate subject notability. Andrew327 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only thing that stops this being a Speedy A7 is the claim to being the countries oldest craft fair, but that is sourced to an events listing, which are typically created by the promoters without any editorial oversight by the publication. It does not come close to passing WP:EVENT. LGA talkedits 23:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Were this on a small Wiki for arts and crafts, it might be notable. For Wikipedia itself, no. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:16, 24 February 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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Justice International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is a registered charity in England with the name "Justice International", but this is not that organization. This organization is apparently not registered as a UK charity. It also offers no means of donating money to the organization (its mailing address is listed as Justice International World, PO Box 0000, United Kingdom (see [1]) and its "donate online" link goes directly to CharityChoice which, when searched for this charity, lists it as unavailable for online giving). The group does not appear to be otherwise notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary above is false; evidence is being allocated to illustrate the registered charity is in fact the organisation described within the article.
Kind Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)— WilsonWilson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Furthermore with regards to notability consider the information below.
Justice International is respected in the legal world , recognised by the BAR of England and Wales and that of Egypt and south asian countries such as Bangladesh, With the latter supporting its cause. Thee organisation is also recognised and associated with several European governments such as Switzerland, whom the organisation collaborates with to hold discussions with countries of the arab continent and countries such as france and Norway regarding the crisis in the Middle East. The company is supported and associated with notable legal figures such as John Platts Mills QC, Sir Ivan Lawrence and many more. The company is also publicised internationally within many media formats.
Kind Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WilsonWilson1 makes a lot of claims of notability for this organization, none of which are mentioned in the article, nor at the organization's website, nor in any other source that I have been able to find about the organization. For an organization that is so significant, its website paints it as one of the most opaque charities I have ever seen. In the entire website, only three names are ever mentioned: John Platts-Mills, Sayyad MohyEddeen and Frank Slevin. These three are listed as the founders of the organization. There is no Board of Directors. There is no clear method to give money to this group. Their "latest news" is topped by "Report Egypt 07", a document written over 5 years ago. The "membership" page advises that if you would like a list of members, try the website's search function (which, unless you happen to already know the name of a member, is quite pointless). In sum, the legitimacy of this organization seems questionable at best. The notability of the organization is not at all questionable: it simply doesn't exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing out the shortcomings. I understand the position you are in and understand the objective view that you have taken. As a contributor i shall seek to ensure these shortcomings do not occur in the future.
WilsonWilson1 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that Justice International World is not a charity. Also it seems the website has been dormant and is need of immediate reform.
WilsonWilson1 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The website has a page called "Get Involved" that includes the text
- A gift of any amount, given individually or corporately, will allow JIW to serve as a voice for the voiceless in our world, providing men, women and children with rescue, support and renewed hope for their lives and futures.
- which looks for all the world like a charity asking for donations. Additionally, Wilson stated above:
- ...evidence is being allocated to illustrate the registered charity is in fact the organisation described within the article.
- So, is Justice International World a charity or not? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After careful consideration i have established that the organisation is not a charity. Justice International is a non profit organisation, which carries out charitable work. The organisation is not yet a registered charity.
It is stated on the website the organisation has been running for a number of years by volunteers. It would appear that the statement regarding 'gifts' is suggesting that the volunteers accept gifts and contributions.
WilsonWilson1 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional newspaper articles images have been added as reference as well as new web references. One reference relates directly to Sir Ivan Lawerence QC and his comments on Justice International. More research is being conducted by myself regarding sources of reference.
WilsonWilson1 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the "sources" attached are total rubbish. To the point where this almost looks like a WP:HOAX. The one referred to above might "relate" to Lawrence but it's not by Lawrence - it's an invite (by someone representing the subject) inviting people to a talk about Egypt. There's nothing to suggest the talk was about the subject at all, despite what the in-article "reference" suggests. Even if it was, this wouldn't be a source for verifying that. The second is an anti-Israeli diatribe from an academic with music qualifications, copied from Rediscover911.com. Seriously. Others are news items that quote members of the subject organisation, though I'm not sure they're talking about the same organisation. Regardless, I can't see how this passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As trustee of a registered trust since 1983 I am aware of the pain and perseverance that volunteers in providing public service endure. But the compliment of rendering assistance to the public overwhelms the hard work. I have attended three seminars hosted by Justice International at Westminster University, Regent Street London, Mosses Room in the House of Lords and the Honourable Middle Temple Hall at Temple Lane, London. I was very impressed by the professionalism the group displayed and inspired by their work. I met brilliant academics, diplomats and others attended the seminar at the westminister campus, and listened to the most articulated speech from Judge Elizabeth Lawson, QC at the House of Lords, who led the Justice International team to Cairo. Lawyers from several other jurisdictions including members of the English bar provided an illuminating inside to the theories and practicalities of implementing international human rights standards in different jurisdictions, and debated what various principles of rule of law stood for. I also met a delegation from Ankara, sent on behalf of the chief Justice Dr. Sami Selcuk, and many others from Africa, Asia and Washington.
From a recent seminar held by the group at Cricklewood on 11 February 2013 I understand that those affiliated to Justice International have relied on their pocket and pen to deliver a service for the public. The group have never received for public money and not therefore registered with charity commission. In 2009, a man of Pakistani origin affiliated to a Kashmiri political group l failed to get the Justice group to take on a task as it was political, copied their objectives and set up a company then registered with charity commission. That company: no; 06456519.....is now dissolved. The original Justice International Group have refused to pay any ransom for the name and are now operating as JUSTICE INTERNATIONALE, a non- profit making company limited by guarantee. We know that sometimes facts hurt because it exposes evil that is done. But the public has a right to know the facts. Public awareness can also help encourage the doers of wrong to mend but ignorance and contempt for public good does not.
I wish that public interest is upheld and good is done. Azadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.25.194 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Responding to "The group have never sought to ask for public money...", I refer you to the paragraph cited above from the group's own Get Involved page: they are clearly asking for public money. The ip editor's comments amount to little more than an elaborately worded WP:ILIKEIT WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTS for the public ' Does supreesion of the facts makes the violation of basic human rights by state functionary, legal? as Dani61 seems eager to protect. Iam a friend of the mass. Benjaman Manhush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.142.4 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, what the? That makes even less sense than the essay from "Azadi" above. What are you accusing WikiDan61 of? You know what, don't bother. This is a deletion discussion and it should be about whether or not the subject of the article in question meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you think it does, please provide reliable sources that prove as much. If you think it doesn't, please explain why, citing Wikipedia policy as often as possible. I can't even work out if the essayist "Azadi" wants this deleted or kept. I have no idea what "Benjaman Manhush" is trying to say at all but I would strongly suggest he reads WP:NPA before commenting again. Stalwart111 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, if public service work and contribution of distinguished people in our society are ' rubbish' and hoax' then who wants to see Wikipedia but stalwart1111?, As I stated before no amount of suppression or 'contempt' towards public charity as Azadi, calls it, justifies wrongs and violations. Apparently, the above commentator cannot see charity work unless he sees a label on it by a certification from the charity commission. There is numerous charitable works done on a daily basis by good people in our society without Wikipedia’s support. Whoever put this page up should have considered the issue of correct place for public display. people who seek to discredit public services and calls respectable public figures and their voluntary work 'rubbish' should take the anger and preserve it in repressive society. I hope charitable work of this group will continue irrespective of whether it is listed in Wikipedia or not. B. Manhush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.7 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... what? You might want to actually read what I wrote before launching another nonsensical tirade. I said the sources were rubbish, to the point where it looked like a hoax. You need to read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:PROMO. At no point did I suggest someone's public service or volunteer work was rubbish and your suggesting I did is both unclever and uncivil. If you had taken the time to have a look at some of those policies, you'd understand the purpose of this discussion. It has nothing to do with "supression" or whether Wikipedia "supports" charitable works or not. Great works, good deeds and support for others is worthwhile but it doesn't make an organisation notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia (again, see WP:N). Even being a "certified charity" (which I didn't mention at all) wouldn't be enough on its own to justify inclusion. You've still not presented a single argument (citing WP policy) to explain why this article should be kept. Stalwart111 09:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Im a little confused myself.
- Keep :Nevertheless with regards to the sources: I assure you the article is not a hoax; the first source can be backed up by a PDF document i have downloaded from the website, which was cited by WikiDan in his first comment. The document is a report on Egypt and Justice International's involvement. The report is signed by Sir Ivan lawerence and Sayyad Mohyeddeen. How can I add this PDF.
- - response to Stalwart111; you have suggested the sources are rubbish but have only sought to address a few of them. There are several sources which present articles in different langauges regarding Justice International and Platt-mills and Mohyeddeen two of the founders of the organisations and their involvement in several countries such as Singapore, Turkey and Chile. have a look at theses sources and use Google translate to read them.
- - With regards to your point (stalwart111) about the newspaper articles, it is clear that the articles quote the key people involved in the organisation; Justice International. You cannot suggest that the articles are not talking about the same organisation when the wiki article i have contributed to is about Justice international which is run by these key people, clearly the same organisation these newspapers have written about. There is no explanation to your argument.
- Furthermore you have made no reference to the article by BBC NEWS which quotes Sayyad Mohyeddeen and Justice International and their involvement In Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's trial or the AFP’s report.
- regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thank you for actually discussing the potential sources, WilsonWilson1. I made the point in my original comment that the sources provided (the ones you highlight above) are by members of the organisation, not about the organisation. We need reliable sources that give "significant coverage" to the organisation itself.
- Before you upload it, a report published by Mohyeddeen would probably not be considered independent if he is one of the founders. We need independent newspaper articles, books, magazines, reports, etc, that talk about the organisation itself; its history and its activities. In some cases that can include coverage of the work individuals have done under the organisation banner but I would think to pass WP:ORGDEPTH such sources would need to include a depth of coverage about the role of the organisation itself.
- The confusion about names and history (detailed above) meant regular editors here couldn't even work out whether the organisation mentioned in various items was the organisation in question. That's the sort of thing we're used to seeing for hoaxes and jokes (which happen more regularly than you might think). I'm happy to accept that it's not a hoax (and I only ever said it "looks like"), but there's a big gap to bridge between existence and notability. Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart111 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And as an aside, you might want to have a read of WP:MEAT and WP:CIVIL and have a talk to some of the people who have quite obviously been asked to come here and comment without any understanding of Wikipedia process or policy. Coming here and talking about "suppression" and "discrediting" and "messages of the masses" actually does your cause a great disservice, not to mention the obvious WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for promotion, even of good causes. It's an encyclopedia. Stalwart111 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Response to Stalwart111: I completely understand the angle from which you are approaching this issue; nevertheless It is a fallacy to suggest that the sources provided 'are by the members'. The sources provided are articles written by various international newspapers and other organisations, such as BBC, AFP and other world media. The sources explicitly mention the organisation and its involvement in international affairs through the members of the organisation and individuals of great notability such as Lord Ahmed. Translate some of the sources and this is what you shall decipher. I implore that you make a point and explain what suggests or shows your point is valid. The mentioning of Justice international in foreign affairs within International newspapers and media outlets clearly suggests its notability.
- With regards to the report, I intend to use it as evidence to show Sir Ivan Lawrence's involvement; Furthermore the report has been written and signed by Sir Ivan Lawrence and approved by signatures of the legal team of the organisation. Please could you give me instructions of how i could upload this PDF. Sir Ivan Lawrence is not a member of the organisation but an individual figure who reports and discusses the work of justice international to parliament and international governments. Within the report there is exhaustive material which presents the notability of the organisation. The report is a public document sent to organisations such as amnesty, international parliaments, the UN and various international governments; all suggested within Sir Ivan Lawrence's report. Please could you provide instructions on how to present this PDF document which can further clarify the notability of the organisation?
- With regards to the confusion, I have written within the article that the organisation is also known as Justice Internationale ltd, which is what the organisation is currently registered as. Seeing as it has been established that this article is not a hoax as that would be a great waste of my time, let's consider the organisations notability; it is clear that sufficient reliable sources have been provided which attribute notability to the organisation. The organisation and its landmark cases in such fields and cases as that of the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, prime minister of Turkey, former dictators of Chile, and Egypt, whose news had captured the world attention and books and films are being made, exceed the point of notability as provided in wiki’s guideline.
- With regards to the individuals who have commented about 'suppression' and 'discrediting' I agree that those comments have been aimed at responding to the comments made by earlier commentators and less related to the issue in question. It would not be appropriate to associate their comments to my argument as I have provided a more than reasonable response to the issues you have raised in accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines. I completely understand Wikipedia is not for promotion and is an encyclopedia.
- Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that the article formerly listed the organization's official website as http://justiceinternationalworld.org/ but that this reference has been removed from the article. I also note that said website is listed as "down for maintenance". I note finally that "Justice Internationale, Ltd" is listed as having been incorporated on February 13, 2013. Unfortunately, we have only the word of one or two editors here to indicate that any entity named "Justice International" or "Justice Internationale" is in any way related to any organization that may have been mentioned in any given newspaper article. While it may be unfortunate for this organization if what has been said is true (about the hijacking of a corporate name by another organization), it renders impossible any assessment of the validity of any notability claims made here or in the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, ^that^ will make it nearly impossible to establish notability, I'm afraid. In essence, Wikipedia reports on what has been reported on. If issues like the above haven't been resolve then it's going to be impossible to do that in any meaningful way. Stalwart111 19:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the website link in the article i have removed that due to the site going into maintenance, as it would be pointless to cite it at the present time. I await for the new website to re-cite the link.
- With regards to the relation between the two names 'Justice International' and 'Justice Internationale' it can be deduced that the two are the same organisation; there simply has been a shift in the name from 'Justice International' to 'Justice Internationale' The newspaper articles and the other forms of media which have been cited all make reference to Sayyad Mohyeddeen the Director and founder of 'Justice International' who is now the director and subscriber of 'Justice Internationale' refer to this link - [2]. This clearly shows that the two organisations are the same one and so the validity of the notability with regards the organisation in question still applies. The shift in the name of the organisation suggests that there in fact was a hijacking of the corporate name.
- It is clear that the organisation in question clearly meets the notability criteria and is therefore valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but having the same directors does not make it the same organisation, especially if there is another organisation still using the "old name". "Deducing" as much would be considered original research (see WP:OR). We would probably need a reliable source that provides background on the name change/hijacking/transfer/whatever happened. Your word (just like mine) is not a reliable source sufficient for verifying ecyclopedic facts. I disagree notability is "clear", in fact I would suggest we're not even close. And the burden of proof is still with you. Simply saying it is notable does not make it so. But if you could provide a couple of good reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organisation, it would be a different matter entirely. Stalwart111 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- response: Yes, following your argument the founder 'Sayyad Mohyeddeen' of Justice International, who in the media, is not in any way part of that organisation which you say is still using the same name. The new organisation has recently been registered, thus there couldn't be any reliable public sources other than the company house record where the founder of the old organisation is the founder of the new organisation registered this month.
- The only sources which I can plausible think could be cited to satisfy what you call a reliable source that provides background information of the name change would be the names of directors, the constitution of the organisation, the office address and the bank details.
- It is practicably impossible to expcet an organisation that has only been registered only days ago to have 'significant coverage to the organisation' other than what i have already stated above or to rely on our own intelligence to make the necessary inference or ask the directors for the information of the name change.
- With regards to the notability I note that you have repeatedly made remarks on notability. Please kindly read each source and point out which source you consider to be lacking reliability and legitimacy. Are BBC, AFP and several international newspapers unreliable sources?
- regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're absolutely right about the difficulty of finding sources relating to a less-than-a-month-old organisation (even if it is actually a continuation of a previous organisation's work). The org's constitution wouldn't be considered independent, obviously. Official registry listings for name changes, bank details and the like might prove existence, but probably not notability. I'm more than happy to accept that the organisation might generate enough press coverage to become notable in the future. We refer to such subjects as WP:TOOSOON. It's a matter of waiting for the organisation to be covered in mainstream media before it can be covered here. I've not seen any sources that provide significant coverage of the organisation, as yet, but I'm happy to look at anything you post here. A source might be generally reliable (BBC, AFP, etc) but we still require them to have given the organisation significant coverage. "Significant coverage" and "reliable source" are two different things, but we need both. A source can give significant coverage but not be considered reliable or independent. A source can be reliable but not provide significant coverage. The one from the BBC, for example, simply says that Mohyeddeen is a director (though of an organisation with a different name). That's not significant coverage of the organisation. Stalwart111 03:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The two points you have raised are not new.
- Significant coverage: 'means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material' as stated in the Wikipedia notability guideline. If you look at any of the news articles either from BBC, AFP, Gazette, New Strait Times or the Middle East Times, you wil see that they have not simply made a trivial mention of the organisation or its members. In fact in each news article have paragraphs after paragraphs devoted to justice international and its members. You falsely stated that BBC only simply mentions Sayyad Mohyeddeen; please read more thoroughly and do not simply browse over and make an assumptive statement. The article by the BBC devotes half of its article to Justice international and Sayyad mohyeddeen as 'international help'. Furthermore the newspper image of the New Strait Times, devotes the entire news about Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahims case on Justice International, its director, its chairman, its location and its membership and their involvement within this case. Again the news article written in the Middle East Times, devotes the whole news regarding British delegation of Justice International, its press conference, its involvement, its members and Judge Elizabeth Lawson QC's Presence as the leader of the British delegation group. Also reference can be made to My Life of Crime Cases Causes written by Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and forwarded by the former Home secretary Lord Michael Howard. This book devotes two pages to the work of this organisation and its director- pg 397 and 398.
- - I cannot cite all the references from the wiki article on the organisation please refer to that page and carefully read through each source then point out to me how each source is not reliable or does not establish significant coverage of the organisation in question.
- As to the issue of the continuity of the organisation, justice international continues its work with the same objectives, mission, personnel and reputation with a linguistic change of an e at the end of its name in order to avoid confusing the public with the hoax organisation registered under only the UK charity commission and not companies house, and purports to operate in Kashmir and the Gulf. Justice International(e) had and still has a global operational jurisdiction and therefore its reasonable to suggest that this be the main reason for there website being under construction to make the necessary changes. If we make a search for Justice International in conjunction with Sayyad Mohyeddeen we will find that there wasn't or isn't any registration of such an organisation, which would suggest the notable organisation mentioned within the international media formats was not registered as its corporate name was hijacked before it could do so, thus the organisation and its members and supporters had to register under Justice Internationale.
- If we persist on arguing what to my mind reasonably clear than we can do so until the 'cows come home' to no avail.
- Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the BBC source - the article is split in two, with the second half devoted to "international legal help" of which half (four lines) is about Justice International of which half (two of the four lines) constitutes quotes from Mohyeddeen. The name of the organisation is mentioned once, to explain where he is from. Sorry, but 2 lines of editorial prose and 2 lines from the organisation's director really isn't "significant coverage" in my opinion. You can disagree, but the burden is still on you to convince other editors that the subject is notable, not the other way around. Unless I'm missing something, the Middle East Times article is about the delegation which includes a member of the subject organisation. I maintain that it contributes to the notability of Mohyeddeen, but not to that of Justice International which is mentioned once in relation to his involvement. The organisation doesn't inherit notability from notable members. Yes, we can keep discussing it but it's up to you whether you think that's worthwhile. I've explained what I think of the sources and you are free to disagree. My only interest here is in upholding WP policy. I'm not convinced by the sources provided so far for a variety of reasons, but maybe others will be. I'll leave it alone for a while and let others have a look and we'll see what they have to say about it. Stalwart111 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you're going to discuss this with others I suggest you indent (using : ) your comments. There's also no need to "vote" keep before every comment. It's not a vote; these are decided by WP:CONSENSUS and weight of argument. Stalwart111 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for coming thus far, even though you keep repeating the same argument as if the burden you speak of is on a scale of beyond all reasonable doubt. This is only a discussion on whether or not public interest can be served in an encyclopedic format about charitable work and matters regarding public interest. It is more of a question of the balance of probability; whether it is more probable that this organisation,given the evidence provided is more probable to be notable (significantly covered)in public media. In the absence of any reasonable findings refuting notability or significant coverage or the like that this organisation or its members or its work is not 'notable'balance would, in any impartial assessment, go in favor of the direction of evidence and not the other way around.
- Your selective choice of the sources rather than all the sources submitted, and your summary evaluation indicates that you are not really paying a reasonable attention to come to a proper conclusion. Further indication of your reluctance is indicated from your assertion 'of which half (four lines)is about Justice International of which half (two of the four lines)constitutes quotes from Mohyeddeen. The name of the organisation is mentioned once, to explain where he is from'. this shows that you expect the whole of the news item to concentrate on the name of the organisation and its members rather than the subject of the news item which is the case.
- Besides this you have not commented on the other exhaustive evidences provided.
- With regards the news item in the Middle East Times you have taken the same approach, you cannot expect the name of the organisation to be repeated in every line of the news. I thank you for accepting that Mohyeddeen is notable, but wouldn't you agree that he is notable because of the organisation, Justice International for which he works and was representing and because of the type of work the organisation does. This is like saying 'the tree is insignificant, but the fruits are good'.
- Clearly we have established the sources are reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines.Furthermore there is no substantiated argument that can supersede or deny the notability of either the organisation or its members. And finally if the sources are reliable and the sources mention the organisation, its members and its work as well as its location and its membership; continual arguments refuting significant coverage would seem a futile exercise that is contrary to the evidence as per the Wikipedia guidelines on significant coverage. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained my position and you've explained yours. I've explained that I believe yours is contrary to WP guidelines. "Probability", "public interest", "doubt" and "evidence" are for court rooms (see WP:WL). This is a discussion in which we aim to build consensus with convincing arguments that (properly) cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I disagree with your arguments because they interpret policy and guidelines differently to the manner in which, in my experience, they are ordinarily interpreted (see WP:OUTCOMES). But that doesn't mean you are prevented from making such arguments, and I'm not the only one you have to convince. In the end, an administrator will come here, weigh the arguments made (against policy) and make a determination as to whether a consensus has been reached. Like I said, I'm going to leave this alone so you can spend some time discussing this with other editors who might have an entirely different take on the sources than I do. Stalwart111 23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Thankyou for enlightening me on the wikipedia guidelines, with regards to the use of the word 'evidence' it is quoted within the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability: WP:NRVE. The use of the words 'probability' 'doubt' and 'public interest' is consequential to your use of the words 'burden of proof', which I myself was confused with as you are now with my use of the words 'doubt' etc. The sources I have provided clearly meet both the significant coverage and the reliable sources with regards the Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, none of the sources I have provided can be attributed as WP:OR as all sources are publicly accessible. Regardless of this you have attributed some of the sections with the conduct of original research. With regards to WP:ORGDEPTH there is no question about its absence as the sources provided cover the 'depth'.
- Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was not the words - it was the attitude, as outlined at WP:WL.
- I disagree that coverage of people associated with the organisation counts as coverage of the organisation itself. At all, let alone "clearly". And my disagreement is based on WP:INHERIT, WP:ORGDEPTH and associated community consensus. And you're doing yourself no favours by adding "sources" to the article that were written by people associated with the organisation, like Lawrence's book or commentary from Mohyeddeen. They will never be considered independent enough to be considered reliable. Stalwart111 23:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've just spent some time going through the sources again. I have to say, there was some pretty flimsy referencing there - multiple copies of the same story given different titles, the same article posted on different sites listed as different sources, 4 times. Rather than 23 sources, there are actually 15 and of those, 8 are by members of the organisation and a couple of the others look to be based almost entirely on press releases. Hmm. Stalwart111 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: with regards to WP:WL my point is similar to that of yours; it is not about the words. I at the time was not aware of this and was simply responding as such due to the fact you stated 'burden of proof', which indicated a legal approach which i was confused by as I thought this was a discussion - this I have stated in my previous comment. Unlike yourself, I was not aware of WP:WL and thus I adopted a similar approach as yourself, following your example.
- with regards to WP:ORGDEPTH it is clear that this criteria is met. 'The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: - sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,- the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,- inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2]- the season schedule or final score from sporting events,- routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,- brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,- simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,- routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),- routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,- routine restaurant reviews,- quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or - passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
- Many of the sources provided, specifically the newspaper article images do not simply make trivial mentions. Additionally several independent sources have been cited.
- With Regards to WP:INHERIT It is not appropriate to suggest that the organisation is inheriting notability from its members when it is the other way round. The only way the work of the organisation can be conducted is by its personnel - its members are its 'hands' and 'feet'. Your analysis of the notability of Justice International must be put into context. WP:INHERIT states 'not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable'. However this cannot be applied to Justice International as it is not the case that Mohyeddeen is mentioned solely he is mentioned in conjunction to 'carrying out' the work of Justice international, under its aims and objectives.
- With regards to Sir Ivan Lawrence; he is associated because he shares similar goals to that of Justice International. He is not a member of the organisation nor an advocate. He is independent thus he can be considered reliable. For example if a book was to be written by Deputy Prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, or a report was to be published by a member of the government, it could be considered reliable as they would not be wholly associated, and thus could be considered independent and reliable, as per WP:RS
- With regards the duplicates of some of the news items from different sources, I had added them to support the verification of a statement, I now understand however this is not needed.
- Furthermore I thank you on 'cleaning up' some of the references. Nonetheless with regards the references from Ikhwanweb, you have falsified the information on the sources stating they are from Justice International rather than Ikhwanweb an independent.
- source. Further more you attributed one of the sources author as Dr Mohiedden, when in fact nowhere on the source does is state that. Furthermore one of the Press Release articles is not a press release from Justice International but Ikhwanweb . I do however agree that one of the sources is stated as written by Justice International on Ikhwanweb and maybe a recycling of a press release from Justice International. Please do not falsify the sources as it means I have to take up more of my time to rectify the falsification' Please stick to the Wiki guidelines!
- Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Careful, WilsonWilson, you are making personal attacks. As for reliablie sources, I think I found one. Zaminamina (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise if anything I have written has been interpreted as a personal attack. I assure this is not my intention. Regards WilsonWilson1 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to respond to your obvious personal attacks. It's clear now that promoting Justice International is your sole purpose here, and it seems fairly obvious to me that you have a conflict of interest. Ikhwanweb is not a news source, in fact it says on its own site: "Ikhwanweb is not a news website". It is a repository of things published by other people. So when an item includes "Justice International, Press Release" then I'm going to call it a press release from Justice International. Ikhanweb does not have the sort of editorial oversight we expect of editorial news sources - the fact that they reprint press releases entirely speaks to that. The notability here is, I assure you, far from "clear" and your repeating your claim over and over again without actually building consensus for it is a pointless exercise. Stalwart111 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, i am alison. New to all this! but i take discussion and if its for good cause, passionately. I READ THE PAGE ON jUSTICE INTERNATIONAL and found much of the information useful reference. This group clearly have been doing some good deeds. The problem i see here is one of rational discussion. the Wiki policy for deletion is stated on verifiability of sources. I have looked and checked the sources attached to the page, and read the all the comments made so far. The news papers cut attached to the page are, i must admit an over rating. However, the other sources do point to clear varifiable sources and if no harm or violation of wiki,s principles, the page is a good reference. stalwart started off lebelling noteble people and reputable news media as 'rubbish, from the discussion stalwart does not seem to have been convinced and still maintain his original 'suspision', though he is not using the same vocabulary. I dont know if wilson is part of Justice International group or promoting the group. I dont know if the group need promotion, which stalwart thinks. But I would not be irrational to LABEL or accuse anynone without proof. And if wilson is as Stalwart accuses him,and I hope he can support his allegation, that is unethical. If he is not, then Stalwart has come down on a personal level and is completely out of line. The discussion must now be looked at by some one rational in the wiki's administrtion, Regards,Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonrational (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Alisonrational (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CSD was denied for this previously deleted article. The current version seems to have been created by a relative and is a two sentence BLP whose only link is to his fight record. Subject is an MMA fighter with no top tier fights and he obviously fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:NMMA, no fights for a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aside from NMMA, there is almost no WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article outside WP:ROUTINE for his fights. Mkdwtalk 09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Spring Harvest (edit | 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 only lists references to some minor Christian webpages, their own homepage and a BBC article where a virus outbreak at the camp is mentioned back in 2003. The article does not focus on the Spring Harvest event itself and should therefore be considered a trivial mention. Zaminamina (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It currently needs considerable improvement but searching Google Scholar for "Spring Harvest" evangelical shows plenty of sources with which to do so. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, only trivial mentions. Zaminamina (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions are things like a listing in a phone book. Significant coverage begins where a trivial mention ends, so a source only needs one non-trivial concept to contain minimal significant coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, only trivial mentions. Zaminamina (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, did I really start that article? A long time ago! So, anyone have access to [3]? That references SH, as does [4], [5], [6] and others (I am out of the loop these days and don't have academic access, but Google Scholar shows many thousands of hits, at least some of which must be relevant, given the significance of this in the UK evangelical community). Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To control the relevance of the google scholar hits, don't forget to include "evangelical" in the search, otherwise you get agricultural stuff. I've had a look at the sources you mention and they're all useful. [2] makes the most explicit claims about notability.
- [1] used the event to find a large sample of young people. "Spring Harvest 1995 was attended by approximately 5716 young people aged 12–16 years. One particular venue was the focus of a special event for students, which was attended by 1700 young people in this category."
- [2] is about the contribution SH made to the evangelical movement, especially via Clive Calver, Graham Kendrick, Gerald Coates etc
- [3] is publically available
- [4] I don't have access to
- To control the relevance of the google scholar hits, don't forget to include "evangelical" in the search, otherwise you get agricultural stuff. I've had a look at the sources you mention and they're all useful. [2] makes the most explicit claims about notability.
- I'm convinced this is the wrong venue to be discussing this. The article needs improvement, not deletion. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Improve: Scholar search shows significant mention in Journal of Contemporary Religion. Bebbington (Senior Lecturer in History at U. Stirling) mentions it as a significant meeting-place for charismatics and non-chrismatics (Evangelicalism in Modern Britain - Routledge, 2002, p.247) and others are available as per Guy above Jpacobb (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's an article about a notable subject and is in need of improvement, not deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 24 February 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 03:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Warren David (edit | 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 person is not the topic of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and fails WP:GNG. No event or achievement described in current or past versions of this article rises to WP:ANYBIO, sourcing concerns aside. This subject has zero independent notability from his organization, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC); compare his predecessors Sara Najjar Wilson (not notable) and Mary Rose Oakar (independently notable as a politician). Current sources actually cite this subject speaking as a spokesperson (his commentary itself is not notable) about a totally different topic (such as a Coke commercial during the Superbowl, which doesn't say anything about Warren David). There's also coverage of this subject's other organization (an example), but it is mostly sourced directly to David (not excellent for an indication of significance or reliability of coverage) and it is not biographical coverage to say the least. The best I could find was just under 4 pages of biographical coverage in a 148-page book. FWIW this book is mostly based on interviews with ADC members and is promoted on the ADC website. JFHJr (㊟) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As someone who prodded this recently as an unsourced BLP when it had no attempt at any sources I was coming here to say pretty much exactly what the nominator said about the newly added sources. Mentioning that he is the president of the group in a news article that's not about him but what he says in basically a let's reprint the press release sort of way does not establish notability for him as a person separate from the group. If not a delete, redirect to American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. DreamGuy (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and DreamGuy. Yworo (talk) 06:46, 20 February 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 via G12 BY User:Nyttend. Copy of Short-term effects of alcohol Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
- Short and long-term effects of alcohol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undiscussed copy-paste merger of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol resulting in an overly long article and content fork. May fall under CSD A10. Novangelis (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just make sure that there are links to each other in each article. — nerdfighter 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A10 - and possibly also G12 as the lack of attribution from the articles it was copied from makes it a copyright violation under Wikipedia's attribution policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as G12; copying Wikipedia content without attribution is just as much a copyvio as copying from a nonfree source. Sorry about deleting this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 19 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pema Ram (edit | 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 page does not show the notability of the person. The person wrote some books, which does not show the notability Jussychoulex (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cites on GS are 6, 2, 2. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- What would you consider to be the GS cut-off for a professor of Indian history to meet PROF:C1? Which Indian history professors pass that? c-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect an h-index of higher than 2. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm just asking what your basis for comparison is. H-indexes are only useful compared the the norms of fields. I have no idea what the standard h-index for a tenured scholar in Indian history. Are you absolutely sure it's above 2? Looking at medieval musicology, I see that most of the top names have 1 or no entry. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's going to be low if you define a field sufficiently restrictively. Our habit is to define in terms of the broader disciplines where an academic would fit (i.e. roughly speaking, in a small but respectable liberal arts school or university, where would you put this person?) In this case, the field for comparison is history, where an h-index of 2 is surely too low. RayTalk 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I just ask for some stats that the average C1 historian has an h-index sufficiently above 2. I see a lot of arguments that various humanists don't have h-indexes high enough to keep, but I haven't yet seen an argument showing what h-index a notable historian should have. I've looked up the top of the field music historians on h-index charts and few of them are above 2 because they don't publish in on-line journals. I've never heard of a tenure or hiring case (and I've been on many hiring committees at what I think is a pretty good school) where h-index or GS cites have been mentioned. I'm not sure that Pema Ram is a keep by any means, but I think that h-index and GS cites are a terrible way to tell for a historian. If it's going to be used as an argument for deletion a citation should be easy to come by. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's going to be low if you define a field sufficiently restrictively. Our habit is to define in terms of the broader disciplines where an academic would fit (i.e. roughly speaking, in a small but respectable liberal arts school or university, where would you put this person?) In this case, the field for comparison is history, where an h-index of 2 is surely too low. RayTalk 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just asking what your basis for comparison is. H-indexes are only useful compared the the norms of fields. I have no idea what the standard h-index for a tenured scholar in Indian history. Are you absolutely sure it's above 2? Looking at medieval musicology, I see that most of the top names have 1 or no entry. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect an h-index of higher than 2. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete — I searched for citations of his works in both English language and Hindi publications; things like शेखावाटी किसान आन्दोलन का इतिहास actually come up with some results, but much less than what you'd expect of a full career. I cannot imagine what results do not appear, either due to reasons that Mscuthbert gives (the field is narrow, so any count will be low), because many if not most Hindi-language citations may go unnoticed (GS is not the correct tool, so any count will be off), or because the citations simply don't exist (no amount of searching will yield what's not there). AfD isn't the correct place to speculate as to why coverage and citations are unavailable. So as long as there's no indication this subject passes under any WP:PROFESSOR criteria, and no indication that he meets WP:GNG through actual in-depth coverage that would give us biographical content, I can't think of a good reason to keep. This article can be restored when actual coverage or citations are apparent, whatever the source language. There's no deadline, and this subject is apparently retired. Nothing but time to gather further citations... JFHJr (㊟) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak
KeepDelete -- his many books are held in many important research libraries in the West (search worldcat.org) and presumably many more in India. Not the greatest argument for a Keep, especially since I couldn't find any reviews in JSTOR and of course these are the libraries with the biggest acquistions budgets, but he doesn't work in a field that is indexed on the Net, so better evidence would be hard to find even if he were at the top of the field. And there is sufficient coverage in the libraries to believe that the librarians were not being duped into purchasing from a vanity press. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Delete Worldcat counts for his books are in 5-40 range, for about 7 of them listed, which is really quite low. By comparison, a relatively obscure math text that I just pulled from the library, "Les fonctions polyharmoniques", an out of print text which was printed as a small pamphlet 80 years ago in France and never reprinted, has about 64 holdings [7]. This book was last checked out in 1980 here at NYU, so when I say that this book is relatively obscure, I mean that at a major university this book was last checked out before my lifetime.
- I was similarly unable to find reviews of the subject's work; this is not really sufficient for WP:AUTHOR, in my view. Similarly, I conclude a broad fail of WP:PROF - C1 is not met, and I see no other basis for claiming it. To give some relative numbers for WP:PROF C1, I went to my current school's history department [8], and checked the Gscholar h-index of the first associate prof to appear (a position usually far below the bar of notability), and found an h-index of 4 [9], while a full professor in the department (the next person on the list, alphabetically) without special title or recognition got a 7 [10] or 9 [11], while a University professor came in at 11 [12]. I offer these numbers as a very rough range, bearing in mind that the h-index is approximately quadratic in the number of citations. History is a low-cited field given the specific specializations and the lack of citation chasing (the latter of which I consider a virtue, which is neither here nor there), but we should expect some recognition of significant and notable scholars by their peers. RayTalk 16:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ray! I appreciate that you've taken the time to search. You've convinced me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also thanks for this research. Depending on field, historians can have a higher h-index. Here is one [13] with 10. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and one highly-critical review is not enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried to find some support for notability when I edited this article a while ago. I couldn't find it then and I cannot find it now. I'm not even sure that he is actually a professor. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 24 February 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. While the vote tally between delete/keep is roughly equal, the arguments to keep are not convincing. Some argue that he passes WP:PROF because he has published many papers, however it has been shown that many of his papers were plagiarisms, which therefore artificially inflate his academic importance. Others argue that he is notable as a plagiarist, but the reliable secondary sources provided to support this claim are tenuous at best. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dănuț Marcu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (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)
- (Google scholar author results)
Fails WP:GNG only 2,770 results hits on google. Fails WP:PROF with but 69 hits on GScholar. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has been used as an attack article. Doesn't meet any notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, easily meets WP:PROF, author is very highly cited, with one article cited 1880 times; h-index appears to be above 50. The article was well-sourced until it was gutted; one particularly useful source was this one, detailing his plagiarism history. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot have an article which focusses only on his alleged plagiarism, no matter how well sourced. It violates WP:ATTACK and WP:UNDUE. Yworo (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - of course, you realize that he can't meet WP:PROF if the papers in question aren't his. The very fact of the plagiarism brings into doubt the authorship of all of his papers, so that they can't be used as support for notability. His is notable under WP:PROF only if the work is actually his, which is doubtful. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The one with almost 1900 citations is here -- still available, no indication of having been retracted. Since it is co-authored, it is extremely unlikely that it was plagiarised; plagiarism is overwhelmingly the activity of someone working alone. I'm still confident in the evaluation re PROF#C1. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google search is flawed due to rare Rumanian accents in the name. Never been an attack article - the person's notability is tied to his academic misdeeds, so naturally much of the article describes those and how they have been addressed by the academic community. Regardless of the number of misdeeds, your reading of WP:PROF seem biased to me. An individual publishing over 300 math articles many in reputable journals is surely notable, regardless how many of them are plagiarism. This is the same as footballer playing over 300 games in a big league, regardless of his goal percentage. Mhym (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only be a good argument if the article actually covered his career and publications independently of the plagiarism reports. The article doesn't cover anything but these reports. It has no list of publications, no progress of his career, no biographical details, family, etc. While a subject must be notable to be kept, the reverse does not apply - we are not required to keep an article on an individual even if they pass WP:PROF if there are not sufficient sources to write a proper biography and/or if there are other problems revolving around our BLP policies. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "plagiarism reports" are RS which are not only those, but also describe editors communication with Marcu, his history of publications, his claims to have published over 300-400 articles, etc. If you feel a minor expansion is warranted to adhere with WP:DUE, go ahead. But there should never be deletion based on your feeling that the negative in the article exceeds positive, and thus vio of WP:BLP. More arguments are needed. Please explain. Mhym (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIRCULAR is also involved. For example, this source used the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. This source itself has then been used on the article, which WP:CIRCULAR prohibits. Other sources may have also used Wikipedia as one of their sources, I haven't had time to look more deeply into this. Even should the article survive AfD, any sources which refer to Wikipedia as one of their own sources would have to be removed. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As already noted earlier (but apparently you didn't hear it) WP:CIRCULAR does not prohibit the use of sources that happen to mention Wikipedia. What it prohibits is using information from those sources that was in turn derived from Wikipedia. And if you don't have time, why have you made so many replies here? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIRCULAR is also involved. For example, this source used the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. This source itself has then been used on the article, which WP:CIRCULAR prohibits. Other sources may have also used Wikipedia as one of their sources, I haven't had time to look more deeply into this. Even should the article survive AfD, any sources which refer to Wikipedia as one of their own sources would have to be removed. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "plagiarism reports" are RS which are not only those, but also describe editors communication with Marcu, his history of publications, his claims to have published over 300-400 articles, etc. If you feel a minor expansion is warranted to adhere with WP:DUE, go ahead. But there should never be deletion based on your feeling that the negative in the article exceeds positive, and thus vio of WP:BLP. More arguments are needed. Please explain. Mhym (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only be a good argument if the article actually covered his career and publications independently of the plagiarism reports. The article doesn't cover anything but these reports. It has no list of publications, no progress of his career, no biographical details, family, etc. While a subject must be notable to be kept, the reverse does not apply - we are not required to keep an article on an individual even if they pass WP:PROF if there are not sufficient sources to write a proper biography and/or if there are other problems revolving around our BLP policies. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ProvisionalKeep under WP:GNG provided that this curious plagiarism story is fleshed out. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]- Comment I confess to being the person who brought this case to the notice of the regulars at the BLP noticeboard. I am uneasy about this article, because the subject is prominent and notable solely because of the plagiarism controversies surrounding him. I have looked at and can confirm that the MathSciNet reviews linked in the pre-discussion version of the article (behind a paywall) do basically declare the author guilty of plagiarism. Although the case against this author is extraordinarily strong, the mathematics community doesn't have any formal process for declaring somebody guilty of plagiarism beyond the opinions of individual reviewers and editorial boards. I feel a bit uncomfortable having this article here on this basis because of that, but not strongly enough to offer an opinion either way. RayTalk 00:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 found by Nomo. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- How so? The work does not appear to be by the subject, so Prof#C1 is moot. Given the situation, I would expect solid proof that each work being counted toward WP:PROF was actually written by the subject and not plagiarized. A number of journals have formally retracted all the articles published under the subject's name. We can't count retracted articles or citations to retracted articles, can we? Yworo (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we can't, but these bizarre occurrences go to increase WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- How so? The work does not appear to be by the subject, so Prof#C1 is moot. Given the situation, I would expect solid proof that each work being counted toward WP:PROF was actually written by the subject and not plagiarized. A number of journals have formally retracted all the articles published under the subject's name. We can't count retracted articles or citations to retracted articles, can we? Yworo (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the same uneasiness and can put the problem into words. The notices published by the reviewers and journals are primary sources. What we need are secondary reliable sources which give us an objective overview of the situation. We don't have those independent third-party sources that I can see, only reports from people somehow involved in the situation, if only as reviewers or editors. We need a source that takes a step back and reports objectively on those primary reports without having been involved in any way. That's a standard BLP sourcing requirement. Yworo (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with your interpretation. The papers published (plagiarized or not) are the primary sources. Anybody who cites or comments on them is a secondary source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Primary means, and I quote "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Any report by an editor or publisher about the 'event' of a submission and what determination they made is self-reporting. We need outside third-parties reporting on what the editors and reviewers did, not them reporting on themselves and their own decisions and determinations. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with your interpretation. The papers published (plagiarized or not) are the primary sources. Anybody who cites or comments on them is a secondary source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- There appears to be a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 found by Nomo. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as a famous plagiarist and restore the well-sourced material attesting to his status as a famous plagiarist, that was stripped from the article by the nominator. This has already been discussed at BLP/N as the talk page clearly attests, and the sourcing found adequate there
, so I have to interpret this as a bad faith nomination. The idea that any negative reporting must be removed as an "attack page" would lead to absurdities like stripping our article on Hitler down to "Hitler was a german politician" and then proposing it for deletion for not making a claim of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the nom nominated it before there was much response at BLP/N. I was watching already... I was not the nominator. Yworo (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appear to have misread the history; I have struck the inappropriate parts of my comment, and apologize to you and Darkness Shines for the misinterpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would still like an answer: when a journal editor publishes a paper, they have acted as a third-party publisher. When they publish a notice about an event they have been involved in, that notice is both WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. I have no objection to keeping the article if it were based on proper independent third-party reports. It is not, however. Yworo (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. As Xxanthippe says, the papers themselves are the primary sources in this regard. The journals are reporting on what the author did (plagiarized). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are reporting on what they themselves did - namely rejected the papers, made a judgement of plagiarism, and banned the author. Even the reports of what the author did aren't acceptable, because they are the self-published accounts of people who work for the journals. They are not independent of the publishing entity, and fall afoul of WP:SELFPUB, even though the journals are perfectly acceptable for the third-party papers they publish. We could not use information about a living person from an editorial section of the same journal, for instance., especially negative information. These notices are essentially editorials, not the publication of material written by parties independent of the publisher itself. Yworo (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Independent" means independent of the *subject*, not independent of anyone who has any actual knowledge of the subject. To do otherwise would be to force our articles to rely only on sources written by ignorami. What kinds of articles could we have then? Your standards of independence are absurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
- No, sorry, it means that author of the material must be independent of the entity which publishes the material. That's why we don't allow self-published material - the author and the publisher are the same entity. In this case, the published material is not by the subject. The material published was written by an employee of the publisher. Not independent publication. A paper published in a peer-reviewed journal has been peer reviewed. Who has reviewed the editorial content produced by the publisher itself? No one. Yworo (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This directly parallels how we treat court documents. We don't source directly from the judgement, we source from news reports of the judgement. There has been no coverage of these judgements in any news reports or by anyone one step removed from the process. The Wikipedia editor is sourcing directly from the primary sources in which the action (i.e. determination and ban) was taken, rather than a neutral third-party report of what occurred. Yworo (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ''author of the material must be independent of the entity which publishes the material" -- what? So if a reporter is employed by a newspaper and the newspaper publishes an article written by the reporter, it doesn't meet our standards? There is even greater independence in the case of journals, because for academic journals the editors and editorial boards are not employees of the publisher. Sage Publications publishes a large number of journals, the editors for which are employees of universities. It's not the publisher that is producing content here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reporter is reporting on his own actions or those of his paper, then yes, it's not an independent report. Everyone who is affiliated with the publisher is not independent of the publisher. Could Hearst papers be trusted as a source about Citizen Kane? The sources are reporting on the editorial decision of the editorial staff of the publication itself, and they are written by the same parties which made the determinations and decisions. Those determinations and decisions have not been vetted or even reviewed by any independent entity. Don't you get that? Yworo (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing journals with publishers. Again, the publisher has not produced any content. In this one, the content produced by those academics would have been reviewed by the legal department of Springer, at a minimum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's a meta-discussion about a meta-discussion, which should be enough to convince some parties that we would be in the wrong to publish a biography which consists of nothing but negative information about something which has never gone before a court of law. Yworo (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing journals with publishers. Again, the publisher has not produced any content. In this one, the content produced by those academics would have been reviewed by the legal department of Springer, at a minimum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reporter is reporting on his own actions or those of his paper, then yes, it's not an independent report. Everyone who is affiliated with the publisher is not independent of the publisher. Could Hearst papers be trusted as a source about Citizen Kane? The sources are reporting on the editorial decision of the editorial staff of the publication itself, and they are written by the same parties which made the determinations and decisions. Those determinations and decisions have not been vetted or even reviewed by any independent entity. Don't you get that? Yworo (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ''author of the material must be independent of the entity which publishes the material" -- what? So if a reporter is employed by a newspaper and the newspaper publishes an article written by the reporter, it doesn't meet our standards? There is even greater independence in the case of journals, because for academic journals the editors and editorial boards are not employees of the publisher. Sage Publications publishes a large number of journals, the editors for which are employees of universities. It's not the publisher that is producing content here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Independent" means independent of the *subject*, not independent of anyone who has any actual knowledge of the subject. To do otherwise would be to force our articles to rely only on sources written by ignorami. What kinds of articles could we have then? Your standards of independence are absurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
- No, they are reporting on what they themselves did - namely rejected the papers, made a judgement of plagiarism, and banned the author. Even the reports of what the author did aren't acceptable, because they are the self-published accounts of people who work for the journals. They are not independent of the publishing entity, and fall afoul of WP:SELFPUB, even though the journals are perfectly acceptable for the third-party papers they publish. We could not use information about a living person from an editorial section of the same journal, for instance., especially negative information. These notices are essentially editorials, not the publication of material written by parties independent of the publisher itself. Yworo (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. As Xxanthippe says, the papers themselves are the primary sources in this regard. The journals are reporting on what the author did (plagiarized). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would still like an answer: when a journal editor publishes a paper, they have acted as a third-party publisher. When they publish a notice about an event they have been involved in, that notice is both WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. I have no objection to keeping the article if it were based on proper independent third-party reports. It is not, however. Yworo (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appear to have misread the history; I have struck the inappropriate parts of my comment, and apologize to you and Darkness Shines for the misinterpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the nom nominated it before there was much response at BLP/N. I was watching already... I was not the nominator. Yworo (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — for intractable WP:BLP problems regarding plagiarism because multiple reliable mainstream sources don't indicate he's notable for that reason, and I think this borderline-at-best BLP will remain problematic indefinitely. (Correct me if I'm wrong. And I insert "mainstream" for the magnitude and import of the label "plagiarist"). There may be individuals who are notable plagiarists, notable hoax perpetrators, and notable scammers, but even if it were true, I think we're still far from that threshold here. That said, the reliability of scholarly results has been called seriously into question. I'm impressed with the Google Scholar results, but given this subject's specialty and assuming there's some question as to any credit, I take issue with the reliability of the citation numbers and index. That said, where's the genuine biographical coverage? WP:ACADEMIC criteria are secondary, not the be-all-end-all; the truly encyclopedically notable will have a modicum of solid biographical coverage out there. JFHJr (㊟) 03:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia takes no position on whether the subject has committed plagiarism. It just notes reliable sources that allege that he has. These are enough to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a famous plagiarist. Besides the sources cited in the article, he is also mentioned in an Online Course published by the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education as a case of well-known plagiarist. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- in case anyone is interested in seeing the source in the journal 4OR I noted above, but does not have access to it, here is a copy of the manuscript, relating the history and one mathematician's description of him as a "notorious plagiarist". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He also shows up in a GBooks search result: Horace Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, Harcourt Trade Publishers 2004 [14]. My library has it -- perhaps I'll take a look later. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm struggling with this one. Please can someone point me to one, or preferably two sources that are reliable secondary sources that discuss this individual in detail. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most cited sources are online, but by subscription, which does not make them less of a references. If you don't feel like going to the library, see [15], [16], [17] which are free to access. Mhym (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. None of those links will open on this machine. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to open them on another machine. Two of them appear to be papers by the subject, so not third party sources discussing him in detail. The third appears to be a brief apology that his papers were plagiaristic, so again, not in-depth coverage of the subject. Is that it? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've indicated a couple of sources directly above your question. I too would be pleased to see sources that discuss him in a comprehensive way, covering his life more broadly beyond his career. But many people are notable only for what they do in the course of their careers, and there's no problem in having articles that discuss people mainly (or even solely) with respect to their careers. That's what we have here, and this article is similar to hundreds or thousands of others in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Without any coverage of this individual, he's not notable and this article needs to be deleted. I could possibly be persuaded to keep a similar article about the plagiarism case, rather than a biography. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I respect your opinion, but mine is that he meets WP:PROF; keeping this article on the basis that he meets that standard would be a decision very much in keeping with AfD outcomes for other academics we have discussed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as others have pointed out, his PROF credentials have been withdrawn. And BLP and GNG will always trump PROF in any cases of doubt. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have refuted that point re PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have argued against it. There's a difference. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but no-one has even attempted to demonstrate that my argument is wrong. So... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have argued against it. There's a difference. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have refuted that point re PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as others have pointed out, his PROF credentials have been withdrawn. And BLP and GNG will always trump PROF in any cases of doubt. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I respect your opinion, but mine is that he meets WP:PROF; keeping this article on the basis that he meets that standard would be a decision very much in keeping with AfD outcomes for other academics we have discussed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Without any coverage of this individual, he's not notable and this article needs to be deleted. I could possibly be persuaded to keep a similar article about the plagiarism case, rather than a biography. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these links papers. They are all reviews by Zentralblatt MATH which is a German publication which reviews papers in Mathematics. Other links are on Marcu's page and posted by me here athoughout the discussion - read the whole thing. Mhym (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've indicated a couple of sources directly above your question. I too would be pleased to see sources that discuss him in a comprehensive way, covering his life more broadly beyond his career. But many people are notable only for what they do in the course of their careers, and there's no problem in having articles that discuss people mainly (or even solely) with respect to their careers. That's what we have here, and this article is similar to hundreds or thousands of others in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to open them on another machine. Two of them appear to be papers by the subject, so not third party sources discussing him in detail. The third appears to be a brief apology that his papers were plagiaristic, so again, not in-depth coverage of the subject. Is that it? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. None of those links will open on this machine. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most cited sources are online, but by subscription, which does not make them less of a references. If you don't feel like going to the library, see [15], [16], [17] which are free to access. Mhym (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on responses to my question, immediately above. This individual is not notable, although the plagiarism case may be. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If he is only well known for plagiarism then would he not fail under WP:ONEEVENT? "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But he also clearly passes WP:PROF, particularly #1. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya but we cannot really go with PROF is all his stuff was pinched and is being withdrawn by the journals. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed that point above, [18]. It's tempting to believe that if someone has plagiarised something then they have plagiarised everything, but it's not true -- not even of my students... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya but we cannot really go with PROF is all his stuff was pinched and is being withdrawn by the journals. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer:no. E.g., Barack Obama is well known as a politician, but does not fall under BIO1E because he is actually well known for multiple achievements as a politician. John Wayne is well known as an actor but does not fall under BIO1E because he is actually well known for multiple achievements as an actor. Similarly, this subject is known for multiple instances of plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of those multiple instances of plagiarism notable as stand alone event?--Staberinde (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not. I haven't seen a reliable journal, magazine, or news source discussing any of these instances alone or in aggregate. I haven't seen any indication that someone reliable other than the original publisher, who is bound to release a statement on its own retraction, has reported on the 1E. I've also seen no in-depth biographical coverage for a BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this AfD is getting long and so it's understandable that someone might miss something, but here's one I indicated above: Horace Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, Harcourt Trade Publishers 2004. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While that is presumably a source mentioning the plagiarism, the next question is depth of coverage. A book about fraud is going to describe many non-notable incidents of fraud in the same way that a book about blogs is going to describe a lot of non-notable blogs. WP:INDEPTH points out that a source that uses an example to highlight a type of event in a general manner doesn't make the example notable. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm loath to engage in a meta-discussion. More on point, the WP:42 problem is that a single such source is insufficient, no matter how in-depth the treatment. In this publication, though, this subject clearly isn't the primary focus. Several such sources might make a case, though. I'll change my vote here or participate at deletion review if several (multiple) sources name him as a particularly prolific or otherwise notorious plagiarist. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this article then. Quote: "The same "author" had succeeded in publishing plagiarized texts in other journals, such as, e.g., Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Informatica, Computer Science Journal of Moldova and Journal of the Indian Institute of Science. The Graph Theory White Pages listed eighty papers published by Marcu in the period 1990-2003, and he was classified in 10th position in the list of the authors with most journal articles." Mhym (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I answered that one below. That is from one of the journals he submitted a plagiarized article to. They are only reporting on his plagiarism in other journals because he submitted a plagiarized article to them first, not because his plagiarism in other journals is independently notable.
- It's not an article, either; it's an editorial, and it's not peer-reviewed like articles are. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is illogical. If a newspaper publishes a story about an incident, we cite it. Newspapers are not "peer review", why have a different standard for research publications? The article is signed, and the authors and the journal are credible. This is enough for WP:RS. As for another issue - are you saying that having broken a story, this prevents a publication from being impartial, i.e. blacklisting it in some sense? I at loss with this twisted argument. But regardless, follow numerous MR links in the article. They are from Mathematical Reviews. Are they also non-RS? Mhym (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If a publication broke a story involving themselves, this does indeed prevent them from being considered impartial for that story, even if an update to the story goes on to mention someone else.
- Furthermore, when you ask if sources are WP:RS, you are confusing WP:RS with notability and NPOV. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Being a reliable source is not by itself enough to establish notability, since a source can be a reliable source but fail to have significant coverage or be independent.
- And no, I don't accept the Mathematical Review references either. Asking whether they are non-RS is the wrong question; the question for them is whether they are significant coverage. Reviewers review things of even low notability, and ideally want to review everything they can, so no--this is like asking if a restaurant is notable because it gets reviewed in a restaurant review column. (Ask yourself, if the reviewers had instead said that he's an average writer, would that establish that he's notable for being an average writer? Of course not.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is illogical. If a newspaper publishes a story about an incident, we cite it. Newspapers are not "peer review", why have a different standard for research publications? The article is signed, and the authors and the journal are credible. This is enough for WP:RS. As for another issue - are you saying that having broken a story, this prevents a publication from being impartial, i.e. blacklisting it in some sense? I at loss with this twisted argument. But regardless, follow numerous MR links in the article. They are from Mathematical Reviews. Are they also non-RS? Mhym (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this article then. Quote: "The same "author" had succeeded in publishing plagiarized texts in other journals, such as, e.g., Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Informatica, Computer Science Journal of Moldova and Journal of the Indian Institute of Science. The Graph Theory White Pages listed eighty papers published by Marcu in the period 1990-2003, and he was classified in 10th position in the list of the authors with most journal articles." Mhym (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm loath to engage in a meta-discussion. More on point, the WP:42 problem is that a single such source is insufficient, no matter how in-depth the treatment. In this publication, though, this subject clearly isn't the primary focus. Several such sources might make a case, though. I'll change my vote here or participate at deletion review if several (multiple) sources name him as a particularly prolific or otherwise notorious plagiarist. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But he also clearly passes WP:PROF, particularly #1. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. Also I consider it highly inappropriate to use WP:PROF to justify inclusion of BLP which is basically fully "yeah, that guy plagiarized a lot".--Staberinde (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If for no other reason, I think that Yworo's reasoning does hold. Articles about plagiarism produced by the entity that determined that there is plagiarism are primary sources. It is true that that entity is a journal, but the journal is acting in a different role than usual when it is publishing the conclusions of its own editorial board. Primary sources are not acceptable for negative statements about living people; you need coverage in secondary sources. And there seems to be no other reason anyone wants this article at all other than the plagiarism. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you are not reading many MathSciNet reviews in the article and Zblatt links I posted above. They are clear third party sources and very much on point. Just because these links are by subscription, does not make them less WP:RS. Mhym (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He has no notability other than plagiarism, so no WP:RS for biographical details, and there is already a mention of him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_plagiarism_incidents, which should be sufficient. Academic38 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This person is very famous in mathematics. Almost every journal editor watches for his name. It is unfortunate that the multiple charges of plagiarism are the main reason for this fame, but that is a fact and it's not our fault. If due care for the BLP rules is observed, I don't see any reason for deletion. Lack of biographical details is not a reason, otherwise we would delete Jack the Ripper. Zerotalk 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a fantastically inapposite example. Jack the Ripper's identity was uncertain, but nonetheless has so much secondary coverage by reliable sources as a serial killer that biographical details are of course secondary. This subject's identity is known, but he apparently hasn't garnered any substantial coverage in reliable sources other than primary sources ( = publishers making retractions), which don't indicate any significance; neither does your apparent WP:IKNOWIT/WP:TRUE world experience indicate significance because the proposition that he's well known and watched for doesn't appear in any valid source. If due care for BLP and general rules is observed, there wouldn't be an article about this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but this is not a retraction notice. It is unquestionably a reliable secondary source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After JFHJr's comment of 05:41, 23 February 2013 admitting that something else was indeed a secondary source, and now seeing him or her assert once more that he never heard that and that there are none, I am questioning his good faith in this argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about him, but I'm going to assert that that isn't a secondary source. It's an update from one of the journals that he submitted a paper to, making it a primary source since it's a journal reporting on its own editorial decision. It's true that the update mentions his papers in other journals, but it only considers the other journals to be important in the context of investigating the plagiarism in its own submissions.
- A source may be primary in one respect and secondary in another. In this case it is a secondary source about the person in question. It is not a new theory. The editor's decision is based on their finding of fact, and these findings are definitely secondary. - Altenmann >t 04:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I report how someone kicked my dog, and update it by pointing out that he also kicked someone else's dog, that doesn't count as a secondary source showing notability for him kicking the other person's dog. After all, I only care because he also kicked mine.
- It also seems to be listing plagiarists because it believes that listing plagiarists in general is a good thing, which would seem to violate WP:INDEPTH (since it's using examples of an event to highlight a type of event).
- Wikipedia is not for exposing evildoers. Just because he did bad things doesn't mean they belong in a Wikipedia article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a journalist investigates something, including personal observations and interviews, then publishes it in a reliable place, we cite it. It might be a primary source by some standards, but by long established Wikipedia practice we treat it as a secondary source. We also regularly cite newspaper editorials, hopefully with attribution, for the opinions they contain. I don't see this as any different from the editors of a journal publishing their observations about papers they have received. The key requirement is the reliability of the publication process. There is nothing in the primary versus secondary divide that tells us not to use such sources. Zerotalk 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First Hitler, now Jack the Ripper, which world famous murderer will be brought up next in argument about including this obscure Romanian plagiarist? This would be humorous if we weren't dealing with BLP here.--Staberinde (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse, it's hard to tell. Of course he's not as notable as H or JtR — very few people are. The point of bringing up those examples was not to compare their notability, but to point out that some of the arguments being used against the article on Marcu could equally well be used against them, in order to show off how absurd those arguments are. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only points those comparisons had was massive trivialization of BLP. Like seriously, saying that practically fully negative biography about living person with borderline notability is okay, simply because same is done on biography of world famous murderer from 19th century who is only known by a nickname? Huh?--Staberinde (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse, it's hard to tell. Of course he's not as notable as H or JtR — very few people are. The point of bringing up those examples was not to compare their notability, but to point out that some of the arguments being used against the article on Marcu could equally well be used against them, in order to show off how absurd those arguments are. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First Hitler, now Jack the Ripper, which world famous murderer will be brought up next in argument about including this obscure Romanian plagiarist? This would be humorous if we weren't dealing with BLP here.--Staberinde (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a journalist investigates something, including personal observations and interviews, then publishes it in a reliable place, we cite it. It might be a primary source by some standards, but by long established Wikipedia practice we treat it as a secondary source. We also regularly cite newspaper editorials, hopefully with attribution, for the opinions they contain. I don't see this as any different from the editors of a journal publishing their observations about papers they have received. The key requirement is the reliability of the publication process. There is nothing in the primary versus secondary divide that tells us not to use such sources. Zerotalk 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Notability/notoriety stablished through secondary sources. - Altenmann >t 04:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no oustanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Salih (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Housefull (2013 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)
no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. does not even have an entry at IMDB (the only two "Housefull" flicks are Ashkay Kumar's 2010 and 2012 sequel) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
"Withdrawn by nominator" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The film is already released. References also added.
Anish Viswa 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Recently released notable Malayalam movie. Added infobox details and inter-language link. --Jairodz (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Mainstream major film -- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above ★★RetroLord★★ 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment merely existing is not sufficient criteria for an article. WP:N -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 February 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)
- Strong Keep Recent release receiving coverage in sources. WP:NF is met. Appreciations to User:Tokyogirl79 who worked to improve this brand new article. Being a sourced work in progress, it serves Wikipedia to allow it to remain and grow and be further improved. Tossing it does not improve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Schmidt, and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Google search using - Housefull "Tini Tom" -wikipedia - gives 28K results now, including this article from mainstream newspaper The Hindu.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- while there may be a lot of hits that come up on a google search, that doesnt mean anything for the requirement of significant content by reliably published sources. And even the Hindu story that you highlight [23] has one passing paragraph about the film's plot and some fluff about how the actor is excited to get to play the lead. No significant encyclopedic content about the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- As stated above... we have a brand new article about a newly released film which is beginning to gain recognition and commentary in sources... some good and some bad... and coverage need not be solely about the topic, as long as information is given that can verify information within an article. And another consideration for instance, is that news articles found about the film's stars, such as Jyothirmayi, can and do offer such information, as they speak toward the film as part of the actor's career.IE: see Sify This one merits a WP:CHANCE to grow further over time. While it is laudable to expect perfection, policy does not demand immediate perfection, and actually encourages that we all take part in improving topics perceived by some as imperfect. Tossing a work-in-progress does not always improve this encyclopedia. Interesting consensus about NOT removing WP:IMPERFECT from the policy page is found HERE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COATRACK content DOES need to be about the subject of the article. And if you wish to take it to your user space until that someday when there is actual significant content about the subject, that is fine with me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay COATRACK is about tells us how an article in Wikipedia should remain focused on the article topic, but does not dictate the content of the sources used. If among its other information, a reliable source verifies that someone is in the film, then per WP:V that source may (avoiding non-film related minutiae) cite film-related information about that actor's inclusion in the film article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COATRACK content DOES need to be about the subject of the article. And if you wish to take it to your user space until that someday when there is actual significant content about the subject, that is fine with me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With the presentation of an actual review from the Hindu, I now support keeping the article and withdraw the deletion nomination. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the withdrawal. With no outstanding !votes for deletion, perhaps someone will speedy keep this now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 16:59, 23 February 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 Sky Sports. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dermot Gascoyne (edit | 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 WP:NBOX. No claims of notability independent of Sky Sports. Possibly redirect? —Theopolisme (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sky Sports He certainly doesn't meet the notability criteria for a boxer (WP:NBOX). His name isn't currently listed in the Sky Sports article among the boxing commentators. I would suggest adding his name to the list and redirecting the article there. There's nothing to show he mertis an individual article. Papaursa (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sky Sports I'm also OK with just deleting this article. There really isn't anything that shows he should have an article, but redirects are nicer.Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 23 February 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. Closed as copyvio. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SHIV SHANI MANDIR,OLD B.D.O OFFICE,DHORI (PHUSRO) (edit | 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-English and not notable. Self promotion. Vacation9 18:22, 18 February 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. However, discussions should follow to determine the reliability of That Guy with the Glasses as a source for establishing notability, potentially at WP:RS/N; if it is deemed not reliable, then this AfD can be considered WP:NPASR. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Immoral Study (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)
Not notable: I could find no sources besides self-published fan reviews and brief product listings in online stores. Atlantima (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 February 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) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those sources given in the article do not look like they're reliable at all, and I found no others. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Checking the reliable sources search for manga and anime, the first thing that appears is an in depth review from a reliable source, That Guy with the Glasses. [24] 1,770 results from the search. [25] I see this one on the first page of results. [26] Dream Focus 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I used to be a big fan of That Guy with the Glasses (until I discovered The Angry Video Game Nerd), but I'm not sure if he's considered a reliable source. There's no doubt that Doug Walker's show is notable, but as a source? I'm not so sure. I'm withholding !voting on this until the reliability of TGWTG is determined. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DreamFocus, you linked to a review on CDOSAbandonware, which doesn't seem like a RS to me. The reviewer's name is ~Dark_angel which seems to indicate "self-published fan review". Additionally, the review page itself offers the software for free download, so I don't know if Wikipedia should be linking there at all.--Atlantima (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. My mistake. Dream Focus 23:18, 20 February 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 Avonhead. I don't understand the final comment: we have three editors here who propose merging, and it seems like a good solution in keeping with precedent. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Russley School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Primary school (years 1-8). 5-sentence article (mostly unreferenced), with ibox. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Avonhead. The major reference for the article is the Ministry of Education link in the infobox.-gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. This didn't have to come here--doing a merge like this is standard procedure for primary schools. Since the nominator accepts a merge, I do not know why they couldn't simply have done it themself--it doesn't look like there would have been any opposition. DGG (at NYPL) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
- A merge, of course, is different than a redirect. If the community consensus here is to merge, so be it. But I do not support a merge. Nor have I so indicated. And, as DGG demonstrates, there is not always consensus as to whether to keep, redirect, delete, or merge such articles. I've certainly seen all four results with such schools. One can point to common results, but one can also point to exceptions to them. I have my view, DGG has his, and perhaps there will be another editor who will demand "Keep," and yet another who will demand "Delete." While I have considered merging or redirecting such articles, I don't choose, under these circumstances, to take such a unilateral step here without community discussion, even if DGG were to take such a step were he in my place. At the same time, if there were so self-evidently only one possible result here, DGG could of course close it speedily, which he has not seen fit to do. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (redirect) per DGG. Standard procedure as per the long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 February 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) 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES precedents merging or redirecting. In the discussion, the nominator opposed merging. The editors that !voted merge were not clear in whether they actually wanted to merge the content or not. In this listing period, the discussion should focus on whether we should merge the content to another article or simply redirect the page without merging anything. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chekiang Province, Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Chekiang Province is simply a different spelling (Romanization) of Zhejiang Province. It was not "abolished," only taken over by the PRC. The article is essentially unsourced, using only websites and a random BBC report. At best, info should be merged into Zhejiang Province article. ch (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Though the article definitely needs better sources, I'd like to slightly disagree with part of the nomination rationale. This article is parallel to Fujian Province, Republic of China - Chekiang, ROC was not abolished by the formation of the PRC and rule over Zhejiang Province. Chekiang, ROC existed as a province of the ROC well after the 1949 formation of the PRC, until 1955, as a separate political entity, and this article describes the historical political entity. Chekiang, ROC were a group of small islands off the mainland Chinese coast that, until 1955, were still under KMT control (and not the CPC), just like how Fukien Province, ROC is still under ROC, and not PRC, control. TL;DR: This article is about the historical former province of the Republic of China, not about the modern-day province of the People's Republic of China known as Zhejiang. (Although yes, the spelling difference is just a minor Pinyin/Postal rom variation, they both refer to the same name) -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 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) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My reading of this is that they were not geographically coextensive despite having essentially the same name, and that although Chekiang was subsumed by Zhejiang they are distinct yet historically related entities. I do agree that the article as it exists needs work.Synchronism (talk) 16:27, 20 February 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 TeachText. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit (application) (edit | 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 about a former application for Apple computers appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. It was created in July 2002 by an anon, when the notability requirements were much smaller and unregistered editors could still create new pages. Generally, the only sources available are self-published such as Wikia. Its newer software, TeachText, has also been nominated for deletion due to the same concerns. TBrandley (what's up) 20:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While not yet having searched for sources relating to this Apple software, this is a generic title for applications across a range of platforms. (For example the Acorn application of the same title is contained within the list of RISC OS bundled applications.) There is no deadline, and it should be considered that many such individual applications could have their respective articles created one day. At such a point in time, Edit (application) would be the disambiguation page. (I was about to suggest a move to Edit (Apple) or similar if notability isn't established, and a subsequent redirect to TeachText or SimpleText... but see that the nominator has AFD'd those too.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. - ʈucoxn\talk 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge (Open to WP:Heyman save.) A predecessor to all text editing on a platform seems like content we want to keep. Insomesia (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable. I'm stretched thin trying to find sources because the nominator submitted three AfDs for Apple text editing software: TeachText, TextEdit, and Edit (application). Deleting this and the previously mentioned articles would be like deleting the articles for the Microsoft Windows programs WordPad and Notepad -- both programs of un-arguable notability. - ʈucoxn\talk 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on finding some sources for this article. I'd like to request an extension of this AfD so that I can complete my search. Thanks! - ʈucoxn\talk 20:58, 17 February 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) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to TeachText (and merge the useful and relevant material into TeachText too). Toffanin (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the generic name but merge the one-liner info into TeachText successor. EnTerr (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Farrelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Neutral proposal. Article is a mess, notable?, etc. This AfD may be the easiest way to fix or decide to delete. Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tone is overtly promotional and I cannot see that this individual has received significant, third-party coverage. Ergo, not notable. GiantSnowman 16:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, Snowman, but did you not see this or something like it? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Provocative Therapy is potentially notable - I do not believe Farrelly is. GiantSnowman 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Snowman, but did you not see this or something like it? Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article has been vastly improved, notability now established. GiantSnowman 09:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Changing !vote to Keep.--ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously notable despite the state of the article. Come on y'all. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "obviously" notable. GiantSnowman 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, his book is cited in at least four academic books. It's in the article now, Snowman. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the book is notable...? GiantSnowman 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Both Farrelly and provocative therapy are mentioned in numerous books on psychology, per the Google book search at the above link. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — It's just a mess. Normal editing can do the job. "Provocative Therapy" (+2 coauthors, 179 cites), "Code of Chronicity" (+1 coauthor, 56 cites), "Weapons of Insanity" (+1 same coauthor, 31 cites), "Provokative Therapie" (German edition) (+1 same coauthor, 110 cites). Plus trivial smatter. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I saw this reported at WP:BLP/N and I feared another mess but Farrelly seems to meet WP:GNG at the very least, and so does his work. Not sure as an academic though. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Close. I nominated as neutral and the only delete votes have been struck.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 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. What Hammersoft said. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obamafuscation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
SHOULD NOT BE DELETED Scot Ric Scot Ric (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy deletion: The material is copied from [27]. We do NOT accept copyright violations here. The material is also highly polemic and unrecoverably unencyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No merge considering the circumstances (BLP) and the article poor shape. Secret account 03:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pragya Singh Thakur (edit | 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 person is just known for involvment in one trial, the person is just an accused and can be said that the person not much known apart from one incident, as per WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The details of the person can be incorporated in 29_September_2008_western_India_bombings#Malegaon_blasts sarvajna (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per note in wp:CRIME: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." (Emphasis in original) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The page/article not suitable as per the Wikipedia guidelines.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per WP:BLPCRIME. Even if a conviction is secured, this article should probably be rewritten from scratch. JFHJr (㊟) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 29_September_2008_western_India_bombings#Malegaon_blasts per WP:BLPCRIME. This person is still notable enough to have information to be retained in the article about the crime. Aurorion (talk) 14:49, 24 February 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 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lindsey Blaufarb (edit | 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 basic criteria WP:BASIC for biographical notability: must be "subject of multiple published secondary sources". A Google search revealed an MTV link that was only a slide show. Five pages of Google returns showed only blogs, primary and self-written sources, social networking sites, and websites linking to movie info (apparently she played a cheerleader extra). I'm not saying this person isn't well-known in her own sphere, but she's simply not encyclopedic. Finally, it is more than apparent that the article was created and updated by either her or someone known to her who knows her nicknames (LindsayB Out There, when other (non-notable) websites/blogs listed her as "Out There" only) and even scholarship information, and an external link is a direct link to her resume (I guess, I didn't download it). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- question Is there sufficient evidence she was a member of the cvarious groups listed in the article, and are the groups actually notable? DGG (at NYPL) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
- In the external links is a link to the Beat Freaks site and she's pictured on the right (because of her social networking status, Google images has a ton of images of her). I was considering adding links here to Beat Freaks (Team iLuminate I think is probably sourced ok... I don't know if that makes it notable, but I'm not going to worry about it). Beat Freaks has a bunch of sources that are just silly and don't tell you anything, but I wasn't jumping the gun on that one. To the point, again, the only proof she's part of those groups, aside for OR visual recognition, is social networking and blog mentions. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found pretty much the same as what nom describes – mostly PR material and nothing source-able. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 21 February 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 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Minute to Win It challenges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listcruft. The challenges on each episode vary widely and often are not repeated on other episodes. AldezD (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's just a list taken from the show's website. No evidence that a significant number of the challenges have received independent coverage, although a few challenges are mentioned in media coverage on the show, and therefore a small selection of challenges might be mentioned in the main article on the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Insert to Minute to Win It, if someone wanted a list of these challenges they could just go to the show's website JayJayWhat did I do? 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is a precedent of sorts in List of The Price Is Right pricing games, but unlike that none of these have attained any pop-culture notability of the sort that Plinko has, for example. The vast majority of what's here isn't going to be able to be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the 'external links' lead to some 'blueprint' site which now 404's as a domain for sale, but in the past hosted COPYVIO videos of the show's stunt demonstration. Heavy 'type what I see' recapping which violates WP:OR, and many, many other fansites can provide this information in better forms. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Barely notable show, the individual games have no individual notability. Contrast to the Price is Right, which is very notable and a list of its pricing games - several which have some facets of notability, would be appropriate. But AMTWI is a far cry from TPIR. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: one of the most bloated examples of fancruft I've ever seen. As others have stated, listing challenges present in a game show is only appropriate if the game show in question is truly iconic to the point that the challenges themselves have been covered, with The Price Is Right being cited as an excellent example. CtP (t • c) 21:35, 21 February 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 03:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Watching Movies With The Sound Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, per wp:crystal, no refs provided and other then thiss [[28]] none found and seems to be more promotional then anything else Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. No album cover, release date or tracklist. Or even sources for that matter. STATic message me! 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur; Mac Miller could do with some cleanup, too. pablo 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This page is in bad shape. Plus theres no sources or release date. Koala15 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mac Miller for now; I see a few write-ups for this upcoming release (e.g., [29][30]), but not enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an individual article at this time. Gong show 08:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough information concerning this album is out in the public yet. See WP:HAMMER. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks the coverage required to surpass WP:TOOSOON. Mkdwtalk 20:30, 24 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 February 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}} . |
- Society for Venturism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though at first glance extremely-well-sourced, this article in fact is not. Sources are either affiliated with the subject, have no bearing whatsoever on the gist of the article, or are otherwise biased or unreliable. Notability is definitely not established by outside sources. The only reliably-sourced episode covered by the article, regarding a woman named Kim Suozzi, does not directly relate to the article subject. dci | TALK 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The sources based on news publications are not the only ones that are reliable. The cryonics and transhumanist organization websites, publications, and news groups are reliable unless you consider cryonics an unworthy subject. Wikipedia has an entry on cryonics as well as many entries on cryonics organizations. Cryonics organizations are part of modern life, and should be covered by Wikipedia. --Ben Best 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny that cryonics is a perfectly notable field. However, pages of organizations related to a particular subject do not ascertain the particular subject's notability. For example, the Catholic Church article would be in trouble if it relied entirely on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website. dci | TALK 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That analogy does not apply in this particular case. Along with sources outside the fields of cryonics or transhumanism, the article contains citations from a wide variety of transhumanist and cryonics organization websites and newsgroups. Your analogy would be more like the Catholic Church article citing references from a wide variety of Christian organizations and newsgroups. --Ben Best 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not deny that cryonics is a perfectly notable field. However, pages of organizations related to a particular subject do not ascertain the particular subject's notability. For example, the Catholic Church article would be in trouble if it relied entirely on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website. dci | TALK 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:I don't see the problem. If there are issues with the sources, start a discussion on improving them. Marking it for deletion 15 minutes after it was created implies it is considered spam which is certainly not the case. I follow cryonics issues and this society has existed for years and has been in the news recently. I didn't look much at the listed sources, but they certainly exist...give people a chance to add them. Also Kim Suozzi does relate...as the article states, she was recently cryopreserved because of funds raised by the society. Symmetric (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm not a Venturist, but have been keeping a close eye on them for, oh, half a year or so. I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles with worse sourcing. If the deletionist feels the multiple non-Venturist sources in this article are insufficient, then the obvious solution isn't to delete the whole article, it's to add more sources. DataPacRat (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am not a contributor to the Venturists at the moment, and I can see that the monetarisation of this organization can raise some hackles. However suppression of this page removes an unbiased source of information about this group which means that people are less able to make informed choices about the Venturists. Surely it is better for people to be fully informed before they spend money, rather than do it out of some form of religious fervor. -- John de Rivaz 10:52, 11 February 2013 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Rivaz (talk • contribs)
- Keep: My name is Mark Plus, and I am the Secretary of the Society for Venturism. The Society for Venturism is a real organization which was incorporated in the State of Arizona in 1986, and it is still in good standing in that state, which you can confirm by searching the organization's name at the website http://www.azcc.gov/. One of the the founders of the Society, Arizona businessman David Pizer, was also profiled in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago regarding his cryonics activism and his reanimation trust: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113780314900652582.html The Society's work has been covered in the national news lately in connection with the cryopreservation of the cancer victim Kim Suozzi, and it deserves an accurate entry in Wikipedia describing its principles and activities for people who want to learn more about it. Advancedatheist (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The above keep !votes do not establish why the article ought not to be deleted. First, the sources on the article really aren't reliable. Yahoo posts about Toronto's Bedford Day parties and wikis, postings, and articles from affiliates of this organization are not considered in line with WP policy. As for the argument stating that an appropriate analogy is the Catholic Church article being sourced by other denominations' webpages, these, too, would not be considered reliable. Basically, this article needs sources from a well-established source not affiliated with the Society of Venturism or its affiliates in the cryonics movement, and clear indications that the topic has garnered sufficient notability. dci | TALK 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are innumerable news stories about Kim Suozzi's charitable cryopreservation, which I feel would satisfy 'sufficient notability' all by themselves - just do a Google News search and pick one. Here's just one, from io9: http://io9.com/5977640/23+year-old-kim-suozzi-undergoes-cryonic-preservation-after-successful-fundraising-campaign . Given that notability is established with at least one news report, fixing the remaining problem you raise appears to be more a matter of improving the sources than deleting the whole article; so instead of flagging it for deletion, it could be flagged for clean-up and better sources. Our disagreement seems to be about whether a crowdsourced charitable cryo-preservation is 'notable' - and if you feel that it isn't, I don't see us being able to come to any sort of agreement. DataPacRat (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not at all what I am arguing about. In fact, a reliably-sourced article about Kim Suozzi and others who have taken similar actions would likely meet notability and other inclusion guidelines. My concern is the topic of the article - the society itself, whose notability is not ascertained by the current sources. dci | TALK 00:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The SoV has started another charity for another potential cryo-preservation patient, the author of 'Drupal Multimedia' ( http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/open-source-software-developer-terminal-illness-hopes-opt-out-death ). Given that the SoV is the only one doing such charities, why not simply collect such stories in the SoV page? DataPacRat (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, the problem is that none of the sources are reliable. Adding more content with similar sources doesn't help. Please don't take this as a disparagement of the hard work it takes to put forth an article, but merely laying out problems with this particular subject's inclusion and its article's sourcing. dci | TALK 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim that "none of the sources are reliable" is an unsubstantiated anti-cryonics bias on your part. The Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation all have entries on Wikipedia, so how can they be unreliable sources? CRYONET and NEW CRYONET are established cryonics blogs not affiliated with any cryonics organization. BIOLOGY RESOURCES ONLINE is not even a cryonics organization. --Ben Best 06:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Basically, the problem is that none of the sources are reliable. Adding more content with similar sources doesn't help. Please don't take this as a disparagement of the hard work it takes to put forth an article, but merely laying out problems with this particular subject's inclusion and its article's sourcing. dci | TALK 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The SoV has started another charity for another potential cryo-preservation patient, the author of 'Drupal Multimedia' ( http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/open-source-software-developer-terminal-illness-hopes-opt-out-death ). Given that the SoV is the only one doing such charities, why not simply collect such stories in the SoV page? DataPacRat (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not at all what I am arguing about. In fact, a reliably-sourced article about Kim Suozzi and others who have taken similar actions would likely meet notability and other inclusion guidelines. My concern is the topic of the article - the society itself, whose notability is not ascertained by the current sources. dci | TALK 00:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are innumerable news stories about Kim Suozzi's charitable cryopreservation, which I feel would satisfy 'sufficient notability' all by themselves - just do a Google News search and pick one. Here's just one, from io9: http://io9.com/5977640/23+year-old-kim-suozzi-undergoes-cryonic-preservation-after-successful-fundraising-campaign . Given that notability is established with at least one news report, fixing the remaining problem you raise appears to be more a matter of improving the sources than deleting the whole article; so instead of flagging it for deletion, it could be flagged for clean-up and better sources. Our disagreement seems to be about whether a crowdsourced charitable cryo-preservation is 'notable' - and if you feel that it isn't, I don't see us being able to come to any sort of agreement. DataPacRat (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, instead of looking for sources that are notable for any particular detail about the SoV, we just look for at least one notable source about the SoV's sheer existence? Would that io9 article I linked to above be sufficient for that much? DataPacRat (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect your resolve to find good sources for the article, what's really needed is something that explains notable actions done by the organization, not just involvement in one particular case that happened to garner widespread coverage. dci | TALK 01:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, so far, the organization could be considered to be involved in about one and a half notable actions so far... Would some combination of http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/09/terminally-ill-woman-seeks-help-to-get-cryogenically-frozen.html , http://www.metafilter.com/119656/Waiting-For-A-Cure , http://www.kbia.org/post/missouri-girl-undergoes-cryopreservation , http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ydsy5/reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_in_dying_young_im/ , or http://lesswrong.com/lw/e5d/link_reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_im_dying_young/ suffice for third-party coverage? DataPacRat (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not confident that these remedy the situation; I will address this further tomorrow. dci | TALK 04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, so far, the organization could be considered to be involved in about one and a half notable actions so far... Would some combination of http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/09/terminally-ill-woman-seeks-help-to-get-cryogenically-frozen.html , http://www.metafilter.com/119656/Waiting-For-A-Cure , http://www.kbia.org/post/missouri-girl-undergoes-cryopreservation , http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ydsy5/reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_in_dying_young_im/ , or http://lesswrong.com/lw/e5d/link_reddit_help_me_find_some_peace_im_dying_young/ suffice for third-party coverage? DataPacRat (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect your resolve to find good sources for the article, what's really needed is something that explains notable actions done by the organization, not just involvement in one particular case that happened to garner widespread coverage. dci | TALK 01:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, instead of looking for sources that are notable for any particular detail about the SoV, we just look for at least one notable source about the SoV's sheer existence? Would that io9 article I linked to above be sufficient for that much? DataPacRat (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to BenBest's comment above: please understand that I have no bias whatsoever regarding cryonics, and if I did, it would likely be in favor of it. My concerns have to do with the quality and reliability of the references you have used. They are not third-party, unaffiliated coverage that demonstrates that this organization has firmly established notability. Blogs, while not in and of themselves unreliable, have to meet fairly high standards of professionalism to be claimed as RS. dci | TALK 23:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not have an anti-cryonics bias, you are making the same mistake in lumping-together and discrediting cryonics organizations that an anti-Christian would make in lumping-together and discrediting Christian organizations. Your misperception has the appearance of bias, even if it is not bias. The Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church are no less distinct than the Society for Venturism, Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation — and, indeed, some of those organizations are not only distinct, but competitors. Blogs are not necessarily the same as discussion groups. Blogs are often postings of a single person, whereas the discussion groups I referred-to (CRYONET and NEW CRYONET) represent forums allowing many participants. While not as authoritative as cryonics organizations, the discussion groups are nonetheless independent from the cryonics organizations and from each other. (NEW CRYONET replaced CRYONET, and operates under a distinct technology, and is more moderated than CRYONET was.) --Ben Best 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest all who have commented above carefully review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. This covers blogs and other self-published sources (a category under which a Yahoo discussion group would fall). Also, please note that I am not trying to discredit the subject of the article in any way. I do not believe the subject has received nearly enough coverage in reliable sources to attain notability. dci | TALK 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed a set of sources which are far from mere 'blogs' or discussion groups - Io9, the CBC, a radio station. These three, at least, seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable/secondary sources - and even if only those three of what I listed qualify, that's because I didn't think I'd need to skim further down the 100,000 Google search results ( https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q="society+for+venturism"+-site%3Aventurist.org+-site%3Aventurist.info+-site%3Awikipedia.org ). DataPacRat (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cryonics organizations and their publications are not "blogs".--Ben Best 03:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've listed a set of sources which are far from mere 'blogs' or discussion groups - Io9, the CBC, a radio station. These three, at least, seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable/secondary sources - and even if only those three of what I listed qualify, that's because I didn't think I'd need to skim further down the 100,000 Google search results ( https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q="society+for+venturism"+-site%3Aventurist.org+-site%3Aventurist.info+-site%3Awikipedia.org ). DataPacRat (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest all who have commented above carefully review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. This covers blogs and other self-published sources (a category under which a Yahoo discussion group would fall). Also, please note that I am not trying to discredit the subject of the article in any way. I do not believe the subject has received nearly enough coverage in reliable sources to attain notability. dci | TALK 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not have an anti-cryonics bias, you are making the same mistake in lumping-together and discrediting cryonics organizations that an anti-Christian would make in lumping-together and discrediting Christian organizations. Your misperception has the appearance of bias, even if it is not bias. The Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church are no less distinct than the Society for Venturism, Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation — and, indeed, some of those organizations are not only distinct, but competitors. Blogs are not necessarily the same as discussion groups. Blogs are often postings of a single person, whereas the discussion groups I referred-to (CRYONET and NEW CRYONET) represent forums allowing many participants. While not as authoritative as cryonics organizations, the discussion groups are nonetheless independent from the cryonics organizations and from each other. (NEW CRYONET replaced CRYONET, and operates under a distinct technology, and is more moderated than CRYONET was.) --Ben Best 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be pure WP:FRINGE; the sources appear to be entirely within that fringe world, and the keep reasons appear to be WP:ITSUSEFUL even where lack of WP:NOTABILITY is accepted. It is difficult to see how anything other than delete could reasonably result under WP policy, though perhaps a merge to Cryonics would work.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion that cryonics is WP:FRINGE is mistaken. You could find scientists who claim that cryonics cannot work, but you could also find many reputable scientists who say that it could work. Cryonics is not the Flat Earth Society. Cryonics is controversial, but that is not the same as being fringe. The Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics includes such notables as Marvin Minsky and L. Stephen Coles. I suggest that you look at my paper Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice. A witchhunt against cryonics should not single-out the Society for Venturism while Wikipedia has many organizations and people under the Category:Cryonics.--Ben Best 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Heavily self-sourced and rather promotional in tone. I favor a low bar for new religious movements, however, and this comes close to clearing a lite application of GNG from sources showing. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing at all from either High Beam or Questia... An exact Google search pulls over 39,000 hits, which would seem to indicate a decent chance of finding something. Looking... Carrite (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of the organization's activity fundraising for a terminally ill woman in a 2012 LOCAL CBS AFFILIATE NEWS REPORT. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The preservation of that woman's head MADE THE NEWS IN THE UK. Does that count towards notability of the subject organization? Barely if at all, but it does indicate that people might be apt to search WP for information on that organization... Carrite (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not seeing much that counts towards GNG... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The preservation of that woman's head MADE THE NEWS IN THE UK. Does that count towards notability of the subject organization? Barely if at all, but it does indicate that people might be apt to search WP for information on that organization... Carrite (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of the organization's activity fundraising for a terminally ill woman in a 2012 LOCAL CBS AFFILIATE NEWS REPORT. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing at all from either High Beam or Questia... An exact Google search pulls over 39,000 hits, which would seem to indicate a decent chance of finding something. Looking... Carrite (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following link [31] appears to show a coordinated effort to get "keep" votes here. I don't want to appear antagonistic, but I am not confident this is the most appropriate way to go about discussion. dci | TALK 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as Review - For what its worth, I upgrade my recommendation to Strong Keep. The claim that "none of the sources are reliable" cannot be justified given the many news organizations that covered the Kim Suozzi story. The stories were not simply about Kim Suozzi, they identified the Society for Venturism as the charitable organization that spearheaded raising money to pay for Kim Suozzi's cryopreservation. For dci to imply that the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormon Church are not independent because they are all Christian defies belief. Those organizations may all believe in Jesus Christ, but that does not mean they are "affiliated". Similarly, the Society for Venturism, the Cryonics Institute, Longecity, and Alcor Life Extension Foundation all believe that cryonics can work, but that does not mean they are affiliated -- the organizations are independent.--Ben Best 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think Carrite covers that in one of his comments. Sure, the Kim Suozzi cryopreservation is notable; I'm not contesting that. But one notable, well-covered event does not mean that the subject is notable, nor does it address the article's current sourcing troubles. dci | TALK 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, found nothing outside of the Kim Suozzi case. Not enough to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 06:58, 23 February 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 03:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- International Journal of Forest, Soil and Erosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather new journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's taken me a while to get there, but I now agree that, at present, this journal does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would encourage interested editors to check again in a year or two to see if there are any changes in this regard. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. New publication, founded in 2011. According to International Union of Soil Science, it's an open-access journal, contrary to assertions of peer review. Not indexed in any mainstream databases yet. I don't see indications that it's notable per Wikipedia criteria (WP:Notability, etc.). --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, appears to be self-published by the journal's editor. Hairhorn (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Two notes on the above: i) 'Open access' does not connote lack of peer-review; rather it means that the journal available to readers without a subscription fee. This journal does appear to be peer-reviewed. ii) Self-published seems somewhat relative, too; the journal is apparently not sponsored by an institution or organization, nor published by a publishing house; it does seem to have a full complement of editorial board members, however. I don't disagree with the recommendations, but think it important to 'assume good faith' with publications as well as their editors. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it's a young journal whose notability is not yet established. Additionally, there have been a handful of academic publications from Iran recently nominated for AfD due to notability issues, so this could be a part of some sort of Wiki-wide trend. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:50, 24 February 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 G11. Secret account 06:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John Fahy (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
promo The Banner talk 12:42, 18 February 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 FreeNAS. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NAS4Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination on behalf of User:Piotrus, who will be around shortly to offer a rationale. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The rationale is simple: fails notability and uses only self-published sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of ghits: should be an uncontroversial merge to FreeNAS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There are a number of Google hits from independent sources, but all except one were blog/forum contributions, considered unreliable by WP standards. The one reliable source, DistroWatch, only has a paragraph on the distribution, not quite enough to be in depth. The topic seems to fail general notability guidelines WP:GNG, but the topic is clearly verifiable. Since this software is a fork of an earlier version of FreeNAS, it would make sense to merge it into that article. I'd recommend against a redirect, as the two distributions have diverged in licenses and content. --Mark viking (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Despite what FreeNAS's article says, FreeNAS 8.x and FreeNAS 9.x are still based on FreeBSD and the feared switch to GNU/Debian never happened in the first place (that specific idea is now a different project named OpenMediaVault), neither the change of the product name by iXSystems, hence the aforementioned NAS4Free's fork is no more justified; on top of that, the story told by NAS4free (cit.): "After the FreeNAS name was legally acquired by iXsystems, Inc. (year 2011), the code was unable to be developed any longer under the same name, and a name change was necessary. The founder of FreeNAS (Olivier Cochard-Labbé) did donate the original FreeNAS source code to NAS4Free project. IXsystems no longer wanted us to release new builds under the FreeNAS name, so the only option was to leave the FreeNAS project after so many years.", is clearly a lie as iXsystems never forced the FreeNAS's original developers to stop the project (on the contrary, Olivier Cochard-Labbé is still the founder and main developer of FreeNAS, see [32]). As well explained in the FreeNAS's wiki (see [33]), originally NAS4Free was just a mere fork for legacy development of the old FreeNAS's 7.x branches (which were no more supported by iXsystems's EOL policies), nothing else. iXSystems simply asked them to stop to identify their fork as FreeNAS, because was misleading and a trademark infringement, so the change of the name in NAS4Free was required. In short, all the facts about NAS4Free are just hype and rumors (no reliable sources about Olivier Cochard-Labbé donating open-source code from FreeNAS to NAS4Free, no sources at all) of ex-developers from the original FreeNAS's team holding a grunge against iXsystems, hence, NAS4Free's article must be merged into FreeNAS for coherence. Toffanin (talk) 15:43, 18 February 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) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deepak Bajracharya (edit | 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:BASIC notability and does not meet any other criteria for notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no independent sources aside from blog posts and lyric sites. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not observed. Jussychoulex (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this to Eclipse (software) or some other appropriate page I would be happt to userfy it for them. J04n(talk page) 11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jubula (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)
Open source software project with no RS to support notability. I see lots of forum discussions, but couldn't find any feature-length articles on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article's full text: Jubula is an open source, Java-based that provides automated functional GUI testing for Java and HTML applications. No references, much less any showing of significant effects on technology, history, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The article's lack of references is not a reason to delete. It's your job in this process to attempt to find material to support the article's claim of notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I thought you nominated this for deletion. You also indicated that you had looked for sources and hadn't found any of significance. I took your word for that, and pointed out that the article was not very informative, unreferenced (technically original research), seemed to be about a very technical tool for a subset of computer programmers, and made none of the claims to technical, historical, or cultural significance that I'd expect to see in an article about a specific product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The article's lack of references is not a reason to delete. It's your job in this process to attempt to find material to support the article's claim of notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As of Indigo, Jubula is part of the Eclipse ecosystem, which is an indication of importance in the Java testing community. I found two references:
- Both of these are in depth and the authors seem independent of Jubula. Both are news sites, with the authors working for the sites, rather than as just bloggers. At this point, these two may indicate marginal notability of the topic. I am on the fence, hence no vote yet. --Mark viking (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then it should have a section in the Eclipse article. It is not likely independently notable, much like EPIC - Eclipse Perl Integration, which has no article and has been written about quite extensively for the past decade, and the dozens of other tools that are part of the Eclipse project. Notability is not conferred on a subject because another subject incorporates it. Other notable subjects writing about makes it notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 19 February 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. Overall, the arguments for keeping this article are much stronger than the argument to delete. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 00:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Grant Park Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination for an IP: rationale: "as tags on the article page says, that this shopping centre is wholly not notable and the article appears to be a shameless advertisement for the mall and the shops within it. If it were to be considered notable, then there are four shopping centres in my own town that are equally (un)notable and would be equally (un)deserving of their own articles. Not to mention a few tens of thousands of equally undeserving centres on the planet as a whole." J04n(talk page) 12:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You were quick off the mark with that and missed my slight rewrite of the criteria. I slightly rephrased the criteria to, "... that this shopping centre is wholly not notable and that I believe that the article appears to be a
shamelessadvertisement for the mall and the shops within it." 86.157.171.171 (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is a notable mall in Winnipeg and warrants an article. The fact that other shopping centres do not have articles is not particularly relevant to the issue, as Wikipedia does not have articles that it should. While I agree that the article does seem slightly promotional, that is not the sole purpose of the article. I have removed a few POV statements to make it read less like an advertisement. There is no doubt a lot of work to be done on this article, but the quality of the article has little to do with the subject's notability. --qwekiop147 → talk 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a notable mall? You should explain under what criteria you are asserting notability, and provide evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article is a major mall in Winnipeg. While there are not many relevant web results, there are quite a few news results. It has received significant and reliable coverage in the news and no original research is required to create this article. It has several major tenants, which are listed at the article to provide information, not just to promote the mall. It is also significant to the areas of River Heights, Crescentwood, Riverview, and Tuxedo, because many people from those neighbourhoods shop there. This article is not purely promotional and so I disagree that it was created just to promote the mall. While this article does have some issues, they can certainly be fixed. --qwekiop147 → talk 22:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a notable mall? You should explain under what criteria you are asserting notability, and provide evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. the page is created to promote the shopping center. Wikipedia is not the stage for business promotion. the page should be deleted Jussychoulex (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In additonj ot the sources in the article, I found this and this which are stories which feature the mall as the primary subject of the article. I also found this article which is about a store int he mall, and it's movement in the mall. Not a primary subject, but still coverage. I may have missed some potential source trying to weed my may through run of the mill news coverage of robberies and promotinal events, but I ams satisified that this coverage is suffficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Still don't see why this mall deserves an article when there are a few thousand others that don't have articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A run of the mill mall with insufficient claim to fame to make it notable.--Charles (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The WP:GNG concerns are over-riding the WP:NFOOTY claim in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dosseh Attivi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
IMO fails WP:NFOOTBALL - the team he played for in 2012 was a second league team. Now he doesn't have a team to play for. Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- United Sikkim F.C. plays in I-League.Open this link and see it is written I-League.If u still doubt then click I-league.http://int.soccerway.com/players/dg-atttivi/275438/ Royroydeb (talk)Royroydeb —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - According to United Sikkim F.C. Sikkim played I-League 2nd Division in 2012, when he would have played with them. Sikkim won promotion to the I-League for 2013, but crucially Attivi isn't playing for them this season. Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Despite this article not having any information and failing GNG by a lot, it still passes WP:NFOOTY as Attivi has played for United Sikkim in the I-League. [34]. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lets not confuse I-League which they play in in 2013 (without Attivi) and I-League 2nd Division which they played in in 2012 Gbawden (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not. Here is an article from October 2012 after United Sikkim played there first match in the I-League (2012-13 I-League) in which it says that Attivi signed... [35]. Not enough? Here is an actual video... [36]. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lets not confuse I-League which they play in in 2013 (without Attivi) and I-League 2nd Division which they played in in 2012 Gbawden (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ArsenalFan, as our resident expert in Indian football, do you think this could be (relatively quickly) brought up to meet GNG? GiantSnowman 14:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on if anyone can find information about him from before he played in India. I wont be able to expand the article using only India sources because the club he played for were recently promoted and they dont release information on their players, and from what I know, none of the leading Indian football websites (around 10) did not even do a profile on him. So at this moment the only thing I can do is 1 thing: Make a sentence about the only goal he scored in the Indian league and reference it. Other than that I cant add much. His debut is under confusion right now so I cant do that. Also keep in mind he was signed in October and only stayed till December when he was released for John Matkin. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to expand/improve the article as much as you can do, I'm extremely borderline here. GiantSnowman 14:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what I can do. Like I said, I can only really do 1 sentence about the goal. If you type in his name, you wont find anything else but match-reports and stories about James Moga's goal after around 15 seconds. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm not finding much. GiantSnowman 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what I can do. Like I said, I can only really do 1 sentence about the goal. If you type in his name, you wont find anything else but match-reports and stories about James Moga's goal after around 15 seconds. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to expand/improve the article as much as you can do, I'm extremely borderline here. GiantSnowman 14:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on if anyone can find information about him from before he played in India. I wont be able to expand the article using only India sources because the club he played for were recently promoted and they dont release information on their players, and from what I know, none of the leading Indian football websites (around 10) did not even do a profile on him. So at this moment the only thing I can do is 1 thing: Make a sentence about the only goal he scored in the Indian league and reference it. Other than that I cant add much. His debut is under confusion right now so I cant do that. Also keep in mind he was signed in October and only stayed till December when he was released for John Matkin. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the link for it proving that Dosseh played in I-League.http://www.istream.com/sports/watch/222338/Full-HLs--Pune-FC-vs-United-Sikkim Royroydeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - yes he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, but fails WP:GNG which is more important. If he was a younger player I might give him the benefit of the doubt, but at 24 should have had enough by now to satisfy GNG. This leads me to conclude he is not notable. GiantSnowman 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Although the article technically satisfies NSPORTS, it doesn't appear to be able to satisfy the GNG. I searched Togolese sources and found very little coverage (I've added to the article), and while it's possible his brief stint in Thailand might have garnered some local coverage there, all together his professional career has been very marginal (a few months here and there) and the coverage of it has also been very marginal. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. GNG failure, particularly given that he apparently did not even see out his one year contract. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 25 February 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) 17:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mp3blaster (edit | 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 topic about a computer audio player appears to fail WP:N. Source searches are providing tangential coverage rather than significant coverage. This one source found may be borderline regarding its depth of coverage. Others, such as [37], [38], are providing only passing mentions or are sources that may not be considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, (e.g. [39], which is a user post). Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As with the nom, I found a number of single paragraphs discussing mp3blaster in independent sources, but nothing in depth. Most claim the player was popular at the time. There are two Linux Journal articles (a reliable source), [40] and [41], that mention the player, but are behind a paywall, so I cannot check depth. As it stands now, this player fails general WP:GNG and software WP:NSOFTWARE notability guidelines and cannot survive as a standalone article. But in my opinion, there are sufficient independent sources to justify a one sentence mention in the list at List of Linux audio software#other. --Mark viking (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was popular as a command-line player a lot of time ago; nowadays is surpassed by other well known console tools like Cmus or similar. Software development seems to have stopped as well (last release is from 2009), but I agree with user User:Mark viking to merge mp3blaster into List of Linux audio software#other with a one sentence mention. Toffanin (talk) 18:14, 18 February 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 West Coast League. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moses Lake Pirates (edit | 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 topic about a former amateur baseball team appears to fail WP:NSPORTS. Source searches are only providing WP:ROUTINE coverage, rather than significant coverage about the team itself. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to West Coast League, since there's some information about the team there, and it's a plausible search string. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wizardman 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Hit Bull, win steak, plausible search term. Secret account 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:LISTPURP (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of points of interest in Albuquerque, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article resembles a travel guide and without an easily discernible criteria for inclusion, what could prevent this from becoming an indiscriminate list of thousands of "points of interests"? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it's a travel guide, because I don't think it's anything at all! No lead section, no description, no clear selection criteria - it's just an indiscriminate collection of links. If this was a new list, I'd say "give it time", but it's not a new list. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The category is sufficient. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure to read WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep could easily incorporate into another article (such as Albuquerque, New Mexico) as far as notability is concerned, but the list is long enough that a separate list article is helpful. Clearly is not an indiscriminate list because it only includes points of interest in Albuquerque per WP:DISCRIMINATE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:LISTPURP. This article consists exclusively of blue links, and it's likely that the articles listed therein are notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as useful for navigation per description in WP:PURPLIST; provides better and more organized information than a bare category. Would fit into the city article but its length merits breakout to a standalone list. - Dravecky (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Generally I'm against the maintenance of such lists, however this list is pretty useful and encyclopedic. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've refined the parameters to make this a list of points of interest "for which there are articles in English WP," which tightens and focuses the scope of coverage and emphasizes the page's utility as a navigational device. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 18 February 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 04:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Imrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In conducting WP:BEFORE I see quite a few sources in Polish though it would also appear most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage for art shows (art reviews, interviews, etc.) Nothing I would feel comfortable as a stand out artist. I think this is a case for having an article on the Polish Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia until this person gains attention in the anglophone world. I noticed on the Polish Wikipedia the article has been deleted several times over. Mkdwtalk 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Notability is notability, no matter the language of the sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, but my argument remains that most of the coverage is routine for their artwork exhibitions and the article has been deleted several times at the Polish Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article shows a brief coverage of the article from a degree show exhibition in late 2012, plus a longer piece on a return-to-figuration discerned in that show, mentioning the subject as an example. But this is WP:TOOSOON/not enough to demonstrate that he meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, need to search name in genitive case - sources will come up searching for declined forms "Martina Imricha" etc. The mention in the two Polish sources shouldn't be the only ones. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Genitive declension produced a substantial bio entry in Slovakian confirming dob and pob and training. I haven't searched using instrumental and locative declensions of the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be able to provide some sources for the article? Otherwise the general consensus remains delete. Mkdwtalk 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Genitive declension produced a substantial bio entry in Slovakian confirming dob and pob and training. I haven't searched using instrumental and locative declensions of the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm going to message In ictu oculi, above, for those new sources he/she found. In the absence of that, I don't know that we have enough here to keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I'm dumb - he already added them. Still awful thin, though. Put me at a very Weak Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just not seeing any assertion of notability under WP:CREATIVE or an assertion that the coverage isn't WP:Run of the mill. Having sources does not mean they are notable. They must have WP:SIGCOV to meet the baseline GNG but WP:CREATIVE has additional advice as well. Mkdwtalk 21:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I'm dumb - he already added them. Still awful thin, though. Put me at a very Weak Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 22 February 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 '. I'm going to be bold and close this with absolutely no prejudice towards renominating individually or smaller groups of VERY similar pages. The exceedingly large number of pages nominated makes individual assessments very difficult. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric Furlatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
On a previous discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Lee (referee), consensus determined that a being National Hockey League on-ice referee or linesman does not automatically confer WP:GNG. Furthermore, this article currently has very little reliable sources for WP:BLP purposes. And, as noted in that previous AFD discussion, this type of article only attracts periodic vandalism and BLP violations every time they make a controversial call. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they also have these issues:
- Derek Amell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David Banfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wayne Bonney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ryan Bozak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gord Broseker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lonnie Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pierre Champoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chris Ciamaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kevin Collins (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mike Cvik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Scott Driscoll (linesman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mark Faucette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ron Finn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gerard Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wally Harris (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mike Hasenfratz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Don Henderson (linesman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bobby Hewitson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shane Heyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bob Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ron Hoggarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greg Kimmerly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dennis LaRue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mike Leggo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wes McCauley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brad Meier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Randy Mitton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Denis Morel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jean Morin (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jonny Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Thor Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dan O'Halloran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dan O'Rourke (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kevin Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vaughan Rody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chris Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kelly Sutherland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ian Walsh (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brad Watson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ron Wicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment - I'd be a bit cautious about mass-nominating a whole bunch of BLPs for AFD on the basis that a single previous AFD about a related/similar BLP was closed as delete (or redirect as was the case). There's obviously a consensus there but I don't see a particular strong consensus. There was plenty of commentary in favour of revisiting WP:NHOCKEY, specifically with regard to whether "officials" should be included in the same way as players and coaches, as they are for other sports WP:N criteria. That's probably something that needs to be determined there with an RFC. Claiming a precedent or WP:OUTCOMES-style consensus for deletion of a bunch of articles on the basis of one AFD might cause some trouble. If there is a consensus that officials shouldn't be included in NHOCKEY (unlike other sports) and that NHL officials must meet WP:GNG, then by all means - I would say most of the above would go. I'm just not sure those questions have been resolved. Stalwart111 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Outright delete 33 of them, give 6 a closer look I quickly looked at all 39. 33 of them (all except Mike Civik, Faucette, Hoggarty, Meier, Nelson, Walsh) are a slam dunk for deletion......zero wp:notability suitable coverage. The "source" for most of them was a few factoids from a database in a database driven web page. The other "sources" were even worse. For example, using Wikipedia articles as sources, or a "source"/"cite" that consists of merely the name of a newspaper. The listed 6 are the arguable ones, they had some at least possibly wp:notability-suitable coverage, with the Walsh coverage being the strongest of the 6. I'd call Walsh a "weak keep" and the other 5 "weak deletes" North8000 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all as a group nom. A number of these guys were also players and meet the requirements under player guidelines such as Dan O'Rourke (ice hockey). Others are notable refs. These need to be done in smaller batches. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all per DJSasso. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' I'm not really sure how this process works, but Chris Rooney's page could be of note if reference to the Feb. 4, 2013, incident during the Colorado Avalanche/Dallas Stars game where he took a deflected shot to the face and had to leave the game were mentioned. It's one of those trivial things that some may find interesting. On another note, I get the sentiment of wanting to keep the ref pages spam- and flame-free, but you can't necessarily shut a page down just because the subject is unpopular. Just make sure that there is more information than "This person exists" on each. Mark down any milestones of which you are aware for the referee; anything else that could be deemed noteworthy; etc. —Whatever my IP address is since I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.181.239 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 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. Soft Delete, no previously contested PROD. AfD nom stands unopposed for over ten days, so this is the equivalent of a PROD deletion. (NPASR). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HyperBrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
HyperScan page already exist LiraNuna (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This page has some interesting information about reverse engineering of the HyperScan product, but the lead is a possible copyright violation of [Forums: HyperBrew]; I could not tell which came page first. I did not find any in depth sources that were independent of the HyperBrew project. --Mark viking (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:17, 18 February 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 Baseball Card Adventures. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Babe & Me (edit | 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 novels, no references to suggest so fails WP:NBOOK, for the same reason also nominating the following:
- Jackie & Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Shoeless Joe & Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Abner & Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Jim & Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
JayJayWhat did I do? 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to Baseball Card Adventures; some of the books had brief reviews in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, etc, but I've not found enough to establish notability for any individual title, and it's better to cover them all in a single article. Since the content is all plot summaries, and Baseball Card Adventures already contains plot summaries, I don't see much need for a merge, except possibly the article Jackie & Me which has a more detailed summary than in Baseball Card Adventures#Jackie & Me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Honus & Me (not in the above list) is more notable, as it was filmed for television, and shouldn't be merged/deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but I'm not averse to a merge into the parent article for the series if others find it acceptable. Wizardman 13:37, 19 February 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. Delete arguments fail to advance their position beyond WP:TOOLITTLE. Twice relisted. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- India Channel Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minimal content Hz.tiang (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I declined the speedy G11 that was placed; perhaps it is the #1 education website and sources can be found for that. if it they can be, it might be notable. There's 7 days for someone to findthem. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is, as claimed, the leading Indian educational website in terms of Alexa rankings. Getting much in the way of Internet sources presents the usual problem that educational material, on the Internet, has very limited availability in English in India. Therefore, we must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 10 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The problem seems to be with lack of editor attention to the article, not the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Minimal content is not a reason to delete. MarioNovi (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as moot. Article has been speedily deleted twice, by User:Malik Shabazz and User:Bwilkins as a WP:CSD#A10 content fork. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adv.Ashish Rastogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be a dead end and an orphan. Content is limited and appears to be created under original research of the author and lead is not descriptive Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:56, 18 February 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:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prussian nationalism (edit | 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 Prussian state no longer exists. Prussia became part of the German Empire, which Prussia dominated. The Prussian influence on German nationalism is already discussed in the article with that name. Thus, this newly created page does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, since a standalone page for the subject is not required.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzen (talk • contribs)
- Keep The continuing existance of a Prussian state is irrelevant - the question for Wikipedia is whether the topic was notable at the time. The article quotes a seemingly reliable source for saying that it was seen as distinct from, and to a degree conflicting with, German nationalism. That is rather borne out by the German nationalism article. I do not think that there are grounds for deletion here, and discussion of Prussian motives and aspirations in the other article might well distort it (what about the other actors) but that is a matter for editing. My view is that the present article actually needs expansion, because there is no explanation of Prussian national ideals for example. --AJHingston (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable topic. A quick literature review picks up work such as:
- Levinger, Matthew. Enlightened Nationalism: The Transformation of Prussian Political Culture, 1806-1848. Oxford University Press, USA, 2002. (A book)
- Simon, Walter M. "Variations in nationalism during the Great Reform Period in Prussia." The American Historical Review (1954): 305-321. (Scholarly journal article)
- There's also a lot just on Hegel and the Prussian state, with his view that Prussia was the highest development of human history.[42][43][44] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it's probably something worth having something about Prussian nationalism, especially in a historic context; although in turn it is open to debate whether it's something that needs to be treated separately as a standalone concept with its own page outside of the pages on Prussia itself and German Unification. However, it's worth highlighting that the editor who created this page has created or expanded several similar ones of even more debatable worth based on other "sub-German" nationalisms – Rhenish nationalism, Bavarian nationalism, Bavarians etc – all based primarily on one source, James Minahan, whose credentials remain unclear. Are all these really nationalisms as commonly understood, as opposed to regional sub-national identities? They've also been active inserting a boilerplate repetitive first-sentence formulation to a large number of nationalism pages: "XX-ian nationalism is the nationalism that asserts that XX-ians are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of XX-ians". N-HH talk/edits 11:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And now, Swabian nationalism. Is there really such a thing? It's slightly unfortunate that the most valid example – and the one that at least acknowledged its historic nature through the opening words "Prussian nationalism was ... " was the one actually put up for deletion. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is such a thing, it is sourced and the source describes its development. The source is published by a reliable publishing organization, Greenwood Publishing Group. If you do not trust the source you need to present why the source should not be trusted.--R-41 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And now, Swabian nationalism. Is there really such a thing? It's slightly unfortunate that the most valid example – and the one that at least acknowledged its historic nature through the opening words "Prussian nationalism was ... " was the one actually put up for deletion. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a notable topic, it is discussed in its own section in Motyl's encyclopedia on nationalism used in this article, and as per the other comments in favour of keeping it, above.--R-41 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Oh, yeah, this is a huge encyclopedic topic. Here's just one title of what is undoubtedly a voluminous scholarly literature: Matthew Levinger, Enlightened Nationalism : The Transformation of Prussian Political Culture, 1806-1848. Oxford University Press, 2000. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a couple more with a view to putting this to bed early: Eugene Newton Anderson, Nationalism and the Cultural Crisis in Prussia, 1806-1815. Hagen Schulze, The Course of German Nationalism: From Frederick the Great to Bismarck 1763-1867. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, notable topic.--Staberinde (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep So it doesn't exist now, so what? Doesn't mean it never did and notability is not temporary. Keresaspa (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - notable topic, just because Prussia is no longer a country doesn't make this less notable. Notability is not temporary. Plenty of sources stated here to show notability, suggest snow close/speedy close. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 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 as the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- David Pilbeam (edit | 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 Google News results for him. Lots of Google hits but they are almost invariably of three types: 1. blog posts by or about something he's written (non-RS) 2. hits to his publications 3. stuff from his employer, Harvard
It's entirely possible that this article satisfies WP:N but I cant find anything RS-compliant that is about him specifically. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep -- I was unclear about the WP:N criteria for academics, specifically WP:ACADEMIC. Apologies. -- 76.105.237.98 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (got logged out somehow) -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:38, 19 February 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 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Targeted Individual (edit | 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 can't find many reliable sources that discuss this topic. All of the sources given in the article are blogs and websites for "targeted individuals", or Examiner.com which does not have editorial oversight. (There is one link to Salon.com but it's an open blog thing... again, no oversight.) ... discospinster talk 04:32, 18 February 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}} . |
- I believe that this is a very concise and objective definition of what a targeted individual is and this a serious growing problem in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.230.79 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This country" is meaningless in the context of an encyclopedia read and written by people from all around the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be a weird conspiracy theory being presented as fact, complete with what appears to be famous people being quoted entirely out of context in an attempt to lend credence to this nonsense. Even if this is a notable conspiracy theory WP:TNT is in order given that the article is presenting it as fact. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous AfD discussions for the same topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit, and much further discussion at Talk:Stalking. This is a topic that has been pushed relentlessly by a few conspiracy theorists. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - the NY Times story used as a reference in the article [45] rightly describes this as being a dangerous form of paranoia, yet the article presents it as being something which is actually happening. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Conspiracy theory presented as fact, mixed in with a bit of WP:SYN from elsewhere to try and make it notable. The few WP:RS presented don't support the assertions of the rest of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [facepalm] Delete or move to author's page - it needs to be re-written to remove paranoia bias, if notable at all EnTerr (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete - As the creator of the article, I'm (obviously) sure it shouldn't be deleted. It appears as though the main concerns here are the failure to present this article as a conspiracy, and its uncertain sources. First of all, this article is not different than many articles about conspiracy theories, and therefore if it is deleted for some reason, then many other ones should be as well. Secondly, I had no intentions whatsoever to write this article as a "fact" and hide the possibility of it being just a conspiracy (although thousands of people consider themselves as TIs, but I still edited it so it's more clear now). Interestingly enough, looking back I think I got so into the subject when I did it that I totally believed it's real, but who knows.. I'm sorry I can't quite distinguish between reliable sources and those that are not good enough, maybe I should do a little more research on that. I've backed up the entire content with links to different sources and have added very good ones, so I suggest that if there's a questionable one, I'll quickly remove it and the info based on it. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article still centres around assertions that the self-described "TIs" are actually being targeted by actual psychotronic weapons etc., without any reliable sources to back this up, thus failing to meet the WP:V criteria. On the other hand, there are a couple of reliable sources that meet WP:RS that attest to the existence of the whole "targeted individual/gang stalking" thing as a conspiracy theory: see Stalking#False_claims_of_stalking,_gang_stalking_and_delusions_of_persecution. In the absence of any other sources that meet WP:RS, perhaps this could be made into a redirect to that? -- The Anome (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi The Anome and thanks for your response, I agree with what you said. I'll today try to reshape the article so that it won't mislead readers to think this is a scientifically proven phenomenon (even though electronic weapons etc. are), and that as of now it's in the category of a conspiracy. However, I wasn't able to fully understand what you meant by saying it could be a made into a "redirect to one", are you suggestion that I take and add sources from here? please elaborate.. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as affirming a subject's notability doesn't necessitate granting it any legitimacy. In this case, it's a totally nutty conspiracy theory but a notable one nonetheless. I think this article is in need of serious editing for bias, not deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources do you consider to be sufficient to make this a notable conspiracy theory? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possibly redirect to Stalking#False claims of stalking, gang stalking and delusions of persecution. I have gone through all of the sources presented in the article and tagged them appropriately. Most of them are clearly unreliable self-published sources. Of the rest all except one make no reference to anything resembling the content of this article. That just leaves a New York Times article that presents this topic unequivocally as delusional behaviour, rather than the "he said... she said" type of open issue that this article presents even after Shalom11111's edits that are claimed above to present this as a conspiracy theory. That NYT article's contents are completely misrepresented in this article and already summarised with due weight at Stalking#False claims of stalking, gang stalking and delusions of persecution. Whether to have a redirect should depend on whether the phrase "targeted individual" (with lower case "i") is commonly enough used with this meaning to warrant such a redirect, something I haven't yet looked into, but if we do decide on a redirect the history of this article should be deleted first because it contains nothing verifiable, and keeping it can only serve to fuel the conspiracy theory. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep!! guys what is argument all about? targeget individuals is simply just a term used to refer to people who are being stalked! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking so the same sources can be used, and the old ones removed, and there's no problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.223.212 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 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 03:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Diamond Nationals (edit | 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 an unsourced article about a martial arts tournament. None of the external links are independent and the article gives no reason why this tournament is notable. My search didn't find any significant independent coverage that wasn't routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only coverage I found for this tournament was the usual reporting of results. I found no sources that show this tournament is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are a million karate championships. Half of us here on Wikipedia entered karate championships when we were kids. This one isn't any more notable than the other 999,999. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First-time home buyer grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While it might be possible to write an article on first-time home buyer grants in general (which is what I was looking for when I found this article) this one just consists of some details on one nation's program, plus some uncited opinions. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable, the article now discusses programs in the United States and Australia, and can be edited and expanded to cover more countries. Deletion is not the solution to the article's shortcomings, improvement and expansion is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy if that could be done. However unless at least one source (and probably more than one) discusses the concept in general, putting information on two programs together to create a topic is original research. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article isn't very well sourced, the reasons for nomination are based on an incorrect interpretation of WP:OR. It's perfectly acceptable to have articles that explain how the same topic is treated in different parts of the world. It's not OR to say that 2 sources that discuss home buyer's grants in detail are both about home buyer's grants. Even if it wasn't OK to keep as is, it could be fixed by renaming/editing/splitting, e.g. to First-time home buyer grant in Australia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yeah, this has been analysed to death here in Australia (see plethora of news coverage). Political ramifications, costs, social impacts, etc. I understand the concern about different programs in different countries but I would suggest that just means we need a general intro about what they are and then country-specific examples. Basically, what nom was (rightly) looking for but couldn't find. I reckon it can be done. Stalwart111 12:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'd rather see this article be about the Australian program and another article about the American one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if they have the same name and are designed to do the same thing, doesn't it make sense to have them together? Isn't it just a matter of properly explaining the US variation in more detail? Stalwart111 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be about ALL countries who have, or had, policies along these lines. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree; Aus, US and everyone else. Stalwart111 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So I wonder if this should be merged with First-time buyer which has more of a UK focus? Stalwart111 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with that. I don't see why it would be WP:OR to group them together anyway, that argument didn't make sense. Also, if you looked hard enough, I'm sure you'd find something, somewhere, comparing first-time buyer schemes. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You way very well be right! Stalwart111 09:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if they have the same name and are designed to do the same thing, doesn't it make sense to have them together? Isn't it just a matter of properly explaining the US variation in more detail? Stalwart111 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'd rather see this article be about the Australian program and another article about the American one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:24, 18 February 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. Consensus agrees that the criteria is way too broad or hardly any at all for inclusion. "Real and encyclopedic" isn't a valid criteria for keeping, but as Mike Agricola and a few of the delete comments said, if a suitable and consensus based version of the list is created, there is no prejudice for recreation. Willing to WP:USERFY. Secret account 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of video games notable for positive reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Presumably created as a counterpoint to List of video games notable for negative reception. While I wouldn't challenge the existence of the latter, each entry here is mostly cut-and-paste from the "reception" section of the respective article. These games aren't notable for being great; they just have mostly positive reviews. Just as we don't have a list of "Highly rated films" or "highly rated albums," this list doesn't make sense either. (We do have articles on top-grossing movies/albums/singles, but that's a much more objective criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename As with List of video games notable for negative reception, the subject is real and encyclopedic. Both articles are going to be magnets for low quality contributions from editors who don't understand the scope of the subject, but that's not something an AfD can address. Personally, I would favor changing the title to List of video games considered the best (comparable to List of films considered the best). This would, I think, make the subject more readily understood without excluding anything that currently belongs. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to List of video games considered the best to match List of films considered the best. Then the article could focus on only games which e.g. make the #1 spot on "list of the best games ever made" lists. As the article stands, any game that ever received a 10/10 score would qualify for inclusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That makes more sense, but 10/10 by who's criteria? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is precisely the problem with the article as it stands which is why I recommend moving it to a new title/topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This would also neatly resolve a request that was made in June 2012. -Thibbs (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is precisely the problem with the article as it stands which is why I recommend moving it to a new title/topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That makes more sense, but 10/10 by who's criteria? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep May need a complete overhaul, but the topic is notable and the presentation of this in list format is justified by the appearance of many "top 10"-sort video game lists. The trick here is coming up with reasonable inclusion criteria, which can be discussed on the article's talk page. ThemFromSpace 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While the concept of a positively received game is of course notable and worth writing about, the inclusion criteria for this list is too vague. We would have to choose a cut off point for what percent of reviews are positive, which is hard enough (51%, 70%, 90%?), but how to make that calculation? how many review sites would you consider? what if a game got a great review for one feature, but horrible review for 9 other features? is that positive or negative? I have enough problem with lists of flops, neg reviewed films, etc, but this seems even more difficult to explain.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would edge on Delete but it may be the case that the inclusion criteria is far too weak. There are games on there with the only claim to inclusion is one perfect review score. That just doesn't cut it. Clearly games like FF7 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time are natural candidates to include, but there needs to be some means to justify these from games that get good review scores but are forgotten about in months later (eg, Okami - highly positive reviews, but I wouldn't call it a notable game in this category). Negative reception is much easier to define - when a game is bad, it will be widely known, but positive reviews don't spread as far. I think one is going to have difficulty making a clear line here and thus likely not a good topic to start with even if it feels like the natural opposite of the acceptable "negative reviews". --MASEM (t) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The criteria are far too vague. Many included games don't seem that good: Game Boy Color Super Mario Bros. Deluxe is apparently 150th overall in Game Rankings; Checkered Flag has "adequate graphics". But it's more serious than that. The lead says that the games have been called "best video games ever made", but there's no evidence of this for the vast majority, so clearly that's not a criterion being used. Normally I'd say, fix by editing - but how? Unlike with films where a number of organizations (e.g. Sight & Sound and AFI) carry out prestigious, highly respected and widely-reported surveys into the best films ever, there aren't equivalently prestigious lists for video games. Hence we can't really say what are the best with any kind of assurance. Maybe games getting a perfect score from IGN could be mentioned in the article on IGN. Other info could go in individual game articles, but most is already there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think the person who created the article just put what they would consider the 'best' games, with their own person bias thrown in (notice the lack of any Final Fantasy games, or PC games, etc). The current list of what's there should not, in any way, be taken as what should be in there, were this article to stay. Though from what it's worth, I'm almost positive there used to be a similar article here, though I don't remember what it was called. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a move to a better name but I do have the same concerns as Cola above - that there just isn't a group of organisations doing the background work to substantiate rankings beyond whoever's personal opinion. So unless a good source of data can be identified; delete for now. Stalwart111 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "List of video games considered the best" per the above. The concept is notable and verifiably so. Although "notable for positive reception" is probably overbroad, "considered the best" is considerably narrower. It's also more closely reflective of the current inclusion criteria as spelled out in the 1-sentence lede. If modeled after "List of films considered the best", the article should be workable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: As others have already stated, the basic concept of such a list is notable, but maintaining objectivity and consistency is going to be a serious challenge. One solution may be to rely upon "best of" lists put together by respected publications such as the Hall of Fame (published in Computer Gaming World) and the All-TIME 100 Video Games (published by TIME (magazine). At the very least an article based on such lists would solve the problem of editorial subjectivity in determining cut-off points based upon review scores. Moreover, inclusion on such a list is demonstrative of a more lasting (and notable) positive reception than merely a few good review scores. However, it admittedly isn't a perfect solution. For example, some gaming "best of" lists are biased against well received games released only on an obscure gaming platform or games which were released 20 or 30 years ago. There is also the problem of determining which "best of" lists to use as inclusion criteria and what to do about those games that appear only on one list, but not on others. Ultimately some degree of editorial subjectivity is inevitable, but what degree is acceptable in this circumstance? While the concept satisfies WP:NOTE, I still have some concerns that developing a list of this nature satisfying WP:NPOV may not be a WP:SURMOUNTABLE challenge. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I can see the concept of the list being notable, but this is a mess, with no real criteria for inclusion. Dragon Warrior III makes absolutely no sense being there, for example. I'd base an all-new list off games that appeared in multiple Top 10 Games of the Year lists across the more notable game review sites and magazines, but most of this article isn't worth saving. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Points of interest of Baton Rouge (edit | 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 my reasoning at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of points of interest in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as useful for navigation per description in WP:PURPLIST; provides better and more organized information than a bare category. Would fit into the city article but its length merits breakout to a standalone list. A name change to "List of points of interest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana" is in order for clarity and consistency. - Dravecky (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All I don't see any problem with this format. Just keep it blue links only. If a place is "notable" on WP it must be "of interest" in the real world. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:38, 18 February 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 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Krowswork gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nonnotable art gallery, no indication given by reference of any in depth coverage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This gallery is consistently cited as one of the most noteworthy contemporary art galleries in the East Bay, CA art scene. I wrote this article because I was hoping to continue with a project of writing up important galleries in an art community that is growing at a rapid rate. I am not associated with this gallery, but I do live in the East Bay, CA. As cited in the noteability guidelines, this gallery has "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I.e. KQED, KUSF, East Bay Express, Art Practice, Stretcher, etc. Do I have time to write up all these references? No. But neither should this article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3215:5F60:E2F8:47FF:FE2B:8870 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has been cited in multiple media, provide the references and it can stay. It is the responsibility of the article creator to assert minimal notability with reliable sources, not the job of other editors to prove any unsourced assertions right or wrong. I did find one more ref, from KQED, may not be enough. If there are good print references not accessible on the net, those count.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only refs are from very local media, & no notable artists (with articles anyway) listed as exhibited. It isn't enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no significant coverage found from non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:52, 22 February 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 03:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons (edit | 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 per WP:NOTDIR, also removed entries that are already mentioned in the plot section of the main article (Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ) and on the seperate article pages of the notable mobile units. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a Gundam fansite. JIP | Talk 06:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this type of content should be moved to Wikia Toffanin (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, As per above ★★RetroLord★★ 10:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I neither know nor care about Gundram, but I think the main problem here is the length or the descriptions, which could be cured by editing. It was imo wrong to remove content and then send it here--certainly for those discussed elsewhere just a "for main article, see..." would have been enough, but they should have remained on the list. The point of a proper list is to avoid making individual articles. We should not be swayed towards deletion by fixable problems with content. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is a case of WP:OVERLINKING as the things that were removed were stand alone articles that are linked through alot other Gundam articles. The things that are not linked are Unsourced Non-notable WP:FANCRUFT There were also entries that had no descriptins of what they were on the list. The one I left was AMX-004 Qubeley which is linked only by another unreferenced non-notable fancruft filled list: List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam mobile weapons (WP:NOTPLOT) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Avery Cardoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unless it is to be completely re-written, it's just spam, no sources and self-promotional. He is a publisher and there is a source from the NYT, but the article would take a lot of work to be worth saving. DegenFarang (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needing to be re-written isn't a valid reason to delete an article. (It's a reason to re-write the article, obviously.) Rray 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you'd like to volunteer to re-write it I'll change my opinion to keep. I think he is a notable person, but it's spam and can't be allowed to stay in present form. DegenFarang (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, little more than spam, which is a reason for deletion. See also WP:TNT, which probably applies here as well. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubify. I think in cases like this, where the subject is notable but the article is in bad shape, reducing the article to a stub is always preferable to deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with this. There is a NYT source that can be left to verify he is a published author and one external link to his company could remain. DegenFarang (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trout slap the nominator who has nominated a series of gaming articles apparently based solely on a lack of references. How exactly is an author of over 20 books not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable, but the article is written as spam. If you'd like to re-write it I'd support it being kept. DegenFarang (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT would seem to be relevant, here. The nomination comes off as "This needs fixing and I'm not gonna, so delete". I know that wasn't what you meant to say, and not how you intended it, but that's how it read. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable, but the article is written as spam. If you'd like to re-write it I'd support it being kept. DegenFarang (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the merits. I'll clean it up a bit here, but it will need more work. There is evidence, however, that the subject is notable - so deletion is right out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gutted the article and stub tagged it. Add back as much as you can, with appropriate sources. There's no question that Cardoza is notable, but that doesn't change the fact that we need sources for a BLP. I added one ref to confirm ownership of the Gambler's Book Club, though I did not discuss the controversy surrounding that business (and its zoning) due to NPOV. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In present form I change my vote from Delete to Keep (I was the nominator). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If Hairthorn concurs, we would appear to have consensus and this could be closed out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections here, it needs more refs for notability but it's already tagged for that issue. Hairhorn (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If Hairthorn concurs, we would appear to have consensus and this could be closed out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In present form I change my vote from Delete to Keep (I was the nominator). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gutted the article and stub tagged it. Add back as much as you can, with appropriate sources. There's no question that Cardoza is notable, but that doesn't change the fact that we need sources for a BLP. I added one ref to confirm ownership of the Gambler's Book Club, though I did not discuss the controversy surrounding that business (and its zoning) due to NPOV. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , this article is one of a series of bad faith nominations by a indef blocked editor. [46] ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 23:59, 22 February 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 all. Secret account 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- .co.ck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- .edu.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- .gov.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- .net.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- .org.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- .per.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- .com.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page contains very brief content of .co.ck. Its reference in .ck should be enough. パンダ (talk) 00:21, 18 February 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 February 18. Snotbot t • c » 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I'm also mass nominating several non notable second level domains, these second level should be mentioned on their respective top level domain. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect .co.ck to .ck There's apparently nothing to be said about it, and it's covered perfectly well in .ck. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. It is doubtful that multiple third-party sources have much to say about any second-level domain. Even most TLD articles do not seem to be expandable beyond stub length. No prejudice against redirecting. Keφr 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - .co.ck, hmm, anyone spot the issue in this domain sublevel? I'm surprised anyone actually assigned that! Delete these articles, by the way, I don't see why any of them are necessary. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all. Everything that can be said about these second level domains is already said best within the parent TLD articles. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No convincing argument for this individual's notability has been made. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pier Giuseppe Monateri (edit | 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 sources of notabilty. Actually no sources at all. Canoe1967 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the sources that Canoe1967 removed. He removed them because they were in Italian, but see WP:NOENG. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only sources I deleted were only the conteniuos legal issues section. At the time the lead and other sections had no sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 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 February 10. Snotbot t • c » 04:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOENG the sources should provide a non-machine translation. I am going to remove it again as per BLP contentious. Please seek consensus on the talk page before adding it again. I am also claiming 3RR exemption for removing contentious material from a BLP that does not have consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that Canoe's reasoning for removal of that content was invalid (see my comments about WP:NOENG at WP:BLPN regarding this article). However, even if the sources for the "Legal problems" section are reliable, why is any of that content worthy of inclusion? Is it appropriate to include mere allegations into a BLP article? It appears there was no conviction, no trial; not even any charges. But the most important issue with the article is that, other than the three Italian sources in that very contentious section, there are absolutely no references. So how can someone be notable if there are zero sources to prove it? And even if there were reliable sources to support all the content, does Monateri meet any of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Based on my comment above. As it stands now the article has zero sources, so there is absolutely no proof that he meets the notability criteria for academics/professors. The only three sources in the article - all in Italian, with no translations - are for the highly contentious "Legal problems" section, which has caused a major edit war over the past couple days. For the record, I am not saying Monateri is not notable; I'm simply saying that there's currently no proof of it. No proof, no notability. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the fact that notability is clearly not established as it stands, aside from the lead, the article is nothing more than technical jibberish about some of the subject's claimed works, rather than a biographical descrption of his life and career. It appears to possibly be a direct copy-and-paste from a source associated with the subject; perhaps directly from Monateri. Overall, the article is a very awkward promotional piece rather than an encylopedia article, which it is required to be. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NOENG says that non-machine translations are preferred, not required. A source can be reliable even if it only has a machine translation. PhantomTech (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's out of context. There's more to the policy than that. Editors can read and interpret WP:NOENG for themselves. In any case, it's totally irrelevant to why we're here. Our sole purpose is to decide if Monateri is notable and the article should be deleted. If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out to determine if the content is worthy of inclusion and the sources are reliable.--76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of references were removed because they were non-english. If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability, even if it is not the focus of the article, at least the sources should have been left. This is relevant because everything above this is saying that there are "zero sources" as if the non-english sources didn't count. You can't just say that we are going to decide if the subject is notable but that we cant use any of the information about any legal problems that might have happened untill after notability has been proven. The subject might be notable because of the legal . If that is true, then there would be nothing wrong with including the legal problems in the article as long as a NPOV is maintained. PhantomTech (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that's completely out of context. The only references in the article were those three Italian ones for the contentious content about his alleged "legal problems". Even if for the sake of argument we say that those sources are reliable, none of them do a thing to establish his notability. They pertain only to mere allegations about his involvement in a crime. And you made my case even stronger when you said, "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." (emphasis added). We don't determine source reliability based on ifs. This is why the translations are vital, especially when the content can be so damaging to a living person's reputation. I suggest you carefully read WP:NPF; this very important policy within BLP requires editors to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" and explains that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." And your claim that "everything above" is saying there are zero sources is false. What I said was, "other than the three Italian sources in that very contentious section, there are absolutely no references". After that, someone removed the disputed content and so I said, "As it stands now the article has zero sources" (emphasis added). So obviously, no one is hiding the facts relating to the three Italian sources. In any case, the primary problem is not about the sourcing of his alleged "legal problems", but rather whether that content is even worthy of inclusion. But let's get back to the only reason we are here. You have failed to address the only question that matters: What makes Monateri notable? Which of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors does he meet? And where's the proof (reliable sources) for it? Those are the only things that matter here. All this talk about his supposed legal problems are simply an irrelevant distraction. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am saying is that the legal problems could be "What makes Monateri notable?" An article about a professor does not have to meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF, being a professor just opens up more possible reasons for being notable. The article can meet anything in any applicable category including WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Every source about a topic does somthing to establish notability because WP:GNG says that significant coverage can make somthing notable. Any coverage about a topic, english or not, contributes to the significance of that coverage. One of the reasons O. J. Simpson is notable is because of the "not guilty" verdict of a murder trial. Clearly this person is less notable than Simpson, especialy because the murder trial was not the only reason Simpson is notable, but that doesn't mean Simpson would not have been considered notable if the only coverage he had was related to the trial. My point is that you can't just say "If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out", everything, even things that aren't currently in the article, have to be considered in the argument about notability since anything related to the topic can make it notable. No coverage about a topic can be called a "distraction" when that topic's notability is being disputed. So sorry for saying "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." because the fact that those references exist and make any mention of the topic of the article mean that they do, at least, help prove notability; even if those sources don't prove, by themselves, that the topic is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia you can't say that they do nothing to prove notability. PhantomTech (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are so far off the mark that it's almost not even worth addressing. The notability being claimed for Monateri is based solely on his work as a professor, not any of the allegations, which clearly do nothing to establish notability. Mere allegations against a private person most certainly can never be used to establish their notability; the standard is much higher than that with regard to BLPs. Let's get the facts straight... this article was created four years ago and the contentious allegations weren't added until just days ago.[47] And the content that those three Italian sources apply to has been justifiably removed, per WP:NPF. The article exists only because academic notability was being claimed. Finally, to compare an unknown college professor in Italy to O.J. Simpson, one the greatest running backs of all-time, and the defendant in one of the biggest murder trials of all time, is outrageous. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to re-read WP:GNG. Significant coverage by reliable and independent sources is enough to establish notability so "Mere allegations against a private person most certainly" can be used to help establish their notability and shouldn't be disregarded just because they only contain allegations. Just because the topic may not have been notable when the article was created doesn't mean that it isn't notable now. Only notability based on academics is mentioned in the article because you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems. That might have been a good idea since consensus has not been reached on if the information should be included or not but, since the information may be the reason that the person is notablie, WP:NPF may not apply and while it is probably a good idea to leave the information out of the article for now the information should still be considered in this discussion. The reason I compared him to Simpson was to show that accusations can increase someone's notability. PhantomTech (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you carefully read JFHJr's comments below.[48] Yet again, you've provided no proof that Monateri is notable. And you need to check your facts before making false claims against another editor. You said, "you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems". I never removed that content. And I had absolutely no involvement in the huge edit war that's been going on with that content. You have.[49][50] In fact, I am the one who initated an investigation into the edit-warring and specifically chose not to get involved.[51][52] So please be careful when you make accusations. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about saying that you were involved in removing the content, I remembered that it was an IP and assumed it was you. Anyway, I haven't provided any proof that the article should stay because, if you look at my first post, this is just a comment. I am not saying that this article should be kept or deleted. The only reason I posted was to point out that sources don't have to be in english. PhantomTech (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thank you. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about saying that you were involved in removing the content, I remembered that it was an IP and assumed it was you. Anyway, I haven't provided any proof that the article should stay because, if you look at my first post, this is just a comment. I am not saying that this article should be kept or deleted. The only reason I posted was to point out that sources don't have to be in english. PhantomTech (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you carefully read JFHJr's comments below.[48] Yet again, you've provided no proof that Monateri is notable. And you need to check your facts before making false claims against another editor. You said, "you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems". I never removed that content. And I had absolutely no involvement in the huge edit war that's been going on with that content. You have.[49][50] In fact, I am the one who initated an investigation into the edit-warring and specifically chose not to get involved.[51][52] So please be careful when you make accusations. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to re-read WP:GNG. Significant coverage by reliable and independent sources is enough to establish notability so "Mere allegations against a private person most certainly" can be used to help establish their notability and shouldn't be disregarded just because they only contain allegations. Just because the topic may not have been notable when the article was created doesn't mean that it isn't notable now. Only notability based on academics is mentioned in the article because you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems. That might have been a good idea since consensus has not been reached on if the information should be included or not but, since the information may be the reason that the person is notablie, WP:NPF may not apply and while it is probably a good idea to leave the information out of the article for now the information should still be considered in this discussion. The reason I compared him to Simpson was to show that accusations can increase someone's notability. PhantomTech (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are so far off the mark that it's almost not even worth addressing. The notability being claimed for Monateri is based solely on his work as a professor, not any of the allegations, which clearly do nothing to establish notability. Mere allegations against a private person most certainly can never be used to establish their notability; the standard is much higher than that with regard to BLPs. Let's get the facts straight... this article was created four years ago and the contentious allegations weren't added until just days ago.[47] And the content that those three Italian sources apply to has been justifiably removed, per WP:NPF. The article exists only because academic notability was being claimed. Finally, to compare an unknown college professor in Italy to O.J. Simpson, one the greatest running backs of all-time, and the defendant in one of the biggest murder trials of all time, is outrageous. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am saying is that the legal problems could be "What makes Monateri notable?" An article about a professor does not have to meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF, being a professor just opens up more possible reasons for being notable. The article can meet anything in any applicable category including WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Every source about a topic does somthing to establish notability because WP:GNG says that significant coverage can make somthing notable. Any coverage about a topic, english or not, contributes to the significance of that coverage. One of the reasons O. J. Simpson is notable is because of the "not guilty" verdict of a murder trial. Clearly this person is less notable than Simpson, especialy because the murder trial was not the only reason Simpson is notable, but that doesn't mean Simpson would not have been considered notable if the only coverage he had was related to the trial. My point is that you can't just say "If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out", everything, even things that aren't currently in the article, have to be considered in the argument about notability since anything related to the topic can make it notable. No coverage about a topic can be called a "distraction" when that topic's notability is being disputed. So sorry for saying "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." because the fact that those references exist and make any mention of the topic of the article mean that they do, at least, help prove notability; even if those sources don't prove, by themselves, that the topic is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia you can't say that they do nothing to prove notability. PhantomTech (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that's completely out of context. The only references in the article were those three Italian ones for the contentious content about his alleged "legal problems". Even if for the sake of argument we say that those sources are reliable, none of them do a thing to establish his notability. They pertain only to mere allegations about his involvement in a crime. And you made my case even stronger when you said, "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." (emphasis added). We don't determine source reliability based on ifs. This is why the translations are vital, especially when the content can be so damaging to a living person's reputation. I suggest you carefully read WP:NPF; this very important policy within BLP requires editors to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" and explains that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." And your claim that "everything above" is saying there are zero sources is false. What I said was, "other than the three Italian sources in that very contentious section, there are absolutely no references". After that, someone removed the disputed content and so I said, "As it stands now the article has zero sources" (emphasis added). So obviously, no one is hiding the facts relating to the three Italian sources. In any case, the primary problem is not about the sourcing of his alleged "legal problems", but rather whether that content is even worthy of inclusion. But let's get back to the only reason we are here. You have failed to address the only question that matters: What makes Monateri notable? Which of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors does he meet? And where's the proof (reliable sources) for it? Those are the only things that matter here. All this talk about his supposed legal problems are simply an irrelevant distraction. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of references were removed because they were non-english. If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability, even if it is not the focus of the article, at least the sources should have been left. This is relevant because everything above this is saying that there are "zero sources" as if the non-english sources didn't count. You can't just say that we are going to decide if the subject is notable but that we cant use any of the information about any legal problems that might have happened untill after notability has been proven. The subject might be notable because of the legal . If that is true, then there would be nothing wrong with including the legal problems in the article as long as a NPOV is maintained. PhantomTech (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's out of context. There's more to the policy than that. Editors can read and interpret WP:NOENG for themselves. In any case, it's totally irrelevant to why we're here. Our sole purpose is to decide if Monateri is notable and the article should be deleted. If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out to determine if the content is worthy of inclusion and the sources are reliable.--76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - People keep saying "no sources", so I guess that you haven't looked at the article since a reference was given for the posts that he holds? Others can decide whether those posts satisfy notability criteria for academics/professors. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, a misrepresentation of what has been posted. At the time this AfD was created, there were no sources, other than the three for the "Legal problems" section (which had subsequently been appropriately removed, per WP:NPF). But that was clearly explained. And there were certainly no sources that proved his notability, which is the point. I don't think anyone is questioning that he's a professor at a major university. But that in itself does not make him notable. It's simply another irrelevant distraction to focus on the semantics of editors' comments. The only important issue remains: Is Monateri notable? If so, which of the nine criteria does he meet? And where's the proof? If he's notable, fine... add the reliable sources. If not, then the article should be deleted. At this moment, we over 13,000 bytes of content, yet only a single source - recently added - that doesn't establish notability. So we now have a BLP article with 99% of its content unsourced. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Regarding WP:BASIC criteria, I don't find these particular Italian-language pieces to be of adequate reliability, especially for WP:BLP purposes. The content about someone else's murder violates WP:BLPCRIME and doesn't add constructively to having an encyclopedic biography. Otherwise, the WP:BLPSPS source does not lead me to believe the subject has met any of the alternative criteria under WP:PROFESSOR that might show automatic notability in WP terms. His h-index is 9, which I don't consider encyclopedically notable on its own. JFHJr (㊟) 20:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promo of less than notable Alan Dershowitz wannabe with low h-index. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the Dershowitz part ;), but your point about the article being purely a promotional piece is very interesting. I never thought of it that way because my primary concern is simply establishing notability. But you're right; in reading the article again, the legitimacy of your assessment seems to be overwhelming. It really does seem that the entire article may simply be a straight copy-and-paste from sources associated directly with the subject or, perhaps, Monateri himself. It's almost like an academic version of a fan page for Monateri. It's actually remarkable to read those hundreds of lines of text in the Works sections, with absolutely none of them sourced. Not to mention the fact that there are also many clear violations of WP:NPOV. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why anyone on English Wikipedia would want to know about this specific lawyer in Turin (or spend effort writing about him) is beyond me; unless they really love him... History2007 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And he doesn't even have an article on the Italian Wikipedia. Haha. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why anyone on English Wikipedia would want to know about this specific lawyer in Turin (or spend effort writing about him) is beyond me; unless they really love him... History2007 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the Dershowitz part ;), but your point about the article being purely a promotional piece is very interesting. I never thought of it that way because my primary concern is simply establishing notability. But you're right; in reading the article again, the legitimacy of your assessment seems to be overwhelming. It really does seem that the entire article may simply be a straight copy-and-paste from sources associated directly with the subject or, perhaps, Monateri himself. It's almost like an academic version of a fan page for Monateri. It's actually remarkable to read those hundreds of lines of text in the Works sections, with absolutely none of them sourced. Not to mention the fact that there are also many clear violations of WP:NPOV. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep probably meets the English WP standards for WP PROF as an expert in his field. The En WP covers the world, and sometimes we cover material that is not yet in the national WP of the subject. I would, however, take seriously an argument that the article had been deleted from the Italian WP. (the article of course will need considerable editing--the exposition of his theories is morelengthy than we usually do). DGG (at NYPL) 21:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
- Delete Considering that most of the article was basically written in one day, by one person, I agree that it was most likely created as a promotional effort. It was written in 2009, so the rules for deletion of unsourced biographies of living people do not apply here, but I would use the same criteria, and since no proof of notability is available, I vote for deletion. Should the article be kept, however, the section regarding his legal trubles should be reinstated, as they are quite noteworthy and drew significant public attention in Italy (as the sources, among which a major Italian newspaper, prove). --NotANumber (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (fresh eyes opinion). Per Canoe, 76IP, and History2007. There is no real claim of notability. It's not really speedyable, but it pretty much is AFDable. The guy just seems like a generic professor/lawyer type. Actually maybe even a little below generic. There are no references in the works section and the stuff seems pretty incomprehensible.
I read the others who wanted to keep the article, but the ones who were plaintive about sources or deleted sources don't really address the key issue that the fellow's works have no notability. DGG's weak keep has a better articulated view, but I don't agree with him that this fellow meets the threshold of notability as a professor. Individual profession guidelines are just guidelines and the expectation is not that they trump general judgment of notability...and really...this Italian lawyer has just nothing distinguishing about him. For instance DGG does not expound on what about the fellow's rambling theories is notable. TCO (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that consensus has been established with overall consistency in reasoning by Canoe1967, JFHJr, History2007, NotANumber, TCO, and myself. And while DGG expresses support for a weak keep because the subject "probably" meets notability via WP:PROF, s/he in no way indicated which of the nine criteria are met. I asked that important question three times in the discussion, yet it was never answered. I think it's particularly telling that Monateri doesn't even have an article on the Italian Wikipedia. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. By doing some on-line researches I have found that Prof. Monateri is the former Rodolfo Sacco's pupil (see [53] ) and one of the most influential European researcher on the subject of Comparative law (during 1999 - 2003 he was the Director of the journal Global Jurist together with Ugo Mattei [and Mattei is an authority on Comparative Law too, ndr]); so Monateri meets criteria 3, 5 and 8 for for academics / professors. I agree that the tone of the actual article is clearly promotional and lacks WP:NPOV, but the topic is notable; hence I suggest a reduction of the article and the removal of all the extra frills as required by WP:ATD policies. Toffanin (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In my opinion Monateri does not meet the notability criteria. Otherwise we would have WP pages of tens of thousand professors. He does not even have an Italian WP page. The Italian reference posted above to prove his notability [54] says: "Jokes and cackles rise to the address of Pier Giuseppe Monateri, Chair of Comparative Legal Systems (in Turin), a student of Rodolfo Sacco. Monateri, also known as the dandy of the Faculty of Law is loved by the the students (even more so the girls) for the disarming frankness with which he announces his skiing holidays. His textbook, Pensare il diritto civile, is made illegible by typos...". LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixosaxo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You used Google Translate on an Italian source, obtaining so a (really) naive translation of the contents and then you used that naïveté to disqualify my previous statements. On top of that, you created a new WP account solely for this purpose; I applaud you, sir, but I still prefer to have common sense and stick to the main point: "Pier Giuseppe Monateri, [...], a student of Rodolfo Sacco", confirms my previous statement. If you have proofs that Monateri was not the former pupil of Rodolfo Sacco, please share them, otherwise someone could mistakenly conclude that your comments are not made in good faith. Toffanin (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm... ignoring your personal attack, could we please come back to the topic, Sir? We are trying to prove someone's notability. (i) you admit you had to do "some online researches" to discover that he was the pupil of Rodolfo Sacco. (ii) The only source you cite for that is a newspaper article, written itself in a naive style, in which Monateri is described in a rather offensive way. (iii) If I were a student of a Nobel prize winner, I would not qualify automatically as a notable scholar. (conclusion) Honestly, all this makes me think Monateri is not notable. If he was so, you would have found many more reliable sources to prove his notability. sixosaxo —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- my previous contribution wasn't a personal attack against you as my criticism was directed toward your content and your actions (especially your suspicious account activities). Oppositely to you, I am Italian and I'm perfectly capable to read / comprehend an Italian newspaper and the aforementioned article, from Italian newspaper La Repubblica, does not describe Monateri in an offensive way, neither is written in a naive style, but it's your personal interpretation of that content to be largely naïve and misleading; neither your LOL! is a constructive discussion. I can concede to you that that specific La Republica's article alone doesn't prove Monateri notability, still it doesn't change the fact that Monateri meets criteria N. 8 (but also 3 and 5) as he has been the head of a major well-established academic journal in his subject area. This fact alone is enough to qualify him as notable per WP:PROF. Toffanin (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am Italian I can very well understand the, if not naive, goliardic nature of the Repubblica article. And Monateri is not described in a positive way in those lines, if you can read Italian irony. My LOL comment was inappropriate (as you know I am new to WP rules and you should judge me for that), but it was my genuine reaction when reading what was proposed as proof of notability, perhaps not the best source, as you also admit. Criteria 3 and 5 are not proven. For Criterion 8, you have provided no source for his appointment as Editor of Global Jurist, and I have found no notice on the website of the journal. sixosaxo (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that both of you mean well and are only interested in doing what's appropriate based on all the information available. So thank you for your great input. First, I have to agree with sixosaxo that there's no proof that Monateri meets any of the WP:PROF criteria, including 3, 5, and 8. If he did, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. By the way, even if Monteri was indeed a pupil of Rodolfo Sacco, that is irrelvant with regard to establishing notability because notability cannot be inherited; Monteri must stand on his own merits. Sadly, 99% of the article is nothing more than overloads of promotional and technical babble that is not even close to encylopedic in tone. Also, the OR and POV violations are overwhelming. So if Monateri is determined to be notable, the article would essentially need to be gutted, as Toffanin so wisely alluded to earlier. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- see [55], [56] and [57] for proof of criteria N. 8; he was Global Jurist's co-Director with Ugo Mattei and Alberto Monti, during the 1999-2003 period. My doubt is: if Monateri is not notable then also Rodolfo Sacco, Ugo Mattei and Gustavo Zagrebelsky must undergo deletion as all of them share the same academic path, curricula, titles and they are all members of, pretty much, the same prestigious scholarly societies and associations. The disparity in treatment of Monateri compared to the aforementioned individuals is blatant and suspicious (IMHO). Toffanin (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. There are clear problems. I see no notability established for Global jurist; it's a one-sentence stub with zero reliable sources. And "co-director" with two other guys?? So that's very weak evidence and surely does not establish that he passes criteria 8 of WP:PROF. There's something very fishy going on here. Are there any mainstream reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) that prove Monateri's notability? Or is everything just pages from academic organizations that merely show his listing or profile along with the same other names? I haven't seen any real, credible sourcing that focuses on Montaeri and proves his notability. And the fact that another editor said Monateri's article was deleted from his own Wikipedia (the Italian version) makes me even more suspicious. If someone's notable, it should be fairly obvious. And the fact that the article consists almost solely of completely unsourced, nonsense, and promotional babble makes the case even weaker. The bottom line is... as the article stands now, it's simply unsourced junk. Until an article for him is created that contains solid, reliable sourcing to support his notability, and eliminates the 99% of nonsense content, the article should be deleted. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did another editor say that the article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. But even if he never had an article on the Italian Wikipedia, he certainly doesn't have one now, which IMO is extremely telling. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misinterpreted the message to which you linked. It did not say that it had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. It said
- "The En WP covers the world, and sometimes we cover material that is not yet in the national WP of the subject. I would, however, take seriously an argument that the article had been deleted from the Italian WP."
- He was saying that if the article had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia this might influence his decision on the deletion from English Wikipedia, but the fact that he has not yet been covered in it: is not grounds for deletion from en:. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misinterpreted the message to which you linked. It did not say that it had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. It said
- Thanks, David. You're right, I did indeed misinterpret the editor's comment. I fully realize that his not having an article in the Italian Wikipedia is not grounds for deletion, but it does not change my opinion that it's very telling. In any case, the applicable reason I feel the article should be deleted is simple: he is not notable based on all the available information. Further, the bulk of the article is just a bunch of unsourced, promotional jibberish. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. But even if he never had an article on the Italian Wikipedia, he certainly doesn't have one now, which IMO is extremely telling. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did another editor say that the article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carmen Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, no sources, likely created by the subject or their associates. DegenFarang (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found a news reference at www.online-casinos.com/news/news2200.asp but that site appears to be blacklisted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some court cases involving this company and internet gambling are cited in this Google Books search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 February 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 February 18. Snotbot t • c » 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nom has AFD'd a batch of articles created by User:2005 as part of what appears to be an ongoing feud between these two editors. Such a waste of the community's time should not be condoned. Toohool (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The ad hominem attack is not appropriate or appreciated. Please discuss content and not people. Do you have a specific objection to this article being deleted? DegenFarang (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is in bad faith. You know very well that 2005 is not "the subject or their associates", seeing as you've made the same ad hominem attack against him regarding the American Gaming Association. Toohool (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your false accusations are not appreciated. I again ask you to stop making this personal and to assume good faith - in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware who created this article or the other. If one user created two spam articles that exist only to promote businesses, perhaps that might be cause for some kind of investigation into whether that user is being paid to promote businesses on Wikipedia, but that's above my pay-grade and outside the scope of this AFD. DegenFarang (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hours after clashing with 2005 at Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), you nominated 5 of his articles for deletion in the span of half an hour. It beggars belief to say that you were not aware of what you were doing. Toohool (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was seeking to cleanup articles that had external link spam and came across those. If they were all started by the same user, that is evidence that user creates spammy articles. I don't even know how to find articles created by a specific user. DegenFarang (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a very believable story, considering that none of the articles contains any external links other than the subjects' official sites, and Sports betting systems contains no external links at all. Toohool (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I was seeking such articles. I came across many with no external link problems - on these articles I found other problems. DegenFarang (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a very believable story, considering that none of the articles contains any external links other than the subjects' official sites, and Sports betting systems contains no external links at all. Toohool (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was seeking to cleanup articles that had external link spam and came across those. If they were all started by the same user, that is evidence that user creates spammy articles. I don't even know how to find articles created by a specific user. DegenFarang (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hours after clashing with 2005 at Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), you nominated 5 of his articles for deletion in the span of half an hour. It beggars belief to say that you were not aware of what you were doing. Toohool (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your false accusations are not appreciated. I again ask you to stop making this personal and to assume good faith - in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware who created this article or the other. If one user created two spam articles that exist only to promote businesses, perhaps that might be cause for some kind of investigation into whether that user is being paid to promote businesses on Wikipedia, but that's above my pay-grade and outside the scope of this AFD. DegenFarang (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is in bad faith. You know very well that 2005 is not "the subject or their associates", seeing as you've made the same ad hominem attack against him regarding the American Gaming Association. Toohool (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The ad hominem attack is not appropriate or appreciated. Please discuss content and not people. Do you have a specific objection to this article being deleted? DegenFarang (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced article about a commercial business. My understanding is that litigation reports generally are not enough to confer notability on a business, nor is trade coverage on a website about online casinos. The current article text is advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Toohool. I find nothing in the argument offered that the company is not notable. Given that it has been in existence for at least 10 years, there is information out there like a 2006 proposed merger with a Canadian company. AFD is not a substitution for article cleanup. Likewise lack of references in the article is a sign of a badly written article which does not make a case for not being able to meet WP:V or WP:N. Likewise WP:SOFIXIT probably is the hammer that should be used to address this concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , this article is one of a series of bad faith nominations by a indef blocked editor. [58] ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 23:58, 22 February 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. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwyn Williams (edit | 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 he qualify through notability for a page? Telfordbuck (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Doesn't he pass WP:NFOOTBALL as he managed Leeds United, even though it was just for one match as caretaker? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to qualify through being caretaker manager of a professional side, per this discussion at WT:FOOTY. Reference has been added to the article to confirm. C679 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - my question above has been answered in the discussion linked by Cloudz679, so this guy passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Scrapes over the line per NFOOTY, although I wouldn't call that discussion consensus with only three comments. However, does seem to fail GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and appears to just scrape past the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 17 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uber Strong Keep - Whether his caretaker role at Leeds was enough is totally irrelevant - he was the assistant manager at Chelsea at one point.[59] That on its own is enough to keep the article![60] is definitely beyond WP:ROUTINE as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to just pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He does just about pass NFOOTY, but that is not relevant as he fails GNG. The articles mentioned above are a two line one on him leaving Chelsea, hardly significant coverage, and one about him being a scout, which discusses players he has brought in or the general scouting process, more than him. A search for ""Gwyn Williams" Chelsea", throws up only passing mentions. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [61] - more than a passing mention about his Leeds role. Here's another article containing an interview with him: [62]. Those aren't routine things. There are also a few other things in less reliable sources that could be used to flesh out the article. He passes GNG based on the sources I've found. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of articles at AfD have failed GNG but been retained due to their passing NFOOTY, so it's hard to understand your comments about failing GNG being the only point of consideration. Multiple independent sources have been shown to cover the individual, such as those from Lukeno94, so the point about him failing GNG isn't convincing either. C679 20:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He does just about pass NFOOTY, but that is not relevant as he fails GNG. The articles mentioned above are a two line one on him leaving Chelsea, hardly significant coverage, and one about him being a scout, which discusses players he has brought in or the general scouting process, more than him. A search for ""Gwyn Williams" Chelsea", throws up only passing mentions. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 21 February 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.