Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 31
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Amos Raviv (edit | 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 seem to satisfy the general notability criterion, at least until Hebrew sources have been found. Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage from independent 3rd party RS. Nothing in Google. A promotional material. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Organic Consumers Association (edit | 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-noteworthy consumer organization. Fails our notability guidelines, as there are no available third party sources about the subject to build an article from that are not press releases that can be found. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They seem to be the go-to for insight on anything organic-related at USA Today with 13 entries. The LA Times has mentioned them a few times here and here. I don't see how it can be argued they are non-noteworthy, since they are quite sought after for commentary, at least from my quick search. It is bothersome that this AfD is about an organization that heavily supported the idea of labeling GMOs in California recently, and that the nominator has shown at March Against Monsanto quite a tendency towards pro-GMO bias. I must admit, i do question whether the motives here are to improve this encyclopedia, or to diminish the presence of GMO opposition. petrarchan47tc 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not confuse my pro-science "bias" with a pro-Monsanto one. My motives here are simple, to improve the encyclopedia. Much like how every person quoted in the newspaper isn't notable enough for an article, neither is every consumer organization formed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pro-science bias is called scientism and it's to be avoided not encouraged. That you think this organization is not notable is one example of your faulty view as a practicing scientismist. If you had actually looked at the evidence with a critical POV as science requires, we wouldn't be having this discussion. OCA doesn't need to practice science in order to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to engage in direct democracy. OCA doesn't use science to wage boycotts or campaigns or to pressure companies and governments with lawsuits. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not confuse my pro-science "bias" with a pro-Monsanto one. My motives here are simple, to improve the encyclopedia. Much like how every person quoted in the newspaper isn't notable enough for an article, neither is every consumer organization formed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) received a six-page profile of its background and history in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Information in 2008.[1] The group got its start in 1998 when the USDA tried to implement flawed organic standards[2] and they fought back with a "Save Organic Standards" campaign that resulted in the USDA getting more comments than any other topic in history.[3] Their notability was established right out of the gate. Then, they achieved international fame in the media when they campaigned against Starbucks in 2001 with a national boycott,[4] at which time the Wall Street Journal and other pro-business sources went after them, giving them even more notable coverage. In 2007, the WSJ called the OCA "one of the leading opponents of rBGH" against its use by Starbucks, highlighting the notability of their campaign. In 2002, South Africa's Mail & Guardian cited them as representative of the organic lobby[5] and the 2007 book The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility cited their 2003 campaign as one of the best examples of armchair activism.[6] For the last decade, publications like USA Today and The New York Times cite the OCA regularly regarding boycotts and lawsuits. The group received an enormous amount of coverage in 2005 when they (along with Bronner's Magic Soap) filed a lawsuit against the USDA over the right to use the organic label,[7] and their "Coming Clean Campaign" made it into the history books.[8][9] The debate over the definition of organic food used by the USDA led to a lawsuit by organic farmer Arthur Harvey which resulted in significant coverage of the OCA's role in the debate.[10][11] Chemical Week cited the OCA as a source on the 1,4-dioxane controversy back in 2008. (March 24, 2008, p. 50) The group has also become one of the largest backers of GMO labeling laws, with Biotech Week saying in 2012 that "The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has been a key funding and organizing driver of the GMO labeling effort" for Proposition 37. (September 5, 2012 p. 168) Even their biggest critics recognize this role.[12] The OCA are also one of the largest critics of GMO foods and Monsanto, and they appear as public interest representatives in the major news media virtually every day. Just last week alone, they were quoted by the New York Times on the GMO issue, and Russia Today conducted an entire segment with their spokesperson. Many news media sources also refer to the OCA as an authoritative source on organic products.[13] Both the Wall Street Journal and Western Farm Press (February 19, 2011) have vilified the organization and its spokespeople, giving them additional notability. Writer Harry Cline of Western Farm Press dedicated his entire column to attacking the group. The Humanist listed the OCA as a group whose "top priorities" include "efforts to push back against corporate rule by denying corporations the same rights as people". (February 19, 2011, p. 4) The Food Safety reference book confirms this claim in a spotlight piece on OCA's national director and the group.[14][15] Their fight against child labor was also covered by Pediatrics Week. (December 24, 2011 p. 81) These sources are a very small sample (and only a few campaigns are mentioned here) from an enormous number of sources about this organization, and one look at Google Books and Google Scholar shows that the OCA is cited in virtually every academic journal article and/or book on the subject of organic food certification. Based on this very small sample of sources supporting the article on this group, I am curious how the nominator could argue that it doesn't meet WP:ORG. Perhaps he has not heard of WP:BEFORE? Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of all these links, you have one single nontrivial piece about the group, one that didn't turn up in my searches nor, apparently, anyone else's. I also cannot review the article to see how in depth it is, but granted that one exists. Is it enough to sustain an article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's enough to support the entire article that already exists, let alone sustain it, and many other articles. I'm extremely skeptical about your "search" methods. The group is mentioned in virtually every journal article, encyclopedia article, and book about the subject of organic food, agriculture, and GMOs. The Encyclopedia of American Environmental History writes, "In the United States and more developed parts of the world, some farmers, environmentalists, and consumers formed the Organic Consumers Association, which has vehemently protested the GE seeds produced by Monsanto and other seed companies." That same source says the OCA "was largely responsible for reversing a USDA ruling that would have allowed the labeling of clothing, cosmetics, and other nonfood products as organic while excepting these products from the same standards foods must meet to carry the same label." Which is exactly what I've already shown above with multiple sources. They are cited by the Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics and the also by the Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues, who names them as one of the primary organized groups representing consumers in the opposition to GMOs. They are named by the Worldmark Encyclopedia of the States as a notable organization "established in 1998...based in the town of Finland." Better Nutrition magazine includes them in their 75 year timeline of the history of the American natural food industry. Their protests and campaigns have been covered by hundreds of sources from Review of African Political Economy to the Journal of Consumer Research, and as I've shown above, they've been notable from 1998, when they were able to lobby 300,000 people to protest the initial standards for organic foods proposed by the USDA. Time magazine noted their role in the boycott of Horizon milk,[16] which was covered by USA Today,[17][18] The Orlando Sentinel,[19] Barron's,[20] and dozens of articles, all noting the role of the OCA. And, their policy and advisory board is more than notable.[21] Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of all these links, you have one single nontrivial piece about the group, one that didn't turn up in my searches nor, apparently, anyone else's. I also cannot review the article to see how in depth it is, but granted that one exists. Is it enough to sustain an article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the discussion above, there are plenty of secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability. However, the page really needs some work, to actually cite those sources, and to sound less like a press release from the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep They are notable, but the article is in the tone of a PR piece for them: it promotes their causes, not just tells us what they are. It's meant to appeal to supporters, not provide encyclopedic information to the general public. I think it can be rescued. If it turns out not to be rescuable in practice, we can bring it back for deletion as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of stars in Norma. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gliese 615 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteMerge/Redirect to List of stars in Norma per WP:NASTHELP: it gets a few mentions, but doesn't seem to have been well studied. Praemonitus (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nominator. I was unable to find the nontrivial publications about this object required for WP:NASTRO #3 and it doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James Parkes (rugby player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another gripe is that it interferes with James Parkes (clergyman), whose work is cited by people like Hannah Arendt (see the sourcing of The Origins of Totalitarianism), and whose article's title ought to be minus the parenthetic clergyman, in my humble opinion. Until just now, James Parkes was the article of the rugby player! I wanted to move James Parkes (clergyman) to just James Parkes, but can't, of course, since the page already existed. So I turned James Parkes into a disambiguation page as a stop-gap until, hopefully, this rugby player (and also the disambiguation page) can be deleted and I can move James Parkes (clergyman) to James Parkes. Urgh, hope that all makes sense.
This is my first time of nominating for deletion, so sorry if I've made any mistakes in following protocol! LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets notability guidelines having played professionally for Saracens F.C., Gloucester Rugby and Leeds Carnegie. Article does need proper sourcing though. noq (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the source states "James did however 10 appearances for the team in the Guinness Premiership" (sic) so he easily meets WP:NRU with that apart from qualifying appearances for other teams. I am not struck by creating a disamb page for just two people, better to have the main use at James Parks with a hatnote. The place to go to sort out who should have that honour is WP:RM. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parkes (rugby player)), that was linked on this page for a while, for CSD:R3 deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – OK, I can see the writing on the wall, what with the old WP:___s being thrown at me! So I choose to mention this, a move request that inexplicitly yields to the WP:___s burying my request here, but which incorporates the suggestion about getting rid of the James Parkes disambig page and asks for it to be filled instead by a move from James Parkes (clergyman). James Parkes would then be the historian/clergyman's page, with a note at the top directing users to James Parkes (rugby player). James Parkes (clergyman) would obviously then redirect to James Parkes.
Well, let's see what comes of my move request! LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - What a terrible AfD. The player is clearly notable, played professional rugby at the top level in England. Covered in mutiple RS. It looks like this AfD was initiated because the nominator doesn't like the name of the article! If you want a page moved, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves in the future rather than wasting people's time with an AfD. This isn't the way to deal with article names, disambig's, or establishing the primary article for a particular name. -- Shudde talk 03:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of attendance figures at anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List is extremely wide in scope as there are thousands of anime conventions. Also it mentions prices so violates WP:NOPRICES . Also whats the point of this list when people can click on the articles anyway for info. Uneccessary--Sinjanthu (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--Sinjanthu (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was not listed on the anime and manga deletion sorting page (despite the above statement). I've listed it there now. Calathan (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep very bad faith nomination. The article creator removed the prices but you added it back then nominated, furthermroe you have given pathetic reason to delete just like all the other articles you nominated for deletion--Gokul.gk7 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I removed prices, and before adding it back I wanted a discussion in talk page about whether its sutiable, as I believe attendance fee affects attendance so keeping it there is useful. So does not violate WP:NOPRICES. Also you should be banned from wikipedia, you added back the prices so that you could use it as an excuse, that is just wrong. This article is useful and has a variety of references. It also does not violate WP:RAWDATA because contains sufficient explanatory text, more text can easily be added, and this list can be split by country and genre. Each section can have more text. Similar type of articles already exist- List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: I reverted this nominators revert of the attendance fee i added. I wont add attendance fee until their is consensus. So WP:NOPRICES is invalid as there is no fees/prices there--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: prices can be included if justified and sourced. They are sourced, so there would need to be a justification such as a reason why looking at historical prices is encyclopedic in this context. I think more explanatory text is needed otherwise most readers who come across this list won't see the point of it. Also, everyone should keep a cool head. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This discussion seems to have been left off the log page for today's AFD discussions. I've added it there now. Sinjanthu, please try to follow all the steps at WP:AFDHOW when nominating an article for deletion. Calathan (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP bad faith nomination, Sinjanthu apparently wants this deleted because the info on this article some of it can be found in the wiki articles of the conventions themselves. Terrible reason to delete, besides most lists are like that.--Bmshafiul (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not see any potential for growth here other than what is already in the anime convention articles, the list also describes more than just attendance figures so it is also trying to be more than just one thing at once something that is going into the convention articles and things that are already listed at List of anime conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rework - I've offered my opinions about this list before, and one of the most glaring issues was the lack of comprehensiveness. The fact that only the even-numbered years are given is certainly an issue (are odd-numbered years not important?), and the fact that some conventions started earlier than 1998, but they're earlier figures except for their first are not given. There's also the issue with WP:BIAS, as most of the list is composed of USA conventions. Other already established lists, such as List of sports attendance figures don't list every single year, but only the most recent; why should this list be any different? Also, assuming this list continues to be updated every other year, it'll eventually have so many columns that it won't be viable to keep in one table. It's barely viable now; what happens in 2020, assuming anyone is still around that even cares to update it.--十八 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in 2014, 1998 column will dissapear and 2014 will be added, in 2016, the 2000 column will dissapear and 2016 will be added, thats what I think is best to do. feel free to expand it and add conventions from other countries.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'd make it even less comprehensive in regard to the past? Clearly historical significance has no meaning on this list, or comprehensiveness at that. Is there a need to compare anime conventions by their attendance figures? Is anyone else interested in this topic? I don't see the bias being corrected without some concerted effort. Obviously, that isn't grounds for deletion, just that the article is ripe with flaws.--十八 21:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has already been a work in progress and still has not made the cut, some of the conventions listed do not even have attendance figures listed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to pick out small error. I haven't seen a single convention on that list that doesn't have attendance. If you know some, please name 2. --Arifulbk (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in 2014, 1998 column will dissapear and 2014 will be added, in 2016, the 2000 column will dissapear and 2016 will be added, thats what I think is best to do. feel free to expand it and add conventions from other countries.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep have to agree with misconceptions 2, this article should stay, there are heaps of similar articles like this, plus this article is actually very interesting, useful, easy to understand and well referenced. Knowledgekid87 claims this data is already available in the List of anime conventions, I beg to differ. This article is by far more useful than the List of anime conventions article and I don’t see attendance figures anywhere on that article. Add back those prices, they are justified.
- You forgot to sign--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: regarding prices you can give your opinion here on whether it should be added back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attendance_figures_at_anime_conventions --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On top of having content that's listed on the wiki pages themselves, lists many cons that do not meet notability on Wikipedia, and has several primary source issues. Most of this attendance information can be better addressed on the individual pages, including more reliable sourcing. Esw01407 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats how most lists are, they summarise data from wikipages--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of anime conventions only lists conventions that meet the notability standards of this project and wikipeida. All those other entries here at a minimum should be deleted as they don't even have enough notable sources to meet the standard of having a Wikipedia article. Esw01407 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats how most lists are, they summarise data from wikipages--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep : Price should also be added back as it can be used to calculate revenue for the corresponding year by multiplying price X attendance. Which adds another dimension to this article. Totally useful and reliable article, well referenced. I see no reason to delete unless am missing something here...--Lonelydream (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree with Misconceptions2 & Lonelydream --Example - TALK 23:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bad faith actions taint the nomination beyond repair. Consider someone else re-nominating in six months if concerns persist. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly valid comparison list, meeting all requirements for a list article to exist. Dream Focus 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like very specific information. Could this content be used on a page about attendance at anime conventions? It seems to me that would be a very good solution, since it covers a real topic and avoids having an article of unclear notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could this content be used on a page about attendance at anime conventions?"...this is so far the only page on wikipeda about "attendance at anime conventions?"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most individual conventions list this information already, and in much greater detail, making it highly redundant. So in actuality, there are many pages about convention attendance already. Esw01407 (talk)
- What I mean is: could an article be developed that covers this topic? Are there analysis of attendance figures? Are there papers written about this? If so, the table could be useful for an article covering that analysis. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could this content be used on a page about attendance at anime conventions?"...this is so far the only page on wikipeda about "attendance at anime conventions?"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fan cruft. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep encyclopedic and valid list. There are already several articles like it as mentioned by m2 see here: List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. If prices were to be brought back then it would also be useful as would contain revenue and cost info--Mohsinmallik (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Dream Focus and "Bad faith actions taint the nomination beyond repair. Consider someone else re-nominating in six months if concerns persist", this--Acmel48 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perfectly valid list that is adequately referenced--Bnseagreen (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pet Jclemens, and Misconceptions2's arguement. Article meets all criteria to be inc. in wiki--Kenjots (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter James (historian) (edit | 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 independent source to establish the notability of the subject. A notability tag has been on the page for over a year. Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, although he's a fringe, intensely controversial figure. Centuries of Darkness was very controversial on release as these links will show.[22][23][24][25] Reviews of other works[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Colapeninsula's sources establish that he is a notable and controversial figure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The popular press reviews listed above need to be added, as do the many reviews in academic journals (primarily of Centuries of Darnkness -- they are listed on the author's web site, but the originals should be found and cited. I think it might exemplify the maxim that the way to get noticed in the academic world is to publish something drastically wrong on a subject of great interest. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources have been provided here to establish nobility.LM2000 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#CeCe Frey. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CeCe Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recommend redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#CeCe Frey as she does not meet the criteria for WP:BAND as a solo artist outside the X Factor (WP:INHERENT). Redirect under OUTCOMES#Contestants. If she releases an album or a single that achieves any success this can be re-assessed. This is a continuation of the 3 AFDs that closed as redirect for the group Fifth Harmony. Mkdwtalk 06:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems very well-sourced. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Also most of the sources were from the contest official website and two were from a web forum citing a user's comment in a thread... Mkdwtalk 03:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page needs to be kept because Ms. Frey will be releasing music in the future. However major edits need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C9E:CF50:443A:9259:3209:BF66 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — 2602:30A:2C9E:CF50:443A:9259:3209:BF66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Miss Frey is on her way to releasing her first single. Its well sourced then other finalists. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out WP:FUTURE since many of the arguments thus far are relying on future notability. Mkdwtalk 20:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, the second IP has made no edits outside of this topic. I assume a single purpose account. Beerest355 Talk 19:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom; the purported sourcing of the article is to websites -- mostly X Factor's own website, which of course cannot be used to sustain notability -- and the subject's own Twitter feed, which fail to meet WP:IRS. The closing nom should also take note that the other Keep proponents base their stance on that which WP:CRYSTAL explicitly debars, thus discrediting their stances. If someone can come up with reliable, independent, third-party sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, that'd be something. Ravenswing 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no website Ravenswing, get your facts straight please. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: (blinks hard) Errr ... did you happen to notice that the show has a website, and up until this morning when they were removed as non-independent sources, three-quarters of the cites in this article were from that website? Ravenswing 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#CeCe Frey. She has done very little outside of X-factor that has attracted notice. I'd venture to say that would be true for almost all X-factor contestants as it is way for them to attract notice, or else they wouldn't be there. Aside from a very brief local item for her regional win in Poetry Out Loud, it's all x-factor. She may become notable in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayne Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Largely orphaned page for person of highly questionable notability. Strong suspicion that the major content contributor may have a WP:Conflict of Interest TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, lack of reliable sources. Beerest355 Talk 19:47, 31 July 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. Deleted as hoax, the subject of the article does not exist. At best, it's wishful thinking. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost Naked Animals: Howie and Octo's Adventures in 8-Bit World (edit | 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 about an upcoming video game. No sources given, no sources found, per WP:GNG and WP:UPANDCOMING. A PROD was declined by the author without giving a reason or source. Ben Ben (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ben Ben (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:One possibility could be to add some info to the Almost Naked Animals page and then redirect this article there.--174.93.163.70 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a closer look I can find no evidence outside Wikipedia that this exists and the user has made several other questionable edits (ie, stating that the sequel to Mario 3D Land would be announced in a Nintendo Direct in October). I am beginning to suspect that this game may not even exist.--174.93.163.70 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cars.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiple reliable secondary sources not found. One paragraph on a NYT blog isnt enough to show notability TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Apparently, the nominator does not know what a reliable source is, as there are multiple for this article, including Editor & Publisher, Sacramento Business Journal, Adweek, and CNET. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please refrain from assuming that others don't know stuff. When he nominated it the article] had two sources which weren't published by the company. One was the blog mentioned, the other was an apparently unrelated piece from Adweek. Which was also the reason for my prod earlier today. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This is a borderline delete as far as I can tell. The Adweek sources mention cars.com due to them airing a Superbowl ad, but this alone doesn't make them notable. The articles doesn't really discuss the company, only the ad and that isn't enough to be considered notable. The Sacramento Business Journal gives a little bit more information about the company, but they seem to mention the campaign mostly because one of the owners happen to be from Sacramento. The book referenced helps a lot more, and is the only good source currently in the article in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A long-lasting notable website in the automotive market, as attested by multiple sources over a number of years, some of which are now incorporated in the article. More appears to be out there, but tricky and time consuming to find because there are also many, many hits for stories generated by cars.com itself.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources in the article, e.g. Library Journal or CNET, which can't be assumed to be promotional. Also, there's some interesting coverage about their marketing/management strategy in this book. A $400m business can't be assumed non-notable. The cars.com website is analyzed in a textbook about [web] user interfaces [34]. Being one of the few websites mentioned in the cars section of the 2009 O'Reilly Media book The Internet: The Missing Manual is another sign of notability [35]. The same applies to Internet For Dummies [36]. I think the nominator has put very little effort in researching the topic WP:BEFORE firing up Twinkle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very large e-business and a pass of GNG based upon footnotes showing, demonstrating multiple substantial instances of coverage in independent sources. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ABHISHEK SINGLA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is an article about this person that has no valid sources. Oldgrounds (talk) 16:28, 31 July 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 July 31. Snotbot t • c » 16:38, 31 July 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) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pieroth Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this article makes a credible claim that the Pieroth's wine empire is significant, and perhaps notable, it does not make a credible claim that the family itself is notable, in the same manner that the Rothschild family or the Kennedy family is notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we have articles about lots of European families from the 17th century and I've worked on quite a few. The difference there, though, is that the families were noble houses or otherwise notable for particular reasons. There's nothing to indicate the family was notable then or is notable now and most of the article is sourced to the family's company's website. Stalwart111 13:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an article about the company could (maybe) be notable, but not one about the owners family history. The article is mostly a copy from http://www.pieroth.com/index.php?inhalt=history, it could go under CSD G12. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The family tree picture is creepy. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure that qualifies as a valid argument for deletion! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found one good source on the topic - however, this is part of a far longer description of the family's company, which is pretty certainly notable even ignoring (as this article does) its rather disastrous involvement in the 1985 diethylene glycol wine scandal. The family is, I would say, notable enough in the context of the company to warrant a section in an article on it, but probably not a standalone article. Also, one family member mentioned in the article, Elmar Pieroth, meets WP:POLITICIAN#1 and he, and perhaps some other family members, might well also meet WP:GNG for their business activities. PWilkinson (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. How I see it is that there are 3 options: redirect, merge or keep. There is no firm consensus for any one of them; however, there is definitely no consensus to delete. (The nominator and the original PRODer don't even want deletion.) Merge discussions may take place on the talk pages. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking with your mouth full (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:TheLongTone prodded this article for deletion, the rationale being "A dictionary definition and some trivia: difficult to see what else this could become". I requested it be turned into an AFD (I find them far superior to prodding). So here we are. I'll give my own rationale for the article's retention below. Please discuss. :) Coin945 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectMerge to table manners. There is nothing to "talking with your mouth full" that couldn't conceivably be covered there. Chris857 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I meant to vote merge, but wrote redirect Chris857 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Table manners per above; difficult to find a place to merge and would possibly become WP:UNDUE. On a side note, that article needs some work as well to avoid WP:NOT violations. Ansh666 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as creator. (Addendum is in BOLD) Essentialy I think this is an extremely notable pet peeve in regard to table manner etiquette, that has a wealth of sources on the internet describing scenarios, how it is a form of bad behaviour, consequences, ways to solve the problem. The history even (e.g. when was talking with your mouth full considered socially acceptable?) I assume there is a plethora of great material on this topic in written texts. Clumsy title or not, i firmly believe this concept is a notable one. I genuinely think there is an abundance of info to make this a great article. Yes, perhaps the article title is a bit common but don't let that throw you. Perhaps there is a better term for it. I don't know.--Coin945 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to table manners. TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK "the nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion". The nominator actually wants to keep the article so why are we wasting our time? Warden (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. LD implies a previous deletion of the article in a previous edit, but my attempt to find the record of that discussion led to the current debate. Maybe there was a reason for the original deletion, but the current article is surprisingly well constructed, referenced, and falls outside of the geographical scope presented in table manners. MMetro (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason for deletion/ merging is that there is zip to say on the subject other than that it is generally considered to be poor manners. There really isn't anything to add, despite the wealth of poorly-written anecdtage in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Table manners. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well-sourced article. My second choice is to merge. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Table manners.LM2000 (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The keeps have it. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Footpaths of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a fork of Fortifications of Gibraltar, I see nothing in this article which does not belong either there or in the article Upper Rock Nature Reserve. In fact this seems to be an end run around a previous AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the following reasons:
- First, this article is not a fork. See WP:CFORK: "a content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." The subject of this article is not about the nature reserve itself. It is simply a spinout - see WP:SPINOUT - from Upper Rock Nature Reserve. There are already multiple spinouts from that article covering the plants and animals in the nature reserve. It's completely normal to treat subtopics of a high-level topic as spinouts.
- Second, I wrote Fortifications of Gibraltar (a Good Article) and this content is definitely not viable for merging there. That article is a history of the fortifications in general, not a list of the individual fortifications or the non-fortification infrastructure. (Footpaths, needless to say, are not fortifications.) At over 7,000 words, it is already long enough for spin-out articles (see WP:SPINOUT).
- Third, I have reused only a portion of the content - three paragraphs in total - from a previously deleted article. Many of those who commented in that AfD suggested that a merge would be viable. As I was already working on an article on another Gibraltar footpath, I have chosen to merge all of the footpaths together into a single article which puts all of the footpaths into an historical, natural history and geographical context with many more sources than the previously deleted article. This is not a recreation of that article, it is a wholly new article with a much wider scope that simply reuses a chunk of the former, narrower, article. Prioryman (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth, since I see notability has been challenged on the basis of Google searches - never a good idea - I will point out that I've used multiple hard-copy sources including an entire book - one of several - that cover this topic in detail. Prioryman (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, there are the "lie" claims again. WP:NPA. A DYK nomination or a user talk page discussion have no value in making this not a copyright violation. I see an article created by you with text written by someone else and with no indication whatsoever that the text isn't yours or that the other has given permission (to you). Fram (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that, as of about ten minutes ago, the history merge has been completed and thus attribution correctly provided (although I do hope Prioryman at least notes something in his edit summary next time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, there are the "lie" claims again. WP:NPA. A DYK nomination or a user talk page discussion have no value in making this not a copyright violation. I see an article created by you with text written by someone else and with no indication whatsoever that the text isn't yours or that the other has given permission (to you). Fram (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prioryman, thank you for your response, however given that Upper Rock Nature Reserve is only 14,164 bytes it is not eligible for a fork to be created. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please look at WP:CFORK and WP:SPINOUT and learn the difference between the two? A spinout is not a fork. We create spinout articles to provide coverage of subtopics within larger topics. Forks are duplicate articles on the same topic - for instance if we had rival articles on Omaha, Nebraska and City of Omaha those would be forks. This is more akin to Trails in Omaha, a subtopic of Omaha, Nebraska. This article follows the same pattern - high-level article (Upper Rock Nature Reserve), subtopic (Footpaths of Gibraltar). Do note though that the footpaths are not wholly inside the nature reserve and there is scope for adding more material about footpaths outside the reserve, which is why I chose a title which would allow the wider scope. Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prioryman, thank you for your response, however given that Upper Rock Nature Reserve is only 14,164 bytes it is not eligible for a fork to be created. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, combining a list of stubs on non notable subjects into one larger "article" or container with a rather misleading title (the contents of the article are only one small subsection of the suggested topic) as an end-run around AfD, and as a copyright violation to boot (reusing the text of the deleted article without attribution of the original author), should not be allowed. There is a reason that the Google search "Footpaths of Gibraltar" -wikipedia returns no results, they are not a topic of considerable independent commentary at all. Most of the sources in the article are either non-independent or trivial, a few others are not about the footpaths at all. Fram (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that it is a copyvio is an outright lie, as you know perfectly well. The author of the three paragraphs I reused has no problems with it (I asked him and credited him in a DYK nomination) and I was already discussing with other editors how to combine the two articles' histories when you butted in. A history merge has been suggested and carried out by Crisco 1492 as the best option so this is a non-issue. As for Google sources, you're ignoring the much larger world of print sources. I have an entire book about these paths - one of several books which deals with these paths - on my desk but it doesn't come up on Google. Don't think that because you can't find sources I can't either. Prioryman (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no lie, it was a copyright violation. Note that accusing editors of lying is covered in WP:NPA. Note also that "discussing with other editors how to combine" seems to consist of one other editor raising the issue with you, and you giving one short reply. So it seems that I wasn't the only one bothered by it. That you gave Gibmetal77 also a DYK credit (without any indication which parts of the "new" article were supposedly written by him) indicates that you may not have deliberately created a copyvio; this doesn't mean that it wasn't a copyvio of course. People sometimes simply make mistakes instead of having malicious intent, you know... And if you have books which deals with these paths, then why didn't you use these as sources instead of the much weaker ones included in the article? Any indication (roughly) how many footpaths (footpaths, not walking trails) in Gibraltar are included in that book? Fram (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A copyvio requires that the content is used without the original author's permission. That was never the case in this instance; Gibmetal77 was fully aware and happy with it. This was merely a technical issue of documenting the authorship of the content, which I wasn't sure how to resolve but has been sorted out by Crisco. As for the books, I've used them to add to what the most authoritative sources state. They cover all of the paths I've tackled in the article. I omitted a couple of paths that I knew about but couldn't document in print. Every path you see in the article is covered by multiple hard-copy sources. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Several of the sources in the article are primary in nature, but source searches suggest that the overall topic meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Modified source searches yield results (e.g. [37], [38]). This article covers several of the footpaths of Gibraltar, whereas (as of this post) the Fortifications of Gibraltar article has neither the word "footpath" nor "path" within it whatsoever (hence, not an outright content fork). Per WP:5, part of Wikipedia's purpose is to function as a gazetteer. The AfD discussion linked in the nomination was regarding only one footpath, the Devil's Gap Footpath. This is an informative and encyclopedic topic and article, and it's new, created on July 26, 2013. Perhaps allow time for improvements to occur, instead of rushing to delete it so soon. Additionally, Fram's copyvio concerns above appear to be correctable via simple attribution where necessary. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an update to note that a history merge has been performed by Crisco 1492 at his suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve, as explained below. "WP is not a directory" or a guide to footpaths. I agree that Gibraltar is a tremendously interesting place, which already seems to be well reported in other articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have also said that the fact that the footpaths run through very notable areas does not make the paths themselves notable, any more than say "Sidewalks of Vatican City" would be a suitable WP article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As WP:5P says, Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." A gazetteer-style article is not a directory. We have hundreds if not thousands of gazetteer-style articles, which may or may not include commentary about the geographical places listed - e.g. List of districts of India, List of roads in the Isle of Man. There is nothing about the form of this article which is not replicated in the same or similar form in numerous other articles. As for notability, if the paths themselves were not notable they would not have received the significant coverage in reliable sources that is reflected in the article. I have no idea what you mean by your statement that Gibraltar is "well reported in other articles", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as the footpaths are not covered anywhere else. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone brought up the point that WP can be a Gazetteer. Very well, here is the intro from that article: "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important reference for information about places and place names (see: toponymy), used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas.[1] It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a country, region, or continent as well as the social statistics and physical features, such as mountains, waterways, or roads. Examples of information provided by gazetteers include the location of places, dimensions of physical features, population, GDP, literacy rate, etc. This information is generally divided into overhead topics with entries listed in alphabetical order." The gazetteer material in Gibraltar should already be in the article Gibraltar, the same as in any article on a place. A place without much notable history will be only a gazetteer entry. WP has many of those. None of this makes the footpaths of Gibraltar notable in themselves, although the fact that Gibraltar has footpaths could be mentioned in the main article. If sources say something that makes the paths themselves notable then by all means write an article on them. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article uses numerous sources attesting the notability of the paths. Every path covered in the article is covered by at least three hard-copy sources, including an entire book. We have already been through one AfD where it was argued that a single path was not notable by itself, but this article covers all of the paths as a single topic which is not only notable but covered in multiple reliable hard-copy and online sources. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me a book entitled "Historic Walking Guides Gibraltar" sounds like it is about the experience of visiting Gibraltar, not specifically about the paths you would be walking on. There could also be "A Walking Guide to San Francisco" but that would not justify a WP article on "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". I'm not trying to be disagreeable, that's just how I understand the policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is about the paths you would be walking on - it lists eight trails through the territory which incorporate the paths covered in the article. It's not comparable to "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". Part of the confusion here is there are two things called Gibraltar in Gibraltar - the town itself (which does have sidewalks), and the state/territory, of which the town is only one fairly small part. None of the paths are in the town. The paths are all in the wider territory and the book I mentioned covers the whole of that territory. In other words, the article is more comparable to something like "Trails in California" (compare Category:Hiking trails in California) than "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". Would you object to an article on Trails in California bringing together and linking out to each of the trails covered in the category? Many similar articles already exist, e.g. List of trails in New York, List of trails of Montana, List of trails in Grand Canyon National Park. If those are legitimate articles then so is this; it's no different in kind. Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me a book entitled "Historic Walking Guides Gibraltar" sounds like it is about the experience of visiting Gibraltar, not specifically about the paths you would be walking on. There could also be "A Walking Guide to San Francisco" but that would not justify a WP article on "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". I'm not trying to be disagreeable, that's just how I understand the policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a number of sources indicating, to me, that it is notable. Unlike some of the other lists Prioryman mentions above, it contains quite a bit of information on each of the trails, all of it referenced. We have articles on individual roads, railroad lines, rail stations, etc. often with less information than is given here. Finally it looks like this article won't fold neatly into another article so I think merging makes no sense. Tobyc75 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article" so deletion is inappropriate here. The fortifications of Gibraltar article is already 60K and so, per WP:SIZE, merger is inappropriate too. And as the article seems well written, sourced and informative, there doesn't seem to be any other significant problem. Warden (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not a content fork. Very nice and well-sourced work, kudos to the content creator. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Kitfoxxe warned for blatant WP:CANVASSING for delete !votes on this AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep - I am puzzled by this nomination, as the article is clearly a fine addition to the 'pedia. The above 'Keep' !votes outline that fact, and the few opposes are less than convincing so I suggest we close this asap as a waste of editor time. Jusdafax 21:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I don't feel that I'm wasting my time. The great thing about WP is that no one is obligated to spend time on something if you don't want to. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Referencing looks OK (though not great), and this seems a viable topic. I was asked to comment here by Kitfoxxe, who suggested that the other editors were acting in bad faith: I see no evidence of that. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (I would rather see them explaining to us why the Footpaths of Gilbraltar are notable, rather than bringing up side issues like the nom's mention of content forks which really has nothing to do with the footpaths themselves. Also when they call each other by name and complement each other this looks a little funny to me. Since you asked.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one "Kudos", and several instances where editors call each other by name in a decidedly non-collegial manner. Your ABF is groundless, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just prefer an AfD to be about the notability of the article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the main focus is about the notability of the article and any other issues related to the keeping or deleting of said article. However, we are not robots. In any discussion there's bound to be some (somewhat) off topic threats that pop up. "Good job" or "Are you sure" is not a reason to suggest editors are acting in bad faith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just skimmed through the discussion here and no, very little is about the notability of the footpaths. Most is on the side issue of content forks or on contrasting the notability of footpaths with sidewalks or mentioning articles on other actually notable hiking trails or on a past copyright violation. It's true that the poor wording of the nomination itself opened up the chance to discuss these rather than the real issue.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are also right Crisco, and me wrong, in that most of the complements and sweet talk are directed towards the article not directly to its authors. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note more explicitly that "any other issues related to the keeping or deleting of said article" includes the fork and other issues, which are possible reasons for deletion (though not generally as common). A focus on the notability of these paths as individual items or as a group of footpaths, perhaps not, but issues pertaining to deletion... yes. Anyways, I'm not planning on !voting in this AFD, just watching it to see how it turns out (and defusing the possible copyvio issues brought up by Fram earlier) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kitfoxxe, it's apparent that you've been rather blatantly canvassing: not only Nick-D but six other editors. This is disruptive and inappropriate conduct in an AfD. It's frankly sad that some people are so desperate to block article creation in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't especially care about the subject area. I was reacting, and I am sorry I over reacted, to the dishonesty and bullying that I saw going on here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are also right Crisco, and me wrong, in that most of the complements and sweet talk are directed towards the article not directly to its authors. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just skimmed through the discussion here and no, very little is about the notability of the footpaths. Most is on the side issue of content forks or on contrasting the notability of footpaths with sidewalks or mentioning articles on other actually notable hiking trails or on a past copyright violation. It's true that the poor wording of the nomination itself opened up the chance to discuss these rather than the real issue.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just prefer an AfD to be about the notability of the article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (I would rather see them explaining to us why the Footpaths of Gilbraltar are notable, rather than bringing up side issues like the nom's mention of content forks which really has nothing to do with the footpaths themselves. Also when they call each other by name and complement each other this looks a little funny to me. Since you asked.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. This is decently sourced, but outside of travel guides the sources are nearly all discussing specific footpaths, rather than them as a group and even then the sourcing is a bit sparse. As things stand the Upper Rock Nature Reserve article is shorter than this article and all these footpaths are contained entirely within it best I can tell. Seems integrating the material here into that article would be the better approach.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this merge. The trails are a feature of the reserve, or so it seems. A lot of this article duplicates information already in the reserve article. With a merge none of the unique information here would be lost and interested readers can find out about the footpaths. Also people interested in the reserve will find out about the footpaths, which are important for visitors, even if not "notable" in general.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated above, the footpaths are a subtopic of the nature reserve. There is a good deal more that could be said about the reserve but per WP:REDUNDANTFORK a merger would not be appropriate. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except we create spinout articles when the subject is notable in its own right and so extensively covered that it is better to handle it in an independent article. There is no indication that "footpaths of Gibraltar" are notable as a group, or individually, and there is not really enough unique information about the footpaths to justify an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tourist information, so transwiki to Wikivoyage - Nabla (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have hundreds of articles on trails in the United States alone (see Category:Hiking trails in the United States) and coverage of trails in dozens of countries (see Category:Hiking trails by country). This is no different from any of those, and I don't see you suggesting that we should transwiki hundreds of other articles of the same type. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is about this article, not about any other, so transwiki it, is my opinion because it is travelling information. Comparing with other article is important for sure, so I'd say transwiki all of those others, IF they are similar to this one, but they are not under discussion here - Nabla (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If our article is to be believed, then Wikivoyage's operating principle is "can you sleep there?" and so footpaths wouldn't qualify. Wikipedia's great strength is that it covers just about everything and so we don't have such absurd limits. Warden (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is about this article, not about any other, so transwiki it, is my opinion because it is travelling information. Comparing with other article is important for sure, so I'd say transwiki all of those others, IF they are similar to this one, but they are not under discussion here - Nabla (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Also from Wikivoyage: "Attractions such as hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, museums, statues or other works of art, city parks, town squares or streets, festivals or events, transport systems or stations, bodies of water, and uninhabited islands are listed in the article for the place within which they are located." It sounds like footpaths will fit in fine. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have hundreds of articles on trails in the United States alone (see Category:Hiking trails in the United States) and coverage of trails in dozens of countries (see Category:Hiking trails by country). This is no different from any of those, and I don't see you suggesting that we should transwiki hundreds of other articles of the same type. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is an article on a notable hiking trail: Appalachian Trail. I never expect to hike on this trail yet the article is interesting to read. I might very well visit Gibraltar someday. At that time I will want some information on its footpaths, but really have no interest in reading about them before then. On the other hand the article on the Upper Rock Nature Reserve is worth reading.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm aware that WP policy says that "interesting" and "uninteresting" are not grounds to keep or delete an article. However I find it helps to distinguish the encyclopedic (which a person sitting in a library anywhere in the world might want to read) from the "WP is not a directory, tourist guide, how-to" stuff. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, so this falls at the first hurdle. Also the increasingly strident deletion arguments, which followed an apology for some rather obvious pro-deletion canvassing, have focused on the idea that footpaths and hiking trails are notable if they are in the USA or near there, but not if they are in disputed or obscure territories like Gibraltar. Needless to say, this is nonsense. AfD does not exist to reinforce or assist these sorts of obscure regional biases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...deletion arguments... have focused on the idea that footpaths and hiking trails are notable if they are in the USA or near there, but not if they are in disputed or obscure territories like Gibraltar." I don't see anyone making this argument. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good, because it is an argument that is not based in policy, and therefore has no weight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you there. I also made several comments saying that Gibraltar is an interesting place that I might like to visit someday. So I hope you don't think I have an "obscure regional bias." :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good, because it is an argument that is not based in policy, and therefore has no weight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...deletion arguments... have focused on the idea that footpaths and hiking trails are notable if they are in the USA or near there, but not if they are in disputed or obscure territories like Gibraltar." I don't see anyone making this argument. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clearly not notable; it's not common nowadays to close with so few comments, but it's pretty obviously --there would be no point in a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill Ringle (edit | 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. Many of the references are self-declared PR pieces, others are a book by Ringle, mere listings, etc. Nowhere is there significant independent coverage. (The article was created by a serial spammer, blocked in numerous sockpuppet accounts. A PROD was contested, with no reason given, by an IP editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given the sources, we can show he exists. Good as far it goes, but that does nothing to show notability. If we had better sources, the origin of the article (from a blocked editor) would be less of a thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to FC Politehnica Timişoara. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ASU Politehnica Timişoara (edit | 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 per WP:FOOTYN. Liga V, a regional level competition in Romania is not eligible for national cups (only Liga III and above are). No references are cited to indicate it passes WP:GNG. - Andrei (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the spiritual successor to FC Politehnica Timișoara, it is possible that Romanian sources cover the club. If none of substance can be found, then a redirect to FC Politehnica Timișoara would make sense. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to FC Politehnica Timișoara makes sense, per Oldelpaso. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gregg Blasingame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author. Claiming he's a professional soccer player. Let me say this again, indoor soccer is not fully pro. Which was my reason for the PROD and yet it's still contested. – Michael (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following page for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In regards to the two issues raised: Blasingame was a 1988 MISL All Star, according to this LA Times article, and played for a team with a $1.275 million salary cap.[39]
- Delete MISL is not in the list of "fully professional" leagues.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dark Knight (TV series). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Darkest Knight (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no coverage for this film, only retail websites and film directories. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- USA title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Polish title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Redirect to Dark Knight (TV series) in a section there where we can speak of the series being sold as a film, as we have an article on the Terry Marcel directed television series Dark Knight TV series and AllRovi tells us "Originally called Dark Knight when it was a possible TV series, this joint New Zealand/England production attempts to capitalize on the same sword and sorcery market so successfully mined by Xena: Warrior Princess"...." CGI monsters that look like they were shot from a video game screen, no doubt were the potential TV series' downfall. It would appear that the television series was knitted together to make a 91 minute DVD distributed by MTI Home Video and 20th century Fox. Though not RS, we a number of IMDB viewer reviews of the television series which mention it was rented it as a DVD titled Darkest Knight in the UK and Fantasy Quest in the US. Lacking separate notability for the film under either Darkest Knight or Fantasy Quest, we can at least send readers to where the related topics of television series and film can be spoken of in context to each other. Worth noting that I almost thought to suggest a CSD:A10 due to the similarities between film and television series articles, but dispite the similarities, they are about two different (albeit related) topics. . SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 03:24, 31 July 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 Despicable Me (franchise). postdlf (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Despicable Me Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. My concern is that this is a largely overdetailed and unsourced piece of fancruft that is redundant. Beerest355 Talk 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect The Despicable Me (franchise) page already has a list of characters on it. This page sounds like something someone would legitimately look up, so a redirect would be appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the existing list of characters on the franchise page, per the above, then. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as a redundant article but a plausible name. I agree with the nominator that it is too detailed to merge. Cnilep (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any delete !votes. Renaming and/or splitting can be done through the normal editing process. The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of soft rock artists and songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arbitrarily constructed list consisting at best of synthesis of 3rd party sources. Not clear if this is to be a list of notable songs or notable artists and how notability or list membership is to be determined. Unmaintainable list. Prod'd, 2nd'd and then contested. RadioFan (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list could be fixed into a standard notable musicians by genre list (i.e., a complete index of all articles we have on "soft rock" musicians), but I wonder if soft rock is such an overbroad catch-all that it wouldn't be a very useful list. Category:Soft rock music groups doesn't look like it's been used that much. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The list is currently being worked on for the backing up of reliable sources - all artists and songs are notable because every entry has an article on Wikipedia, and if there are lists of nearly every other music genre including subgenres on Category:Lists of musicians by genre, then I don't see why a list of soft rock musicians can't be included. Such a list would also be a source of very helpful and useful information to many. Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you are the creator of this article. The primary problem here seems to be confusion over the construction of this list, your !vote above doesn't help clear up that confusion. Is your !vote to keep the list as it is or rename and refocus it onto a list of notable soft rock musicians?--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As suggested by Colapeninsula, renaming it to List of soft rock artists would be more appropriate and I cleaned up the opening section to avoid any confusion, as well as removing artists whose main genre of music is not soft rock, to coincide with the new opening section. Hiddenstranger (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What Postdlf said. It's not clear this list has any firm grasp on what was considered to be "soft rock". I mean, Neil Young? Rickie Lee Jones? Steely Dan? Van Morrison, for Chrissakes? --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The list of requirements is hilarious with the inclusions and exclusions - if the requirements have to specifically include one Carpenters song it strongly suggests confusion. Having said that, soft rock is recognised as a genre with a Wikipedia article that describes it quite well, so it may be possible to save it by editing: while that possibility exists it shouldn't be deleted. A rename to list of soft rock artists would seem to fit in better with WP policies (and songs could still be listed with artists). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn with the new focus given the article and changes made by Hiddenstranger (excellent work by the way), my concerns have been addressed. Perhaps another editor can close this discussion so the article can be moved to its new title.--RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Split into "List of soft rock artists" and "List of soft rock songs" Keep both since lots of people seem to prefer a list over a category, even though when you click on a category it should give you the same list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY and also because the nominator has withdrawn the nomination per significant improvements to the article. Sourcing in the article to verify content has been significantly improved since the time of the nomination. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn (cf.). --BDD (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandra Sakata (edit | 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: article of dubious notability. Quis separabit? 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Discussed as a leading proponent of the art to wear movement and as a successful and influential fashionista, retailer, and trend setter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Candleabracadabra. Sufficient sources are included in the article and more appears to exist at GNews and GBooks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above - the article is sufficiently sourced. Mabalu (talk) 18:00, 31 July 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) 18:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesse Glick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient reliable secondary sources to prove notability. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to have had songs played during a few television shows, but independent coverage in reliable sources is virtually zero; the best I could find was this LA Times piece on his former band, Lo Mass Republic. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unquestionably non-notable.Deb (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adityaram Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Part of a PR campaign to gain notability for Adityaram, created by sockmaster. Borderline notability, none asserted, and no WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. WP:ADHOM argument aside, and despite the numerous times this company is mentioned in reliable sources in relationship to their work, this company appears to fail WP:CORP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 31 July 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) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Un-broke: What You Need To Know About Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ifail to see the notability in this program. The notices seem routine. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Memorial Day weekend burn-off show which seemed to only exist as a Jonas Brothers trojan horse platform designed as a boring money special. No notability; not all television specials need an article. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 31 July 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 United Football League (Philippines). The history is still visible, so content can be selectively merged. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- United Football League All Stars Football (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy. Sent to AfD instead. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to United Football League (Philippines). Yes it's the league's all-star match, but at the moment, there's a lack of coverage for it, so for now it would be better if it is covered in the main article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to United Football League (Philippines) and/or 2013 United Football League (Philippines). The match is not mentioned in either and should be somewhere. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as far as I can ascertain the creator has never put a single word on an afd page or talk page in 3 years, despite intense creation of soccer result articles in the Indonesian project - a recent biography of soccer player has the smell of machine translation, possibly the editor actually has limited english capacity, and repeatedly adds material that is open to question relative to WP:V and WP:N. sats 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifulbk (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - Warrants a mention and possibly a section in the UFL article. I would not be surprised were there sufficient philippino sources for GNG though. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to United Football League (Philippines). Since only one edition of this match has been played, it is reasonable to mention it in the parent page. --MicroX (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: To 2013 United Football League (Philippines). Once this becomes an annual thing and more sources become available, then this can be created. For now... no. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Prince George of Cambridge. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prince of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No such title exists. The baby is "Prince George of Cambridge", but not "George, Prince of Cambridge". Hence the article is ridiculously wrong. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page was a redirect to Prince George of Cambridge until one editor insisted on creating an article about the supposed title. Restoring the redirect makes sense for now. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect back to Prince George of Cambridge. Whilst historically there has been at least one other "Prince of Cambridge", Prince George is currently the most notable, and anyone searching for Prince George, Duke of Cambridge can follow the link from the top of the article for the current prince.Martin451 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Prince George of Cambridge. Though technically incorrect, this is an entirely plausible search term so we should give it a useful use, as it were! The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:29, 31 July 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.