Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20
- 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 Beware the Gray Ghost. The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gray Ghost (DC animated universe) (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)
All original research fancruft about a non-notable, minor Batman character. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Disagreed that this is original research, since the relevant sources are the television episodes themselves, and there are appropriate links to the related Wikipedia articles. The article could perhaps use a little clean-up, but it is a good source of information. Caseylf (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Beware the Gray Ghost, the character's only notable appearance. No out of universe information, and there are no sources present in the article. JDDJS (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Beware the Gray Ghost. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hunting 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)
Unnecessary to have a page on a now pretty much defunct website that could never have been classed as an official organisation
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20. Snotbot t • c » 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any independent sources that indicate notability for this group/website. Iselilja (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No covereag in reliable sources to establish notability for this organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trae Stewart (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 an auto-biography from SPA User:Sugarpiglet. Associate professor at Texas State who has published two books but doesn't seem to have set the world on fire - the most I can see on any of his work at GScholar is 10 cites. Suspect he falls short of WP:PROF. Le Deluge (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. GS cites are tiny and sources for GNG meager. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Fails criteria for inclusion of academics, authors, etc. Qworty (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. RayTalk 15:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If anyone wants the page userfied to them please let me know. J04n(talk page) 10:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brendan Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This one's marginal because he's not a nobody, but I suspect he falls just the wrong side of the notability line and would welcome more experienced eyes on it. He's the kind of guy who gets quoted in the newspapers when promoting his orchestra's concerts but he doesn't seem to be famous enough to get articles about him. The only edit of User:Btlpo1 was to start this article on Brendan Townsend of the Laredo Philharmonic Orchestra so I think it's safe to say we're dealing with an autobiography. Le Deluge (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I suspect that the many descriptions of his concerts and performances in the local news would pass WP:ARTIST, but they're behind a paywall (the Laredo Morning Times). In any case, the current biography is effectively unsourced. The link doesn't point where it claims to, so WP:BLPPROD may apply. RayTalk 15:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's starting to sound like many descriptions of a local pizza restaurant in local newspapers, I know WP:ORGDEPTH doesn't apply to people but in this case I don't get much sense of his notability independent of the orchestra, it's not like we're dealing with a Daniel Barenboim or Simon Rattle who have significant notability in their own right. So that suggests to me that at best we're looking at merging a bit about Townsend into the article on the Laredo Philharmonic Orchestra - the fact that noone has bothered to create such an article, in combination with the big whiff of WP:COI, was what pushed me over the edge on the side of deletion.Le Deluge (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A single ASCAP award (which while important isn't too difficult to achieve) is not enough. The list of soloists worked with or orchestras conducted does not contain sufficiently prominent names to suggest that he is being sought after by top musicians. One does not need to be Barenboim or Rattle to have a WP biography as a conductor, but not all conductors make the bar. No refs, so BLPPROD could have been done instead, but as long as we're here... -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He is mentioned or quoted but I'm not seeing significant coverage about him. This article from the Topeka Capital-Journal is teh best coverage I could find, and it is an interview with a good chunk of the article quoting him directly making this amarginal source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- userify What is needed for an article like this is reviews of performances or recordings. There are quite a number of local reviews in GNews Archive, and being behind a paywall is no treason not to get them and use them. However, that they are entirely regional is roughly equivalent to the minor leagues in baseball. We usually put the cutoff above this. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 26 March 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Gary. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saint Edward Catholic School (Lowell, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no secondary sources in the article to establish notability
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Gary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to say "delete" but there's no harm in a redirect. This school doesn't get through the notability guidelines and now it looks as if it never will. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Gary. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as the standard practice. Can be done without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilar Gonzalo (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)
Academic who seems to fail WP:PROF - written a book and a few things that have 1-3 cites on Google Scholar but nothing major. Article was created back in 2006 and has been orphaned since; originator User:Wikitaun hasn't done much since. It's a bit sensitive because as a web programs person at the Reina Sofia she could be a useful contact for the GLAM people, and deleting her bio article might not go down well, but I think it's got to be done. Le Deluge (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The "useful contact" thing fails WP:NOTDIR too -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. per nom. Star767 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of WP:N (unsure wether the spanish language google news results constitute WP:GNG).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real sources. WorldCat doesn't appear to even know about the "zombies" book, so this may not have been published in the conventional sense (article calls it both a book and an essay – could be an unpublished pamphlet). Uncontroversial case. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As regards the claimed sensitivity, nobody who would be offended by our applying the same policies and guidelines to her article that we do to any others could possibly be a useful contact to assist in building a neutral encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 21 March 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 discussion as to the proper name and format of the page can continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 11:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Variational method (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are only two articles, which can just as well link to each other. As an alternative, this page may be moved to variational method and the page currently bearing that name to Variational method (quantum mechanics) -- I have no preference. Qwertyus (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This really isn't a disambiguation page according to WP:DISAMBIG. These are examples of Calculus of Variations applied to particular problems. I think my suggestion is that Variational method should redirect to Calculus of Variations, (Variational methods already redirects there). The article at Variational method should be renamed Variational method (quantum mechanics) and Calculus of variations should include pointers in the lede to these important examples. Variational methods in general relativity and maybe Variational methods (physics) should probably figure in here somewhere too. So I think that makes this a delete vote. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dingo has noticed multiple other instances of variational methods. That's probably more than enough to create a proper disambiguation page, even if a bunch of them should redirect to each other. RayTalk 03:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point that there's nothing ambiguous about "variational method(s)" and this doesn't fit WP:DISAMBIG. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I add two more links to the page on general relativity and the finite element method. Even if these instances are all related to calculus of variations, they still need disambiguation because they all have different semantics; try explaining FEM to someone using the language and ideas of quantum mechanics. The difference between variational method and variational principle is going to be subtle, too, for those who don't already have an understanding of these topics. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's safe to say that variational method needs to be renamed. Maybe the disambig page can be changed to a list of applications of variational methods? Qwertyus (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Variational Method needs to be renamed. I tried to rename it myself, but I wasn't able to. So I put a Requested Move on the talk page of that article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, too, that the article needs to be renamed. list of applications of variational methods is a reasonable name and is more accurate than the current title. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that Variational method (disambiguation) needs to be renamed. However I think we should discuss what it should be renamed to. I think that List of examples of Calculus of variations would be a better title as "Calculus of variations" is more common than "Variational methods" and we seem to be using them interchangeably. There is also the option of simply merging this into Calculus of variations. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or List of applications of Calculus of variations]. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep either as a dab (its current state) or expanded into a broad-concept article. The status quo ante (in which "variational method" pointed to one very specific case of this class of methods) is not a good solution, so the nominator's suggestion of having two articles that link to each other (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) doesn't work. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there things called "Variational methods" other than Calculus of Variations ? If not then the broad-concept article is already there. I really don't know this area well, so I'd be interested in references to any other variational methods. Variational methods is a simple redirect at the moment. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While support was fairly evenly split in this discussion, the policy-based arguments were firmly in support of deletion. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Datatune (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 doesn't look like the sources in the article pass Wikipedia's guidelines for identifying reliable sources, and I couldn't find any good sources online, so I don't think this subject meets the general notability guideline. Contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think articles about historical products are very important. I have researched about this product and am aware that since the Datatune (TargetData) web site was closed 8 years ago, it might take some time to locate further information, but my opinion is to keep this article, which might expose additional people to it, and I hope that it will lead to additional information added.--Zahid2005 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)--(talk) 10:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Md.Zahidur Rahman.[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the Datatune article should not be deleted. There are many sources but it might take some time to locate them, as this product is discontinued. I suggest to wait and allow me and other users that might have some further information to fix it.Michael Haephrati (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The software is not notable. Michael Haephrati is the creator of the software. The article has been created before (in 2011), but under a different spelling, DataTune. Although only admins can see the content of the article, it was first speedy deleted as promotional, then recreated, and then deleted pursuant to this AfD discussion. Look at the edit history of the current article, focusing on the editors themselves (don't bother with me and Mr. Stradivarius ). It's fascinating, although, policy-wise, all that matters is notability. My search of online sources turns up mainly a company called Datatune, Inc., which is unrelated to the subject of the WP article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles are initiated for many reasons. Some of the arguments raised here are irrelevant . New wikipedians can create new terms and articles as well... No one was born an experienced and acclaimed Wikipedia editor... The only issue is the sources which seems to be improved since yesterday. The fact that there aren't official and / or active web pages only supports the claim that this is discontinued (as opposed to commercial ) product, however a screenshot of the old website has been added. The brand name was Target Data an the product name was DataTune. It was probably the first data cleaning automated software. Masgrhk (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)— Masgrhk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references - blogs in general are not reliable sources - the sources here are blogs with a clear connection to the developer; article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. An article about discontinued or non-commercial software or organizations can still be promotional, see WP:PROMOTION. Dialectric (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a new editor here. I am not experienced like Bbb23 and User:Mr. Stradivarius but I am quite active and have already edited a few articles here. I did not initiate this article but can provide further links from reliable sources. BTW articles which were speedy deleted in the past don't support any of the claims in this discussion, as that could have happen for various reasons, some of which - technical.Michael Haephrati (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]- Hi again. You're right that the sources are the key here - if we can show that Datatune has significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of Datatune itself, then the article can be kept, simple as that. We do actually need to see evidence that such sources exist, though. If we don't have any evidence, then the article will likely be deleted. As well as the notability guidelines I linked above, you might also want to read the simple guide to notability on Wikipedia, and the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (in particular, the sections WP:MUST and WP:DEFUNCT spring to mind). I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process here as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for your reply. I am really doing my best to learn how this great community operates. I have been active in the [1] Code Project community for many years, and I now have a senior status there. I have many questions, but in most cases, I find the answer quite easily here, which is great. I will read the guides you have pointed to me. Finding more sources might take some time. I wonder if you are willing to support keeping this article for say 1 month, and decide then. Another question: what about reliable sources that can't be published here? (like contracts, orders, reference letters from customers?). Are there private channels for submitting them without publishing them as part of the article itself? Do you measure notability only by public domain publicity and mentions? In any case, thanks for your support. - Michael Haephrati (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]- We don't usually extend deletion discussions to allow people to search for sources. However, if the article gets deleted, and you later find sources which prove that the subject passes the notability guidelines, you can request that it be undeleted, or simply recreate the article using the new sources. Be aware, though, that if the recreated version is sufficiently similar to the deleted version it may be subject to speedy deletion itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again. You're right that the sources are the key here - if we can show that Datatune has significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of Datatune itself, then the article can be kept, simple as that. We do actually need to see evidence that such sources exist, though. If we don't have any evidence, then the article will likely be deleted. As well as the notability guidelines I linked above, you might also want to read the simple guide to notability on Wikipedia, and the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (in particular, the sections WP:MUST and WP:DEFUNCT spring to mind). I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process here as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Keep it for a limited period of time, and see then if there are sufficient references to justify keeping it. If not, delete it. - Watling2003 (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I have shared a thought I had about one aspect which pops up in this discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(summary) (probably in the wrong place? :) but I'm new here...) "Question about public sources vs. private sources - I have been thinking about a possible scenario in which a notable term won't qualify as an article just because there aren't public references and sources to back it up, but there are private ones. These could be materials which are reliable, independent and stand alone, and yet, for various reasons can't be published. For example, a document or an image that is copyrighted. In my opinion, such cases should be examined privately by Wikipedia editors, and approved as being reliable sources, without necessary adding these sources / references to the article itself. I will be happy to hear other opinions about that matter" -Michael Haephrati (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Now-blocked sock Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]- The sources need to have been published in some form. From the general notability guideline: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language" (my emphasis). Private documents aren't admissible, and we generally don't second-guess the reasons why something may or may not have been published - if it's not published, I'm afraid we can't use it. There are more details at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I worked with people and companies who can verify the authenticy of this product, which was used by companies such as Microsoft. Since Data Cleansing involves locating and fixing errors in a company's databases, most of the consumers of such product won't publish their need of the service, which is obvious. This is why I vote to keep the article.--Yuvalg9 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)— Yuvalg9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. --Rschen7754 19:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataTune where this article was previously discussed and subsequently deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This piece of software is known to me, and I find it significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaturg (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Asaturg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep – I find this software and article very interesting and significant. Scozturk (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Scozturk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep – The sources have expanded and now back this up well. --Infomatica7 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Infomatica7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, obviously. Obvious sock-puppetry notwithstanding (spectacular effort, by the way), I can't see any way this could be considered notable. That one person and his many accounts disagrees is not at all convincing. Stalwart111 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utterly non-notable. No reliable sources are apparent from a Google search, and none have been presented here or in the article. The sock and meatpuppets seeking to keep the article have not presented even an argument for notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stalwart111, please take back the following sentence: "hat one person and his many accounts disagrees is not at all convincing". I know I'm real and apparently, I have voted in favor of keeping this article. I see that others have done so too. They are clearly not "his many accounts". Unless you (or anyone) have proved otherwise, you don't have the merits to make such accusation. Just from a quick look, Infomatica7 was active before and focused on other areas which has nothing to do with this article. So is the case of Yuvalg9, and any other participator. As Stradivarius said it: "Hi again. You're right that the sources are the key here". Many sources were added (some of them, like the agreement with Microsoft were removed by Bbb23, and even if he is right, there should be some weight to these sources to backup value of the article in question.--Zahid2005 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I won't take it back. My comments were in relation to the group of accounts operated by one person. That group was referred to WP:SPI and the sock-puppetry was confirmed. Every account in that group was blocked and I struck comments from each. Incredibly poor form on the part of the promo-spammer in question. That there might also be a group of low-edit-count sleeper accounts is no shock to me. We've seen this rubbish before, many times. No one is impressed and it helps the keep cause not at all. Stalwart111 03:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Someguy1221, and Stalwart111 you might check some of the commenters here which you assume to be meatpuppets, and are in fact real editors (for example: 'Informatica7':contribs and 'Yuvalg9':contribs). If you suspect otherwise, you can always prove it, but until then, please give any commenter here the benefit of the doubt.--Zahid2005 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy to refer them to SPI as well. It matters not - no closing admin will give a lot of weight to non-policy arguments like that anyway. Stalwart111 03:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vancouver falcons athletics club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable track club. The only sources in this article that are not links to the group's own website are
- A link to a group called Centered Lifestyle, which this article claims is supported by VFAC, but which fact cannot be verified by the cited source, nor would such support be notable in itself;
- A newspaper article titled "I run to drink" touting the benefits of a few beers during and after one's running training (and, not surprisingly, published on April 1, 2010
Searches for better sources turned up nothing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable organization, article is full of promotional language. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage. The Globe & Mail article published on April 1 doesn't appear to be a joke article (as in hoax), but in any case, the club is just a passing mention. And that's the best sorucing available as I could find none better. The article makes a claim that the Dave Reed Spring Classic 5K is one of their best known races, but there appears to be no coverage about that either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 25 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravi Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AFD 1 closed as delete after arguments about the promotional tone of this article but this was overturned at DRV because of a double vote. Although there is an argument that he meets GNG, DGG raised issues around the use of sources in AFD 1 that seem meritorious and I would question whether the election related sources count per WP:POLITICIAN given his failure to be elected Spartaz Humbug! 01:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletechange to Neutral. While I have nothing but respect for Mr. Singh's accomplishments, he does not meet WP:GNG by any means. There are really no usable third-party, reliable sources that demonstrate widespread coverage of his leadership or political activities. The ones cited in the article do not really establish significant coverage. dci | TALK 03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Weak delete. He seems like an inspirational and admirable person. He's an up-and-coming figure and perhaps in a few years time, supporting his notability per WP:Notability (people) will be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case as of right now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletechanged to Weak delete because of the additional sourcing. Everything else I continue to maintain: this is promotion, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC) The references do not support the material; the exaggeration implied by them makes this article too promotional to be kept. "Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business" is not a notable award. Being recognized as a "rising star" translates as "not yet notable." I see no evidence that he is a pioneer in the use of electronic campaigning, except for his own assertions. The example that he was widely quoted by the media shows him as one of several figures quoted, not as the main topic or even most prominent person cited. Similarly for the cover story in USA Weekend--it may be a cover story, but it wasn't about him. He has not been a "part time professor," a title that does not exist, he has been an adjunct instructor at 2 community colleges. The claims rely mostly on his own campaign statements. He might technically meet 2RS=N, but only if we make an extremely broad interpretation of substantial coverage and reliable sources. When he becomes notable , the article needs to be started over, with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR . By our usual rules for failed legislative candidates, he's not notable. Sustaining this article means changing from reliable sources show notability, to any sort of sources however promotional show notability. The concept of notability is valuable because it protects against promotionalism. I will say, though, that I greatly appreciate the portrait he used--it is a great improvement over what there is available for most politicians or businessmen. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I just saw that this was relisted or I would have come here sooner to clean up the article. Thank you for the comments above and I hope that the information I enter here will allow everyone who voted for delete to reconsider their vote. First, I went into the article and cleaned up everything that was contested in this AFD as well as the AFD before it was relisted. I do not see the nominator back here to vote delete, but I did make sure to address as many of his/her concerns that I remember. I removed all statements that were contested such as the information about the cloud, the first turban wearing student body president, etc. This information does not go towards his notability anyways, and after re-reading the article I see how it is misleading to readers which is something that is NOT good for an encyclopedia.
- Regarding notability, there is plenty of information in the article about his political career, but his notability does not necessarily come from him being a “politician.” It is partially from his “political career” and not just his campaign that he lost. He WOULD fail notability guidelines for politicians, but he would definitely meet general notability guidelines. He would meet “any biography” as he is widely recognized for his contributions to the field of politics, including the legislation that was sparked as part of him attending military academy with a head dress, being the first Asian-American to run for the position he did in Illinois, and his company being a leader (if not “thee”) online election campaign company.
- If you look at the sources, I feel that there are significant and reliable sources to support his notability. There are some self-published sources which are find in a biography of a living person (to support other content). The most notable references I have outlined below. This does not mean that I feel that these are the ONLY ones that should be considered, but want to keep this comment the length of a book, and not necessarily a novel.
- Daily Herald (Who is Candidate Ravi Singh) – This is more of a regional paper but is significant coverage of him and is also a reliable source.
- USA Weekend (Year of the Net) – This article was contested as being significant coverage. The article was about voting and politics on the internet. He was 1 of 5 people featured in the article. Although the article was not 100% about him, it is more than just a passing mention and USA Weekend is more than a reliable source.
- India Abroad (A Turbaned Ravi Singh Pens His American Story) – This is a good story about him. It is not a press release or his own promotional copy. If that was the case, you would see it reprinted as a press release or attributed as such.
- Thanks for the comment about the image. I think it looks good as well, and the comment about the improvement reminds me of the old article that was deleted after a Prod. If you compare the current article to the older article, you will see that the article in its current form is a substantial improvement. The old article was basically a PR piece about Electionmall and was NOT a biography. It was more of a look at the company and this guy just happens to be the founder. A biography can include information about the person’s career, companies, etc., but should not be about them. This is also the reason why I just edited and cut down the Electionmall section to 2 sentences. I am not sure that the company would meet notability for its own article. If it did, I would suggest it be created and add the information to that article. If you can access the old article, I would request that you compare the two so that you can see that I have tried to focus the current article on HIM and not on his company like the one that was prodded.
- The previous AFD contained 2 keep votes in addition to mine. While that does not matter in the current AFD discussion, it does show that there is interest in keeping this article. Even DGG states that he may “technically meet 2RS=N” (which after seeing comments at the request for undeletion, DGG is a pretty respected member of the Wikipedia community) and I believe that the current cleanup of the article is closer to what DGG is stating by “with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR.” Correct me if I am wrong but hopefully this is closer to what you were saying in your comment above. Thank you for reading this lengthy rant and I appreciate everyone’s consideration and reconsideration for keeping this article.--Plainscallops (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments caused me to go and have another look at the article, and I see what you mean. I think that Singh can likely pass general notability guidelines if, and only if, we can narrow down the source pool to third-party references from reliable sources, which give him significant coverage. Given your commentary, this appears possible, so I have changed my vote to neutral. dci | TALK 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plainscallops has done good work improving the article and finding sources. It's not going to be a GA anytime soon, but there's definitely enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Some of the promotional tone remains, but we can work on that. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given new sources. – SJ + 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In light of improvements made and sources added since the afd nomination was made. Satifies WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 17:50, 25 March 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 Diana Yukawa. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding the Parallel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable album (3-song EP, actually) by violinist Diana Yukara. No chart presence indicated in the article or that I could find independently. Article was created by a WP:SPA editor, substantially all of whose edits have been made for the purpose of promoting Yukawa.
A PROD was declined by an IP editor without addressing the notability issue, with the comment "Is an album release not able to have its own page - not sure what the prroblem is here as there is nothing incorrect. Its simply informative which si what Wiki is for no?" TJRC (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BLAR to Diana Yukawa and be done with it. :) NOTE: User:Egg1234 has also self-identified as Diana Yukawa's manager [2]. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the artist; plausible search term. Gong show 19:42, 21 March 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. SpinningSpark 01:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Barry Pring (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)
Author contested PROD. Subject seems to have a lack of significant coverage. Seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Ducknish (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, let me work on the article to bring it to standard User:NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is important as it involves several high profile figures - from Ukraine's first president to the current UK Prime Minister. It also ties into themes of corruption in Ukraine, Ukrainian history and internet dating. So I certainly appreciate your feedback, and I do feel this merits inclusion. talk 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is one of the highest profile murders of a British national and one of the highest profile murders since Ukrainian independence. talk 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you there, but still, if the person is only known for this one thing, WP:ONEEVENT applies. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point Fox. Let me work on showing that although his death was a WP:ONEEVENT - the situation concerning his death and the on-going circumstances involving his internet bride Anna Ziuzina and the investigation make it merit inclusion. talk NorthLondoner (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of public interest. What happened between Barry and his internet bride is just one example of many. It just so happens that this is the only one that has hit the headlines in such a big way. It is an industry, and people need to be made aware of the risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffope (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Cliffope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I am inclined towards delete. A horrific murder but it is firmly WP:ONEEVENT at the moment. Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback DavidTTTaylor. As well as the points you raise, it is also of note this case impacts upon the careers of Neil Parish, Leigh Turner as well as being the most extreme example of mail-order bride gone wrong. It has links to all those articles, and is linked to from each also. Best, NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This may be locally newsworthy, but it does not rise to the level of notability to be encylopedia-worthy. Peacock (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not like to accuse another wikipedia user of malintention, but would note that Peacock has been going round arbitrarily deleting my postings. NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly arbitrary. Please read the edit summaries. The content related to Barry Pring that you are repeatedly adding to multiple articles is inappropriate for the reasons I have given. Peacock (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully cannot agree with that Peacock. Your reasoning and methods are not in accordance with wikipedia standards, in this instance. NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that the significance of this article has been proven by enough contributors now. Barry Pring's story is notable for several reasons - high-profile murder victim, impact on careers of several well-known figures, impact on crime in Ukraine, connection to internet dating and legal issues. Plus, the fact that the case is still open and likely to become even more high profile. User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misinterpret my recent edits as supporting a finding of noteworthiness of this article. I acted solely with a view to upholding the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). Per this policy, unsourced (or poorly sourced) contentious material about living persons (in this case, about Anna Ziuzina), occurring anywhere on Wikipedia, must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (including, in this case, an AfD discussion).
- It would seem that the significance of this article has been proven by enough contributors now. Barry Pring's story is notable for several reasons - high-profile murder victim, impact on careers of several well-known figures, impact on crime in Ukraine, connection to internet dating and legal issues. Plus, the fact that the case is still open and likely to become even more high profile. User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully cannot agree with that Peacock. Your reasoning and methods are not in accordance with wikipedia standards, in this instance. NorthLondoner NorthLondoner (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If kept, rename to Death of Barry Pring. It is not clear if the wife arranged for a running over. If she did not, she would have been entitled (as his widow) to the whole or a substantial part of his intestate estate, so that her actions were probably not theft, the innuendo of the article. If she is guilty of murder. as a matter of public policy, she could not inherit. We have a lot of articles on notorious unexplained deaths. And this is just another one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and have created that page. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also concur with PCock and others regarding the removal of coatracking mentions of the Pring case in other articles. As to whether the Barry Pring article is or is not sufficiently noteworthy to stay on Wikipedia, I am not taking a position either way. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. NorthLondoner and GrahamWPhillips are (by the user's own admission) the same user. The "NorthLondoner" account has been indefinitely blocked, and the user has been advised (and has agreed) to use only the "GrahamWPhillips" account from now on.
- Additionally, readers should note that a sockpuppet investigation is currently in progress, studying the claim that Cliffope might possibly be a sockpuppet of GrahamWPhillips / NorthLondoner. Any discussion of whether Cliffope is or is not a sock should take place at the SPI page, not here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a sock puppet, and have only ever used one account and the username given. I requested that my username be changed to GrahamWPhillips. It went through, changed my talk page name, but until latterly not my username, I had just let it be.
The idea of using my real name was that I wanted to be completely transparent. I am a journalist, and I guess will put information on wikipedia that I uncover for certain articles. But of course I'd like this all done in adherence to wikipedia standards and practice. I do believe the Barry Pring article to be important, and worthy of inclusion. User: GrahamWPhillips
- In terms of the other edits, I did not see them as coatracking, rather adding relevant information. However, I accepted the decisions made on those edits after they had been properly discussed.
I am certainly not Cliffope, or any other user. Best, User: GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move The problem is that this a page concerning the death of an individual and its aftermath masquerading as a biography. There has been significant ongoing coverage of the issue, so I do believe it is notable, it just has the wrong title. Perhaps Aftermath of the death of Barry Pring? J04n(talk page) 10:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, delete per WP:VICTIM; the few RS in the article don't indicate sustained coverage, or the significance of the victim other than as a crime victim. Miniapolis 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This case has been a pretty huge deal, it should be included in wikipedia in some way as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Nickell or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey Bensimo (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Something really odd is happening with this article - it seems everyone who comments in favour of it staying is being added to a sock puppet investigation! Is the same happening for those who want its removal? Is this being neutrally overseen? I now have doubts. Bensimo (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Death of Barry Pring.--Auric talk 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as that article no longer exists, how do you feel now about deletion? Ducknish (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Should be Renamed to Murder of Barry Pring if it can be saved. Otherwise I'm rather ambivalent.--Auric talk 03:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as that article no longer exists, how do you feel now about deletion? Ducknish (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While Pring's death may have shed light on important and newsworthy issues, Pring himself is not notable. Unfortunately, he is only known due to his death. He cannot inherit notability due to the cause of his death or the issues brought up or highlighted by his death. I am concerned with the violations of the BLP policy regarding Zuizina. In my opinion, with all due respect, it appears as though this article and others may have been created to promote a book. Wikipedia is not a promotional or marketing tool or an outlet for news. While the issues may be notable, Pring is not. Cindy(need help?) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I declare an interest in this, having written about it as a journalist. In considering the article, please consider -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson
I believe that Barry Pring's case is as significant as these - of course each is a very sad story. Hence, a page Murder of Barry Pring would seem to be a suitable option. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fallacious to suggest that the article ought to be included because other crimes are. Such a claim presupposes that those articles ought to be included as well, a presupposition I'm not willing to make. But even if you wished to bring the comparison, I feel that the articles linked have, at least to a degree, a greater amount of lasting notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ducknish - I think what would help would be an explanation on your part as to why these other cases have greater lasting notability. Also I'm sure you would accept that you have pushed very persistently for this article to be deleted. Could you provide examples of other articles you have put in the same effort to effect the deletion of? That will help demonstrate NPOV, thanks again GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say also that the Barry Pring article should be regarded in the context of these 73 other articles on British people murdered abroad -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_murdered_abroad
GrahamWPhillips (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of people in this category are notable mainly for reasons unrelated to their murder. Ducknish (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are certainly a very good editor Ducknish, but I think you will need to be more specific than 'vast majority' if you are continuing to petition for Barry Pring's page to be deleted entirely. I do not share your view of 'vast majority' in this instance, however your feedback is ever valued. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vast majority is certainly hyperbole, but the point is that the inclusion of other potential non-notable murder victims does not serve to justify the inclusion of this one. It simply shows that perhaps there are other articles that need to have their notability examined as well. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and repurpose to Death of Barry Pring. His death is clearly notable, but this article does not cover his life at all. We have no idea of his age, occupation, where he was educated, or really anything more than a year before his death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 28 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Petros Shoujounian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not seem to be notable - the few links included are not to reliable sources, by any definition of "reliable". Note also that the article was written by a user of the same name, who put the same text on his user page. He left a comment on the talk page saying that it shouldn't be deleted because it's his autobiography. Ypnypn (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After having seen the revision mentioned below, I hereby change my stance to neutral; I still have doubts about the added sources. – Ypnypn (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trim way back, based only on what reliable sources say. I see significant coverage of this composer and his work in the Toronto Star, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Opera Canada. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-promotion of someone that isn't notable. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome new users to Wikipedia. Can you expand please on how he promoted himself into that encyclopedia mention? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This person may be a notable person. But a self promotion is not allowed in WP. Besides the article is too lengthy (28kB) and it is not properly sourced. Maybe a shorter article may be rewritten by another contributer with more reliable sources. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no current sources to indicate notability. Must follow the principle of delete first, edit later WP:NRSNVNA if sources do exist. It also appears to be WP:AUTOBIO DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome new users to Wikipedia. But that is not how AfD works. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is notable enough. However, the article is a mess. I am going to work on it. Please give me some time. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Please take a look at the revision I did of the article and reassess your votes accordingly. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per discography apart from anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, referencing and coverage appears to be good (it would be nice to have a link to the Toronto Star / Peter Goddard article). PKT(alk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given Proud's update – SJ + 02:21, 21 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- XDISCIPLEx A.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A disbanded band, which appears to lack WP:NMUSIC. I am One of Many (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Releases on Facedown and Triple Crown well clear the bar of bullet 5 of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards delete - Although the user above me states they pass WP:MUSIC, a Google News search provides some results but through the previews, they appear to be short articles and brief mentions. Allmusic doesn't have any reviews for them and doesn't even have track listings for some of the albums. Lambgoat.com had one review for one album here but searches for additional reviews including at other websites yielded nothing. Google Books provided two Wikipedia mirrors (Cram101), one profile in a music encyclopedia, something that appears to be a brief mention through the preview, one short review in Maximum rocknroll and two radio playlists. The best ones out of all would be the encyclopedia to support some of the information and the one short review. Although Google News provided local coverage, it doesn't seem there's much for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 19:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Lambgoat (possibly) and Maximumrocknroll sources could be used for expansion, or at least a start on sourcing. AMG doesn't have reviews but it does at least verify multiple releases on Facedown and Triple Crown, which clears the WP:MUSIC bar. Since the band released its albums closer to the turn of the millennium, I imagine there will be other sources offline (e.g., back issues of HM are likely to have something, since they appear to have covered the band in its heyday). Chubbles (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jock Club and the Mellon Collie Death of Eugene Nerdlinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no relevance to this article. The film (as far as can be seen) is not very notable, and is already mentioned on the page "Fresh Film Festival (Ireland)" In addition, there are no sources quoted. How do we know this film actually exists, let alone deserves a Wikipedia page? Wikiejd (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:NF. The film apparently exists, and may have won an award... but failed to receive the requisite significant coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am unable to find sufficient evidence that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 19:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Street comedy (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)
To be honest, I think it's a joke article. But let us for a minute assume that this is intended as a serious article. It's about a form of comedy and Internet meme that apparently consists of "spitting out whatever [pops in one's] head". It supposedly was invented by someone working for Game Informer. Not so surprisingly, all four references are to the website of Game Informer. Two of them don't discuss the concept. The other two show that it might be a common inside joke for the Game Informer staff. I'll even grant that this is perhaps a joke somewhat familiar to the Game Informer faithful. But I fail to see any sign that the rest of the world has noticed. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily Delete It's either a joke or some variety of spam to generate hits. I see no indication from anything that would qualify as a reliable source that the subject matter exists at all, let alone is notable in any respect. I think this probably qualifies for Speedy Deletion under some combination of G-1, G-3 or G-11. Fladrif (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Tim "Grumpypants" Davenport thinks that this article was something made up in one day. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought about it but technically, I don't think this quite fits any speedy deletion criteria. Nevertheless I certainly won't have any complaints if an admin decides that there's no need to drag this out for days. Pichpich (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Carrite's incisive though self-referential analysis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom and Carrite. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Houston Astros minor league players. No bias against recreating the article when (or if) he actually "moves up" and meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG or other relevant Notability policies/guidelines Keeper | 76 14:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Gominsky (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)
Baseball player who has only played in college and single-A minor league team. Fails WP:ATHLETE. B (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline at best. Does this coverage look like enough? [3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, Muboshgu. Those were among the first non-trivial, non-routine articles I found, but they're both about his high school career and college recruiting. Not enough, IMO. I'm still looking through my Google, Google News and Google News Archive searches. There's a lot of routine coverage out there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what it's "about"; coverage is coverage. Local coverage counts as much as national. However, I agree that it's below the bar needed for a standalone article, as I haven't seen any additional sources, so I'll vote merge to Houston Astros minor league players as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Houston Astros minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Keep or Merge per Spanneraol. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge per Spanneraol. The coverage consists of articles documenting high school and college endeavors, and isn't enough to constitute notability. Per nom, doesn't meet notability guidelines for an athlete. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When you type in "Justin Gominsky" onto Google you get a countless amount of information from reliable sources, all referenced on the page. (From Mahtomedi, Mn, the University of MN, Houston Astros, reliable newspapers/reports, and most importantly the actual MiLB- Minor League Baseball page. it should not be deleted, all information is very factual and notable. He has lots of coverage and national following. He has played all over the United States and many other minor league players have Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna stellmach (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A new source has been added for more reliability from Houston Astros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna stellmach (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the sources that turn up through a Google search do not satisfy WP:RELIABLE guidelines. Again, it's difficult to accept a single A ballplayer as meriting a biography here, and media coverage has not been impressive enough to think otherwise. Parenthetically, Johanna stellmach is not a neutral account, a WP:SPA, with conflict of interest per WP:COI: [5]. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge - the sources from Muboshgu put it right on the borderline. If not keep, then most certainly merge, as there is some content. Go Phightins! 01:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Gominsky certainly has received plenty of coverage and is known nationally in the baseball world. Just because of his position currently does not mean he will not continue to move up. His accomplishments are worthy of a bio on Wikipedia. He has notability for baseball. It is proven he is a player and has won awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna stellmach (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be merged because they do not have all players. Last year he played for the Lexington Legends, two teams higher than the rookie and is not listen because they do not have a page. Also, season rosters will soon be changed due to the new season. He is slotted to move up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna stellmach (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge is to the Astros minor league page because he is in their farm system.. it does not matter which level of the minor leagues he is currently in. Saying he is "known nationally in the baseball world" is a bit of a stretch... I follow baseball very closely and had never heard of him before this. Spanneraol (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the new sources. 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per Spanneraol. Certainly a single-A player can warrant a standalone article, but I see nothing so special about this player's single-A career or coverage that would warrant such an article for him. And while high school and college coverage certainly counts towards WP:GNG, I don't think what has been presented is enough to satisfy GNG. Merging would retain all the relevant information and sources in the event that he does become notable enough for a standalone article in the future. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Spanneraol. Perfect candidate for inclusion on minor league list article, given the subject's very marginal case for notability under the general notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 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. This discussion has morphed from delete vs. keep to keep vs. keep but not in its current state. The discussion concerning the future of the page including making it a DAB page can continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Legal abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unsourced and unsourceable list of unrelated topics under a Neologism "legal abuse" in violation of WP:LISTN, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fladrif (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure WP:OR due to lack of references, seems to be hugely in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, a small trout to the genius who decided to tag each section as unreferenced, instead of just tagging the whole article as a whole as unreferenced. I can definitely see a valid article with this name, but this may as well be deleted and restarted from scratch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (by nominator). This article appears to have begun as something of a disambiguation page, where the creator, as part of a broader project to create a vast network of DABs for various uses of the word "abuse", gathered together any law-related topic that anyone ever referred to, or the editor imagined as some kind of "abuse". Initially unsourced, a number of self-published sources that fail as WP:RS had been added in an effort to prop this up, which have now been removed. It is certainly true, that if you look at the various search engine results, there are any number of sources, reliable and unreliable, which may call this or that thing or process "abuse". There is a well defined common law and statutory tort Abuse of process; there is a standard of judicial review Abuse of discretion; what there is not is a accepted category called "legal abuse" which encompasses all of the things or even any of the things being included in this article. No scholarly publication, text, or treatise does so. It is not a term of art or usage in the profession. It is not used in that sense by reliable news organizations or publications, nor in any other reliable press. What this article amounts to is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, compiling a list of anything the editor imagines might go wrong, or result in a unfavorable outcome, by design, accident, negligence or whatever at any point in the civil or criminal legal process, and labeling it "abuse". Because no reliable secondary source does so, it violates the core policies of WP:RS and WP:V and fails the notability guideline of WP:LISTN. Fladrif (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to play devil's advocate, would you have any issue with turning the page into a more traditional DAB? As for "accepted category", how about Category:Abuse_of_the_legal_system? I don't think it is too outlandish to say that judicial misconduct and SLAPP suits are abusive and I could easily see this page being a landing point for someone looking up abusive behavior in the legal system as a general subject. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - looking at numerous google books and google scholar results, I believe that topic of "Legal abuse" is probably sufficiently notable for an article. Although it is quite likely that article needs to be rewritten.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. I agree with Staberinde that there could be an article here, just that nothing presently in the article should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Withdraw !vote. The present text is unsourced; we would need to find sources to see if it would violate NPOV once the RS are determined. The definition might also be OR, but, there, I'm sure something could be done to establish a consensus definition. The article would almost certainly have to be permanently semi-protected to prevent those who claim to have been unjustly treated to insert their own case as an example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Make into a WP:Disambiguation page. This link] suggests that the term is being used elsewhere in WP and could properly be expanded or explained better in those separate articles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, literally thousands of results in secondary sources, including books with "legal abuse" itself in the title of the books themselves. — Cirt (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to look behind the mere numbers. There are a huge number of hits in which the term "legal abuse" isn't used at all. There is a considerable number (including some with the term in the title) which are not reliable sources. The point about the rest of them is that they are invariably all talking about completely different things with no common connection whatsoever. One source uses "legal abuse" to refer to the abuse of legal, as opposed to illegal, drugs. Another source uses "legal abuse" to refer to inconsistent laws which result in discrimination. Another uses "legal abuse" to distinguish legal techniques of "enhanced interrogation" as distinguished from illegal torture. Another uses "legal abuse" to refer to mistreatment of children which rises to the legal definition of child abuse. Another uses "legal abuse" interchangeably with "abuse of process". Another uses "legal abuse" to refer to quirks in gaming laws which permit video bingo games to proliferate while other games of chance are restricted. Another uses "legal abuse" to refer to any illegal act or denial of rights by the police. Another uses "legal abuse" to refer to any legal intervention, as opposed to theraputic treatment, for any form of mental illness. Another uses "legal abuse" to refer to any application of criminal law to juveniles. Thousands use "legal abuse" simply as a shorthand for whatever they may happen to be writing about that involves government and has a undesired outcome. The point is that these sources, whether in the hundreds or thousands, simply do not support the notion that there is such a thing as "legal abuse" which would encompass the things contemplated by this article. As I noted on the talk page, you can't make an article out of People named John who have a Wikipedia BLP - this is no different. What none of these sources do is gather together all these things and call them collectively "legal abuse", meaning that the whole thing is original research, synthesis and a violation of the LISTN notability guideline. Fladrif (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The present version looks to me like a useful and reasonable summary of obviously verifiable info, supported by internal links to other articles with good sources. I don't see obvious OR or neutrality problems beyond possible quibbles over a phrase or two, pretty minor on the scale of things, and fixable if anyone cares to bother. Typing "legal abuse" into books.google.com establishes solidly that the concept has significant coverage, and (contra Fladrif) pulling the disparate treatments of it together and summarizing them is what we are supposed to do. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's definitely a valid article in there, but I don't think the current unsourced mess is that article. Legal abuse is definitely a widely covered subject, but it needs to be built 100% around WP:RS (not even using non-RS for trivial things), and that's what this article is not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything controversial enough in the article to say that type of treatment is required. It's not like a contentious BLP or political article. Adding some direct references would be useful, but the basic Wikipedia standard is straightforward verifiability and I think the current version mostly achieves that, or at least comes close enough that deletion (rather than tweaking) isn't appropriate. The article is in something like WP:summary style and as such, some of the supporting sources are accessible through the internal links. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because there's basically nothing of use in the article, other than a bunch of terms linked together without any references at all - pure WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR, and internal links make no difference to this at the moment - they don't prove that these terms are all linked together under this heading. If it was done properly, then we'd have to make sure that people didn't try to add in garbage reported by tabloids and blogs as "legal abuse". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the article useful and the different sections to clearly be facets of the same concept, warranting an article. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be facets of the same concept, but unless there's reliable sources tying them together (in this case, there isn't even a Facebook page as a source...), the article as it stands is not valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In many cases the words are being used not as different facets of the same concept, but to have precisely the opposite meaning. One source may use "legal abuse" to refer to something that is legal because it violates no statutory or judicial "legal" standard of "abuse"; another source may use "legal abuse" to refer to something that is illegal because it meets the statutory or judicial "legal" definition of "abuse". Fladrif (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make into a disambiguation page — It's not clear that the term "legal abuse" exists as a distinct conceptual entity, as Fladrif clearly articulates. Just because this juxtaposition of words often occurs doesn't mean that it's a discrete topic. A disambiguation page would be a good solution. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might be possible to turn this into a disambiguation page. I think that it is fairly obvious that this term is an alternative name or plausible misnomer for (a) abuse, of whatever form, that is not technically illegal and (b) abuse of legal process (which is technically illegal). James500 (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of the comments suggest that a traditional DAB page is probably the best we can do with this. I'd have no problem with deleting this article and having a plain old ordinary DAB page, provided that (i) there are actually sources for the articles linked to and (ii) it has some defined scope and page protection to keep it in reasonable bounds. Fladrif (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that citing sources on DABs is a "don't" -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Which is why I wrote that the articles linked to need to have actual sources. Fladrif (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah.. I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Which is why I wrote that the articles linked to need to have actual sources. Fladrif (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that citing sources on DABs is a "don't" -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of the comments suggest that a traditional DAB page is probably the best we can do with this. I'd have no problem with deleting this article and having a plain old ordinary DAB page, provided that (i) there are actually sources for the articles linked to and (ii) it has some defined scope and page protection to keep it in reasonable bounds. Fladrif (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig Cursory review of Google Books shows that this often refers to police misconduct but obviously it can also refer vexatious litigation. II | (t - c) 21:40, 26 March 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 deletion under G3 as a hoax. Michael Greiner 05:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian Jingle Academy (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)
Probable hoax. Only mentions are a free web hosting site and a facebook page. I live in Topeka and never heard of this place. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to the school's Facebook page, the school was founded last year. You may have never heard of it because it's fairly new. Someone here even asked a question about it. I'm fairly certain it's not a hoax, even with the little coverage there is. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, look at their www page and try to be convinced its not a joke. Besides, checked the local phone book and found no mention of them in the business listings or the yellow pages. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from proposer: If [this] doesn't convince anybody, you're beyond help. I have no idea who the first three are, but the last person is the guy who killed George Tiller. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that last picture is serial killer Dennis Rader. Okay. You've convinced me the article is a joke. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have known that.Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. No reliable source evidence this school exists, never mind meeting any notability guidelines. My web searches got only webs.com, Facebook and a couple of forum posts. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Elementary schools aren't usually notable, and this is no exception, quite apart from everything else above. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (G3)... 'nuff said. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Hoax. Bottom image on this page is of Dennis Rader, known as the "BTK Killer" from Wichita. He is presently in prison. This article is bad for Wikipedia and should be removed immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Malik Deenar. obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Deenar (r) Kasaragod Andyavisramam Kollunna Swahabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only sources given are links to official sites by the organization and house of worship which not only seem to be behind the authorship of the book, but are also the primary topic. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOTADVERTISING. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to bibliography of Malik Deenar. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. – SJ + 02:24, 21 March 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. sufficient consensus. No point relisting indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Illyrian Swimming 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)
fails WP:ORG. all sources primary. nothing in gnews for its English or Albanian name. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability and verifiability issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 16:25, 20 March 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 g1 (nonsense), WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Imaginejokes (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)
Unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. - MrX 16:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g11, book advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Professional Bartending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, promotional article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 15:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A10--not an article, not even an attempted article, just a promo blurb and an about-the-author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 20 March 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. No prejudice towards renaming/refining the scope Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Innofactor (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)
searched for significant independent coverage in reliable sources and found none. as far as i can see fails WP:CORP nonsense ferret 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Another one of them: ...develops and provides internet-based software solutions for European organisations in the private and public sectors. Innofactor provides solutions for enterprises and public administration in five main areas: Web and Communication Services, eServices and eCommerce, Document and Case Management, CRM, ERP and Operational Solutions, and Business Intelligence and Enterprise Search Solutions. This recitation of empty buzzwords is insufficient to make a case of minimal importance, too meaningless to improve by editing, and is unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Finnish publicly listed company with long history (by IT industry standards). Well known to most people who follow Finland's IT industry or small cap stock market. The current company is a remnant of iconic corporate failure from dot com bust. Its predecessor Westend_ICT was involved in high-profile criminal case about insider trading some years back. The key owner-managers were sent to jail and the case got lots of national press coverage. Finnish Wikipedia has two articles for this: fi:Westend_ICT and fi:Innofactor. jni (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds a lot like the predecessor company is the one we should have the article about - WP:NOTINHERITED. The presence of an article in Finnish wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. --nonsense ferret 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you look at the first few pages of these Google News Archive Search hits, there seem to be a lot of mentions of the company. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- mentions don't equal notability - are they references to significant independent coverage in reliable sources (not press releases/press packs or directory style lists)? If they are, which ones in particular? --nonsense ferret 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, turn into article about Westend ICT. Westend seems notable. The existence of an article elsewhere isn't irrelevant, indeed provides citations and points to a better solution. – SJ + 02:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and consider the name. We do take into account the presence in another WP for a national subject. It isn't definitive, because all the WPs have slightly different standards: we are somewhat stricter about sourcing than many; we are considerably laxer about certain popular subjects. And we need to be aware that there may not be as much effort at removing promotion for a locally known enterprise or individual. But the two finnish articles are most certainly not promotion. Like Sj, I think one article could be justified. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylan Taylor (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A couple of business awards and a big-paying job, no doubt, but I don't see a reason to assume this person passes WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone brings forth significant coverage of this person as an individual in independent, reliable sources. Increased scrutiny of any claims to be a "thought leader " is recommended as that's about as significant as having a passle of Twitter followers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article includes enough WP:RS to justify WP:N based on WP:GNG. WP:COI and WP:POV tags are not relevant for a WP:N consideration, which is the purpose of this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the actual references? There are two items, as far as I can tell, that qualify as secondary sources. This is one, a video on Bloomberg of a panel that includes our subject. This, from Businessweek, looks like another reliable thing, but it's really nothing but an "executive profile"--nothing but a fancy version of LinkedIn. In other words, there is no coverage of anything, there's just primary material. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The weak section "accolades" indicates why he isn't yet notable. "... Under 40" is usually an euphemism for "awards for people not yet notable" The references are mentions, and I am reluctant to consider anything on the WEF site as a RS for anything. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunter Douglas (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)
cannot find significant coverage - not notable organisation nonsense ferret 14:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, quite a few new references dug up - happy to go with consensus on this one and withdraw nomination --nonsense ferret 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I removed some puffery from the article that may indicate that it was written by an editor with a conflict of interest. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unreferenced, and marked as such for over 2 years without anyone digging anything out. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these are reasons for deletion. An article is to be deleted if it's on a non-notable topic, not if it's a bad article or no one has paid attention to it. Cullen is paying attention to it now, and Cullen does not waste his time on non-notable topics. As a participant in an AfD discussion, you would do well to investigate whether a topic is notable or not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It may be that they have very efficient SEO to get themselves to the top of Google search. If anyone else tries a search, start at page 21. I found nothing independent or reliable in 20 pages of ghits. In fact, virtually nothing that wasn't their own sites. Big operation? Looks like it. Independently and reliably covered? Well, now... The article's been tagged for references since May 2011 (still on my watchlist, even, as it me what tagged it). If someone comes up with something, all well and good. But do start at page 21... Peridon (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In this 1999 article, the New York Times called Hunter Douglas "the world's leading maker of window blinds and coverings". The current corporate entity was formed in 1971, as described in this article in the Montreal Gazette, and was notable even back then as it operated in 75 countries. This 2003 article in the Washington Post said the company had $880 million in U.S. and Canadian sales, and "numerous facilities across this country". In 1992, the Denver Post published this 892 word article describing it as an "immensely successful company". There is a profile of the company in Jane's Major Companies of Europe, published in 1975. In 1993, the New York Times collaborated with the company to publish a book on the company's product line. Though not an independent source, this publication is an indicator of the significance of the firm. This book on business management devotes 15 pages to Hunter Douglas. This book on luxury marketing devotes three pages to the company. This book on business management devotes a chapter to Hunter Douglas.
- I looked only at English language sources. The company is headquartered in The Netherlands, operates in over 100 countries, and has 17,000 employees. I found many newspaper and book sources in Dutch, but didn't bother with Google Translate, since the English sources make it clear that the company is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This business makes window hangings and blinds, I take it. I think it's safe to assume that a source that calls its subject the world's leading anything is not really an independent source. The presence of a completely original research and unverified corporate history suggests that conflicted editing. No showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture that would turn this from a merely successful business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you can't discredit the NYT that easily. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, without a doubt. They're big, they're notable, they are Luxaflex, etc. Searching for sources is not so easy, but perusing Google News for "Hunter Douglas NV" brings up some relevant hits (also, this), one of which I've added to the article. Thank you Cullen, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article now has seven references to independent, reliable sources, and all the major claims in the corporate history are now verified. Smerdis of Tlön, when the New York Times calls a business "the world's leading" in its field, we must assume that their fact checkers researched and verified the claim. This is a public corporation and all their financial results are disclosed. Also, significant coverage differs from significant impact. The company began continuous casting of aluminum in the 1940s and that process did not become widespread until the 1950s. That innovation created a billion dollar fortune. I believe that the company is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the NYT says, the most important company in its field. A careless nomination, showing the reason why people really need to search first before they nominate, as is recommended by policy. . Smerdis, we have standards for RSs, and no matter how rigorous we set them, some sources will meet them. corporate history is appropriate content for major histories, and, like any routine matter, independent sources for it are acceptable unless controversial or challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As shown above, reliable sources do exist to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maddie's Place Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail notability guidelines. Atlantima (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete music venue that's part of a steakhouse. May indeed be defunct: their website indicates their next show is happening in August... of last year. Claim of sponsoring Joe Nemechek is of unknown veracity: it isn't listed on the sponsors page of his website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable concert venue. I found only one mention in a news search, a listing of the starting lineup of the 55th Daytona 500, where 14th position was reported to be occupied by Joe Nemechek driving "Maddies Place Rocks Toyota." [11]. No independent, third party verifiable sources for the venue beyond its own website and some other sites simply listing lineups. Geoff Who, me? 22:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilary Sheinbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:N, no secondary sources and no sources that aren't independent of the subject. This article has been nominated for WP:PROD and removed with no reason given. Most of the lead-in is paraphrased directly from her bio at The Huffington Post. ToastyMallows (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR at this time. Gong show 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Extremely minor blogger, failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 04:10, 22 March 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 Perry Park, Kentucky. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Glenwood Hall (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)
Unreferenced, and I can't find anything to suggest this is a notable place for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing much in the way of RS; while I'm not unsympathetic to articles of local interest, this really doesn't meet any notability guideline known to me. dci | TALK 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was half-expecting a historical designation of some importance, but didn't find it. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe redirect to Perry Park, Kentucky. I came across a brief discussion of this building (and its surrounding property, now a golf club) in the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Monterey Historic District, Kentucky (at pp. 26-27). This discussion (part of a section about other historic sites near to, but not part of, the Monterey district) describes the house as "the only surviving historic building on the property". Given the apparent paucity of any other sources about the house, I am inclined to think that it is better handled as part of the article for Perry Park, Kentucky, which discusses the golf club; that article also has sourcing issues but I have dug up a few items. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 07:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 454 Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable subsidiary of a notable company (Hoffmann-La Roche). Many references, but they are mostly scientific journals about the specific kind of DNA work done by the subsidiary (that is done by other companies), they are not references about not the subsidiary itself. Insufficient substantiation under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to justify a stand-alone article. GrapedApe (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is established since "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (WP:CORP), as evidenced in the references section of the article (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, scientific journals). The news coverage is from when the company was still independent, not a subsidiary. Now, as a Roche subsidiary, the coverage is understandably less. But: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (WP:NTEMP)--Biologos (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be opposed to incorporating this material into the Hoffmann-La Roche article?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the best solution, I think. Just like it is better to keep the information about all the breweries that are now Anheuser-Busch InBev (Beck's, Anheuser-Busch, Stella Artois, etc.) in the respective articles.--Biologos (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Biologos. Deserves its own article, linked from the H-LR article. – SJ + 02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't have much to add to Biologos' cogent arguments for keeping this article. This was, and as a mostly independent subsidiary, still is a well-known company in the field of genomics and genetics. The article is mildly promotional and could be improved, but this is a surmountable problem. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggest this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but limit to the small amount of encyclopedic content. Almost everything here is about genome sequencing in general, qualified by saying it uses their tradmarked machines. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Noteworthy with significant secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 25 March 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 Bato of Dardania. J04n(talk page) 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bato of Dalmatia (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)
Deproded by two people who weren't sure. Well, the two people at:
seem sure: it's based on a misinterpreted source. This information has lingered on the first talk page since 2009-05-07 and on the second talk page since 2011-01-31. I should also add that it's possible that by "Dalmatian" one could have referred to the Roman province of Dalmatia, which would be anachronistic (the Illyrian Wars started around 200 BC but the province was called Illyricum initially). Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per nom. davidiad { t } 11:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- : Keep Although this article almost certainly does not meet the quality standards, a search of Bato turns up his presence in a few campaigns including one in Pannonia wherein he was involved. Given the period this character existed in and ancient sources being ancient, keep.[12] - Clark Sui (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I need to clarify something here, something that I initially missed, too, because it isn't absolutely explicit in the talk page links or the nomination. This Bato of Dalmatia is Bato of Dardania, but a single source was incorrectly interpreted, so we have this two sentence article under a poor headword (though people do still call him Bato of Dalmatia occasionally). Hence my proposed option to redirect. davidiad { t } 11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Clark, do you disagree that this is indeed the same person? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I need to clarify something here, something that I initially missed, too, because it isn't absolutely explicit in the talk page links or the nomination. This Bato of Dalmatia is Bato of Dardania, but a single source was incorrectly interpreted, so we have this two sentence article under a poor headword (though people do still call him Bato of Dalmatia occasionally). Hence my proposed option to redirect. davidiad { t } 11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Asynchronous logic (algebra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined a speedy of "self-promotion, only one person using this concept and he's basically trying to get people to buy his book" because it was contested and it's not a clearcut case. However, all the given refs for the topic do appear to be the same author, and talk-page notes inability to find independent refs for a key aspect/term. Possible COI of main editor. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sign of independent RS, all sources by one author. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Special algebraic methods are used in the design and verification of digital circuits that use asynchronous logic. Several WP:RS document these methods, including [13],[14],[15] and a Google search for "asynchronous logic" + "algebra" will reveal more. However, another article already documents asynchronous sequential logic (without all of the algebraic formulations). Moreover, (due to my lack of technical expertise in this field), I'm not certain whether the algebraic formulations in the article under review reflect standardized, widespread, industry practice or just a narrow field of specialized research? If the latter, it could be a case of excessive detail for a general purpose encyclopedia which Sequential logic already covers (or could be edited to better cover) in a more general manner. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly sounds like excess detail. Happy to go with a Redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tried looking up "venjunction" and "sequention" in Google scholar (key concepts for the subject of this article, apparently) [16]. It only found eight hits, six of them by V. Vasyukevich and the other two being a preprint that cites VV (with the only uses of these words being in the title of the citation) and a set of lecture notes by someone else that mentions this material in approximately the same level of detail as the article here. My conclusion is that this is one researcher's idiosyncratic take on the subject and not yet mainstream enough to be an appropriate subject of a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was convinced by David Eppstein's argument. Although Vasyukevich's work is featured in a book released by the respected academic publishing house Springer-Verlag, it appears that very few other researchers or design engineers are currently employing his mathematical techniques, and that makes it non-notable from the standpoint of WP:GNG. As I stated previously, asynchronous logic design and verification, along with the underlying mathematical methods, do represent an established branch of electronics engineering and potentially could be the subject of a WP article. Because the mathematical and engineering aspects are very closely linked, the title should be something along the lines of Asynchronous logic design, and the content would have to be entirely different to reflect the standard methods used in that industry. If such an article existed, a brief mention could be made of Vasyukevich's work because it has been featured in reliable sources. Anything more than a brief mention (including an entire article about it) would be providing WP:UNDUE weight to a very narrow, specialized, line of research that (as it appears) only Vasyukevich is currently pursuing. (Sequential logic would not be a good redirect destination IMHO because its discussion of asynchronous logic doesn't even touch upon the underlying algebraic design or verification methods at all.) At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that the current article has WP:POTENTIAL or salvageable content, so my vote is "delete". --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I couldn't verify his claims of working in Spanish media in Miami. Secret account 02:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Horacio Cambeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In brief: Now that the flim-flam has been removed, NN.
Fuller: Once a medium-length puff-piece, this apparent autobiography also seems to be the hub of a number of fulsome articles about Spanish-speaking showbiz people in south Florida (at least two of them currently undergoing AfD). A little investigation quickly revealed that a number of the sources were not what they were described as, or didn't say what the references implied that they said, or both, or were simply dead. (See the article history, and perhaps I should apologize here for the indelicate metaphors you'll see used in edit summaries for the material I removed.)
The references are now down to (1) one titled "Misionero se gradúa de experto Antinarcóticos en la Academia de Policía de los Estados Unidos" (which I do not claim to be able to read), and (2) one dead one. ("Dead" as in "not at web.archive.org either".) If both links do indeed say what the article says they say, then our man presentates (or just works in an unnamed capacity) in unspecified Vegas and Miami radio and teevee programs. Good, but his notability isn't blazingly obvious.
Here is Horacio Cambeiro's own biografía del periodista Horacio Cambeiro. It curiously resembles a Wikipedia article. There is no es:Horacio Cambeiro, but it seems that there once was one. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original version plain advertising, present version fails to prove his notability. The Banner talk 10:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unidentified Flying Delivery (cricket) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources for this article, no sources turned up in a google search. A probable hoax. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, appears to be a cricket delivery somebody made up one day. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:MADEUP unref'd bollocks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax. Johnlp (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparent WP:HOAX. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX, no evidence of this terminology being used anywhere. Harrias talk 17:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and speedily! What utter nonsense!!! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:39, 22 March 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) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Warwick Files (thriller series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These books are non-notable by every policy contained in WP:BOOK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either self-published or very nearly so. As far as I can tell, the "publisher" hasn't actually published anything else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed that likely self published. Some research reveals that the citation given is a thinly-veiled press release. Caseylf (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to J.M. Hoffman. There's enough out there to suggest that as far as his non-fiction work goes, Hoffman is considered to be relatively notable. He's received a few reviews for that work, although the fictional work seems to have gotten no actual coverage. The author's article can use a lot of work, but as there's just enough to where I'd probably argue for a weak keep based on the current sources, I'd say that this could be a reasonable redirect to his page. However as a standalone article, the series is not notable in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:17, 25 March 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 Society for Creative Anachronism. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Insulae draconis (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)
subregion of Drachenwald, itself a redirect to SCA. merge contents if a reference can be found. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete to Society for Creative Anachronism, doesn't seem much worth merging actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect as above. I'm not even sure it's worth a redirect as the target article doesn't mention it and the capitalisation is wrong anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 20 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Application performance management (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 tried, but failed to rewrite this article to eliminate the reliance on Gartner models, the didactic and repetitive language, the duplication, the use of proprietary capitalized terminology for common concepts, and the duplicate linking to everything with a possible connection. I failed, because the essential sources on which the document rests are proprietary and limited to Gartner customers. I do not consider this effectual publication, as it provides the general reader to now to verify anything in the article. It is of use only to the company's customers,and therefore belongs on the company's website. I do not like to admit failure in rewriting jargon, and I would have no objection if anyone would undertake to rewrite the article from publicly accessible sources. (There's a related article, Business transaction management, but since it has public sources I think I can probably fix it) DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would like to say delete because this seems typical of the consultancy-fuelled nonsense and BS that blights the IT industry these days, but GBooks does have at least three books about Application performance management, so it does appear to be a topic that has enough coverage to have an article. Shame. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of the Augean stables of IT-cruft. If you can turn text like:
Application performance management is related to end-user experience management and real user management in that measuring the experience of real users in the use of an application in production is considered by many to be the most valid method of assessing the performance of an application. Maximum productivity can be achieved more efficiently through event correlation, system automation and predictive analysis which is now all part of APM.....
Dependency injection software development frameworks on JEE instrument an application to provide performance metrics automatically. For example, Spring-based JEE applications support management protocols to provide observed issues in application operation to a performance management tool/dashboard. SpringSource acquired APM-player Hyperic in 2009 to combine application development, automatic application instrumentation, and application performance management. Aspect Oriented Programming on JEE platforms enables automatic performance monitoring without instrumentation of the application. PushToTest TestMaker is an open source load testing solution that integrates with Glassbox, an open source application performance monitoring and troubleshooter application.
into intelligible English, my hat's off to you: until that time, it's "(c)ontent that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it": patent nonsense, in our technical sense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a lawyer and legal jargon can be even more turgid and obscure. Myself, I have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by the paragraph you quote. Warden (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and I have written articles on some technical legal subjects, and in the process attempt to explain their significance and why they matter. What I won't do is a text dump of undigested legal jargon into an article. When every intelligible phrase in the text seems to be shaped around the message about how productive whatever-this-is will make you and how it will help you make money, as is the case here, it doesn't help. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The rewrite has taken care of the glaring problems of the unintelligible original here. I suppose I will never get away from the suspicion that 'subjects' like this are much more than sales pitches for IT consulting firms. I probably can't be convinced that these subjects don't have long term, historic legs, and I think they have problems with undue weight given to IT minutiæ given the bias caused by the fact that whatever else unites us, it's computers. If you aren't interested in using computers, you probably won't be editing Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is clearly notable as may be seen from the search links above where numerous sources such as A survey of J2EE application performance management systems can be readily found. If some of these sources such as Gartner's papers require payment then this is very normal. My impression is that DGG has been spoilt by his work as an academic librarian. Most lay folk are required to pay prohibitive fees to access academic journals but, nevertheless, we consider these to be satisfactory sources. If the current sources are behind a paywall which he cannot get past for free then he is just experiencing the normal state of affairs for most of our readership. As for the jargon issue, this is just a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. And prejudice against IT topics is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT, of course. Warden (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Paywalled sources, by definition, are of limited circulation and probably of limited interest, and industry analysts like Gartner itself are sources with small readerships devoted to providing deep coverage of a specific industry. Industry analysts can't turn a subject into the sort of thing you'd expect to find as a standalone entry in an encyclopedia.
I've always acknowledged, and make no apology for, my "bias" against unreadable gibberish whose purpose is to sell something. That's what we have here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Paywalled sources, by definition, are of limited circulation and probably of limited interest, and industry analysts like Gartner itself are sources with small readerships devoted to providing deep coverage of a specific industry. Industry analysts can't turn a subject into the sort of thing you'd expect to find as a standalone entry in an encyclopedia.
- Comment - Tried to read... Feeling very sleepy... No opinion. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paywalled sources are perfectly acceptable at WP, and the items involved can be requested through any library & from many WPedians--ideally, the person adding them to the article should have seen them, and therefore has access. . Not using them would destroy our coverage of scientific topics, and a good deal of social science. I totally disagree with Smerdis that payrolled sources are " of limited circulation and probably of limited interest" Every significant journal in chemistry is a payrolled source; most of mathematics and biology also. There is a trend (open access to make new ones supported by government agencies available after 6 months, but this does not apply to anything before such open accessed policies came into effect, or to non-government supported research. And I think Smerdis is wrong about this sort of industry report also: some--such as many Gartner reports--are of fairly broad interest, which is why the publisher is able to restrict access to them. As I understand it, these Gartner sources are another matter entirely from ordinary pay-walled sources; they are in general available to their customers only. I am fairly sure they are not available in any public or university library at all; they are made available only to individuals, at a price of several hundred dollars each, under terms that the item may not be shared with anyone else. If a second person wants to read it, a second copy must be purchased or licensed. These are not checkable: For example, there is no way of knowing whether or not the entire article is a copyvio from them. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment 2 I usually disagree with Smerdis about jargon also. There have been many AfDs where he's quoted a paragraph of ordinary business jargon and used it to condemn an article. I agree with him we should not permit such language in WP, and that it is not encyclopedic , but most of it can be rewritten if it is worth the trouble. I have sometimes done so directly in response to his challenges. For this particular article,he's right. I could not figure out how to rewrite it. That the topic may be notable is irrelevant--we're not judging whether an article on the topic should be in WP, but whether this article should be in WP: this is a discussion about Articles For Deletion, not Topics For Inclusion. Jargon like this, if nobody is prepared o rewrite it, should essentially be treated like an article entirely copyvio: there's an essay by Man in Black that summarizes the argument: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I blew up the article and rewrote it. Behind all the MBA jargon was spam advocating a particular approach to APM. I removed the spam, tried to rebalance the undue weight, and attempted to simplify the language. Update: Added some non Gartner references, including a freely available report that verifies Gartner's five dimensions. --Mark viking (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - APM is entering into a period of intense competition of technology and strategy with a multiplicity of vendors and viewpoints. While the nomenclature used within its space has five distinct dimensions that elucidate its meaning, the very acronym of APM is in question: Application Performance ... Monitoring vs. Management.
- It's strange to think that we would not normally use monitoring and management synonymously, but when used in the APM vernacular they seem to be interchangeable. This may be a visceral response, but I see the APM idiom converging on itself and becoming a matter of expectations vs. aspirations.
- Application Performance Monitoring is the expectation of the tool sets themselves and how to implement them. Gartner provides five dimensions that describe these technologies which are not meant to be so "prescriptive" as much as they are "descriptive".
- Application Performance Management is the aspiration of what we want the APM space to become. It is the umbrella over the other disciplines (e.g. enterprise monitoring, performance analysis, system modeling, and capacity planning).
- To illustrate this concept consider looking at a blueprint of the high-level elements to include when implementing an APM solution. Each element goes deep as a broad category, and each category encompasses specific monitoring tools that support the end-user-experience (EUE). The EUE is at the heart of it all, and has become the focal point that allows us to make the connection to the business and speak to them in a language they can appreciate. Understandably, the technology overlap across the elements can leave even the savviest IT leader perplexed about APM and what it means.
- No matter where you believe APM's heritage has come from (e.g. BSM, BTM, NPM, etc.), monitoring and management will both have their roles to play in the APM journey. APM is the translation of IT metrics into business meaning (value). How that is actually accomplished however, is another story.
- Comment - I updated the article providing context for the APM model and each of the dimension's relative priority. Articulating terms most commonly used in the APM nomenclature, distilling 15 pages of technical descriptions into a concise summary.LarryDragich (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve been involved in APM specifically for the last 7 years or so and have written numerous articles on the topic and have spoken at many IT engagements to help people understand the differentiators. I agree that we should remove the commercial selling taking out vendor references and so on. Keep the 5 dimensions and their relative priority on what they mean…and how to manage the integration touch points between them. — LarryDragich (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As shown in the rewritten article, there are multiple reliable sources for this topic: Gartner (counted as a single source), the Virtualization Review article, a peer reviewed paper from NOMS, and a Network World article. The rewrite has removed the worst of the impenetrable jargon and advertising spam and has added some non-Gartner sources for better balance. While not perfect, the remaining problems with the prose seem surmountable. Multiple reliable sources show the topic is notable according to WP:GNG and the remaining article problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE; both suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment on the rewritten article Yes, it certainly is an improvement in clarity. There's a good deal of further improvement needed. 1 In many of the paragraphs, the content is evaluation , not description, and this sort of content needs specific sources. 2 There is remaining writing in a tutorial style, which is not encyclopedic , e.g. "A minimal take away here would be to ensure that you have up/down monitoring in place for all nodes/servers within the environment." Almost every word here is wrong. In particular, we normally try to avoid the second person. 3 Too much of the writing still uses jargon and business style phrasing and wordiness., e.g. "... this will become a critical component to build on when working on event correlation to help implement an overall runtime architecture solution." should be "is essential for event correlation" And, what is "deep=-dive component management? Is there an English equivalent? Some phrases seem to have non0standard meanings: "to help prioritize Gartner’s APM Model" is presumably meant to say to use the model to set priorities for the tasks, but what it says is to make their model a priority among models one might use 4 The slide, which I suspect from its style is a slightly redrawn Gartner slide, does not contribute understanding. Flow charts are sometimes needed in articles, but a graphic comprised of paragraphs of texts is inferior to plain text; WP is not Powerpoint. 5 The article seems to assume that this is something distinctive. Analysis of the user experience is a standard technique going back 60 years, and not distinctive to Gartner -- I thing that's what meant here by "Top Down." "Bottom up," which I think means measuring the performance of the low-level components, is even older. As far as I can tell, this vitiates the entire concept of the article & the concept; it remains essentially their proprietary concept for things perfectly usual in the industry--they're basically renaming everything so people think they have something worth purchasing. That 5th dimension really shows it: they're saying that having the data, it is necessary to report it consistently. This is worth dignifying as a dimension of a named model?
- I think this needs another round of explosion. @Larry: Are you wiling to do it? Do you think that immersed in the industry as you are, you still have the ability to write plainly? I note you did indeed rewrite it to include outside sources, most of them are your own work. I appreciate your honesty in using your real name, but this is not considered acceptable here. To cite yourself is a conflict of interest. Speaking of COI, has anyone from other companies or independent analysts or the academic world commented on whether they think the model is useful? DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we handle subjects where every competent writer has a COI? DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (raises hand) Wait! I know! If the only people who know enough about a subject are people using it to sell something (or their competition with a different TLA), it isn't ready for a standalone article in an encylopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew I could count on you! (awards an A) DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (raises hand) Wait! I know! If the only people who know enough about a subject are people using it to sell something (or their competition with a different TLA), it isn't ready for a standalone article in an encylopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had cut the article down quite to quite a short exposition, but then it was expanded again--at least without the spam this time. I'll let others decide if my efforts were those of a competent editor, but I do claim that I have no COI in this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGC – Yes, I’m willing to rewrite it and I’ll start with the examples you cited. I do receive positive feedback quite frequently from my peers in companies across the globe and from independent analysts within the industry. I haven’t received any feedback from the academic world until this week. As far as a COI, I’m not trying to sell anything here, other than the idea that an APM solution can be simplified, understood, and implemented. I work in the field of IT using multiple APM products, not selling them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryDragich (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to withdraw the AfD, and let you and Mark try to do it, but I cannot, because there are other delete comments.. The alternative is to start over. Sometimes starting over is the best way of dealing with the residual effects of initial unsatisfactory wording. Even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean we don't want an article on the subject. I'd be very glad indeed if we had some competent skilled writers in this subject area who can explain what is actually notable and distinctive, and deal with the need to differentiate the overlapping subjects-- with consideration for the advantages of combining into comprehensive articles. Given that the sort of jargon initially present exists in the RW, it is reasonable that people will come here with the hope of finding out what the topic is actually about. I'd like to actually learn myself, instead of having to guess. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I condesed the article quite a bit and added independent references. Looking for any feed back the team might have.LarryDragich (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Society for Creative Anachronism Peerages (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)
6 years since creation, has no references, no indication that the SCA peerage has any attention outside of SCA itself. WP has no interest in documenting the trivialities of a private organization, unless those trivialities gain attention outside the group, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Although a Google news search shows a few passing mentions in articles on SCA, the peerage system does not have the in-depth coverage required for a Wikipedia article. Peerages are already briefly covered in the main article Society for Creative Anachronism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not recognised outside the SCA and too trivial to merge, existing coverage in the main article is just fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability; these titles are not recognized and have no meaning outside of the SCA itself. I considered a redirect, but IMO it would serve no purpose, since the search term "Society for Creative Anachronism Peerages" provides nothing that wouldn't be found via the search term "Society for Creative Anachronism". --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Dick Van Dyke Show writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deleted before, now recreated for unknown reason. Musdan77 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was deleted before at the request of the sole editor[17] so this is not a reason for deleting a second time. The new article is claimed to be "in a better format." The article gives no source for its contents – if the DVDs have been used this should be stated. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Trivia, basically. We're not building an encyclopedia to catalog unimportant bits of data and tv show statistics. WP:RAWDATA and WP:IINFO here. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete strange, unnecessary duplication. The writers of each episode are already detailed on List of The Dick Van Dyke Show episodes, right where they should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary (and oddly formatted) duplication of content that is already in List of The Dick Van Dyke Show episodes. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Urns (Indianapolis) (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)
Precisely the same situation as the article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Wellhead. Like the antique wellhead, this article appears to be part of a project to create articles about virtually everything in the owning museum's collection, without regard for whether the pieces are works by major artists (although some are by major artists) or are otherwise notable. They're ordinary urns, and the article says essentially that nothing is known about them before they arrived on the property where they're currently located. This title can be redirected to the museum article, but I don't see it being a very valuable search target. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum acquired the property in 1967. Hence it's owned these limestone urns for at least 45 years, but hasn't seen fit to bring them in out of the weather. The "Condition" section of the article says that freezing temperatures were identified as causing damage to these works. Acid rain also damages limestone. I think their continued use as garden ornaments implies an evaluation of their importance. This may be more suitable as part of Oldfields#Grounds and gardens than as a stand-alone article. —rybec 03:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Nothing is known of the maker or origin of these two urns." The fact that they have been left outside despite cracks due to weather/temperature changes indicates they are not considered important enough to preserve or valued enough to protect from theft. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Oldfields#Grounds and gardens. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 25 March 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 Elena Paparizou discography. As noted there is no sourced content and hence nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lathos Agapes (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:NSONG. Normally I would redirect to the album, but there is no album article - so I'm AfDing it. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Elena Paparizou discography. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Elena Paparizou discography as non-notable song. There's nothing in the article that suggests notability, rather the reverse. I can't find any substantial reliably-sourced coverage online, either in Latin or Greek orthography, although I admit I'm not an expert on Greek media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song is already listed in the discography, so I don't see a need to merge anything from this completely unsourced article. A plain redirect will suffice. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MAPS International High (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 or Userfy until notability is proven. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Atlantima (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Maldives schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:But there must be sources!: "The best and most reliable way of convincing both doubters and the closing administrator is to actually provide the requested sources rather than simply declaring you're sure they must be out there somewhere."
- And "avoiding systemic bias" doesn't mean "make WP more diverse by discarding other policies and guidelines". --Atlantima (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What it does mean is that we don't try to delete likely notable subjects before determined efforts have been made to find sources. Have you searched in Maldivian? Even in Maldivian likely it will need local searches of newspaper archives etc. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. I don't know that language. However, the burden of proof for notability is on the side who claims notability.--Atlantima (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What it does mean is that we don't try to delete likely notable subjects before determined efforts have been made to find sources. Have you searched in Maldivian? Even in Maldivian likely it will need local searches of newspaper archives etc. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Verified does not equal notable. --Atlantima (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say it did? Please read both parts of what I wrote before you comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Verified does not equal notable. --Atlantima (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per longstanding precedent that schools at high school level and higher are considered notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of such a precedent. I was going by WP:ORG, which does not mention this, but says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." It seems there is a talk page discussion on exactly this topic. Additionally, "Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type." (And please don't say it's "only an essay".--Atlantima (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent is summarised at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The talk page discussion is like very many before it over the years; they never get sufficient consensus to produce a new guideline. However, for such parts of the world where institutions have a poor Internet presence in English sourcing usually has to await local searches eg libraries since experience shows that with such local research high schools can meet WP:ORG. Anyway the usual principle applies - we don't delete subjects that are probably notable, we tag them for sources and encourage expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "this essay is not a policy or guideline"... "This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD." So it is a summary of past occurrences. Therefore, pointing to that page as a reason for keeping this article is like saying "The records say that in the past, Sports Team X usually beat Sports Team Y, so there is no need for them to play against each other anymore."--Atlantima (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "they never get sufficient consensus to produce a new guideline." I accept this as true. The current guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:ORG say that nothing is inherently notable. Therefore if a new guideline has not been produced, we must go by those and not assume notability.--Atlantima (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We assume notability because despite endless attempts by certain editors to claim no inherent notability for these articles, the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable. By the same token, debates where we know the outcome are inherently pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link me to a discussion where this consensus was reached? It seems odd that the guidelines don't reflect the alleged consensus. It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is. Why? And don't say "because we assume there are sources to establish it": "Q. But the article is only X days/weeks/months old, references aren't there yet but they will be. A. This idea is completely backwards to how Wikipedia actually works. The references must come first, then the Wikipedia article."--Atlantima (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also de facto notability for numbered highways, named bridges, airports, railway stations, designated settlements, super-regional malls, species of fauna and flora, peers of the realm amongst others. If you don't accept this then try an AfD or two on some of the numerous unsourced examples of such articles? TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Please address this specific article.--Atlantima (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the context before replying. This rebutted your statement "It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is.". TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so there are lots of de facto exceptions. Perhaps I was wrong on that count, but I don't think they should be exempt either. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I have linked to MANY MANY MANY places where this view is expressly spelled out by project pages. The only link supporting your position is User:Necrothesp/Secondary schools which is one editor's usersubpage and does not adequately address the concerns I have raised. (plus, it basically just says "All secondary schools are always notable because I say lots of people think they are important") --Atlantima (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the context before replying. This rebutted your statement "It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is.". TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Please address this specific article.--Atlantima (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also de facto notability for numbered highways, named bridges, airports, railway stations, designated settlements, super-regional malls, species of fauna and flora, peers of the realm amongst others. If you don't accept this then try an AfD or two on some of the numerous unsourced examples of such articles? TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link me to a discussion where this consensus was reached? It seems odd that the guidelines don't reflect the alleged consensus. It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is. Why? And don't say "because we assume there are sources to establish it": "Q. But the article is only X days/weeks/months old, references aren't there yet but they will be. A. This idea is completely backwards to how Wikipedia actually works. The references must come first, then the Wikipedia article."--Atlantima (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We assume notability because despite endless attempts by certain editors to claim no inherent notability for these articles, the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable. By the same token, debates where we know the outcome are inherently pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent is summarised at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The talk page discussion is like very many before it over the years; they never get sufficient consensus to produce a new guideline. However, for such parts of the world where institutions have a poor Internet presence in English sourcing usually has to await local searches eg libraries since experience shows that with such local research high schools can meet WP:ORG. Anyway the usual principle applies - we don't delete subjects that are probably notable, we tag them for sources and encourage expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of such a precedent. I was going by WP:ORG, which does not mention this, but says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." It seems there is a talk page discussion on exactly this topic. Additionally, "Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type." (And please don't say it's "only an essay".--Atlantima (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that the more essays, policies, and guidelines I check, the more I find against the idea that schools are automatically notable.--Atlantima (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's just see what happens here shall we? Then you can join the small list of editors who've claimed that consensus hasn't been reached when it clearly has. Frankly, I'm tired of having this discussion every week or two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen any consensus. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see the discussion that established it. It's not clear at all to me. And if the discussion comes up so often, then doesn't that show that the consensus is changing?
- And you still aren't addressing the actual subject of the AfD.
- I, too, will see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised if the closing admin chooses to side with arguments that are backed up by many guidelines/essays/policies, and disregards the side that ignores them, points to a seemingly nonexistent consensus, and avoids showing notability. --Atlantima (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not start an RfC regarding the inherent notability of schools to bring a discussion to the table and see if consensus has changed. You'll get more coverage and possibly more discussion than by trying to change an established way of doing things at an average AfD Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "see if consensus has changed"? Changed from WHAT???? I have asked REPEATEDLY for links to the consensus you refer to but you have given me nothing. Every discussion I have checked shows rampant disagreement on this. It is not enough to simply keep claiming consensus: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). --Atlantima (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not start an RfC regarding the inherent notability of schools to bring a discussion to the table and see if consensus has changed. You'll get more coverage and possibly more discussion than by trying to change an established way of doing things at an average AfD Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's just see what happens here shall we? Then you can join the small list of editors who've claimed that consensus hasn't been reached when it clearly has. Frankly, I'm tired of having this discussion every week or two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew and Necro. – SJ + 02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better solution: Merge into MAPS College#MAPS International High, since the College is larger, older, and more notable - and encompasses the High School. I've added College info, but haven't renamed the article. – SJ + 18:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per general convention at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a verified secondary school. TBrandley 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Verified does not equal notable and previous outcomes do not bind future ones.--Atlantima (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am done here. Every guideline I link is ignored. Every time I ask to be shown the consensus I get nothing. The keep votes present no evidence of this school's notability. I expect that closing admin will disregard any comments from users who do not address this specific article's notability.--Atlantima (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The battle regarding public schools was fought a long time ago, and the inclusionists won. But this is not a public school, it's a brand new school operated by a private company. This is a very different thing than saying every public high school, real institutions with real buildings and histories, deserves an article. To have a blanket inclusion for these means that every strip mall charter school gets its own unsourced promotional Wikipedia article. The closer should disregard any keep votes which ignore this distinction and merely are the equivalent of "school, keep". Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; seems to lack substantial coverage by independent sources, so it fails the GNG. If somebody presumes that some types of school are notable, fine - but this school seems to fail that presumption. If any editor really believes there are sources out there somewhere, bring those sources. bobrayner (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Previous consensus is that regardless of public/private/martian/college etc. any high school that is verifiably existing in the real world is notable for an article. gwickwiretalkediting 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please link to the discussion where the consensus was formed, or address this particular article's topic. --Atlantima (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The consensus was formed & sustained over the last 5 years, during which period many high school articles were brought to AfD, and 99% of the kept, if there was definite evidence for actual existence was deleted, except in a few special case, such a s an article being hopelessly promotional or copyvio. In practice one or two stubborn people can prevent a notability guideline from being technically called a guideline , but they can't overturn the consistent use of a standard at AfD. However There have been a few recent exceptions for some very small charter schools, and I think that in some special cases we might want to use combination articles for what are essentially branches of a commercial chain. But with respect to public/private, in many countries, most significant secondary schools are private. that distinction isn't applicable. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? Keep it because previous articles were kept (with the same reasoning) even though nobody actually got a consensus for such a rule? That is obviously circular reasoning. If this is kept on the basis of previous AfDs, other people who want to !vote "keep" at future AfDs but can't find any sources, evidence, or consensus to support their stance will cite this one... we have a perfectly good guideline - supported by the entire community, not just a few previous AfDs of other articles - and this article fails that guideline. bobrayner (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Amesbury, Massachusetts. No consensus to delete or keep, but a strong case is made to merge into the Amesbury, Massachusetts article. Looking through the sources provided by Shinmawa, most are weak/press release-y, (local newspapers will quickly pick up a press release and put it in their "news" section to fill space) but they are reliable sources, in a sense, and could easily be used to build a section into the city article. So, reliable, but not necessarily showing overwhelming notability. Therefore, closing this as merge. Keeper | 76 14:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Amesbury Sports Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
procedural nom for AFD as I declined the A7, but notability clearly is in question. At the moment, I am neutral. Go Phightins! 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- A quick browse shows a quite a number of news and other references about the park itself (as well as a fair number of announcements of events at the park, which were discounted). I feel this article passes WP:GNG -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject may very well be notable but the article does not prove it. Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So improve the article. A start class article isn't really justification for deletion. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By what realistic standard does it qualify for a Start class rating? It's only ref is to a non-RS personal fansite. Roger (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, Stub-class then. Same point stands. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not at AfD because it is a stub/start or whatever, it's here because it does not currently comply with WP:Notability. If you're really serious about keeping the article you should add a few cites to reliable sources, that would settle the matter. Roger (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if the argument is moving away from the fact the article is a stub to the availability of reliable sources, might I oblige? A few about its history and ownership: [18][19][20] [21] A few about its annual Brewfest, which seems to be a Big Thing(tm): [22][23][24][25] Something to do with "zorbing": [26][27] This was just from a quick look and, of course, I discounted the mountain of run-of-the-mill announcements of non-major events at the park, obvious press releases, groupon links, yelp reviews, etc. I've never been to Amesbury so I've no personal stake here. -- ShinmaWa(talk)
- It is not at AfD because it is a stub/start or whatever, it's here because it does not currently comply with WP:Notability. If you're really serious about keeping the article you should add a few cites to reliable sources, that would settle the matter. Roger (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, Stub-class then. Same point stands. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By what realistic standard does it qualify for a Start class rating? It's only ref is to a non-RS personal fansite. Roger (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So improve the article. A start class article isn't really justification for deletion. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well known, historic, visible recreational facility. Jrclark (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That must be one of the emptiest "arguments" ever presented at an AFD. Practically every second word of the statement could do with a "cite needed" tag. Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If it is really so well known and notable why is the article such a miserable inconsequential waste of server space devoid of so much as even the shadow of any attempt at even trying to demonstrate notability? It's time to "put up or shut up" for this "article". Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for volunteering. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone who has an interest in the article's survival, I'm the editor who originally Speedied it. If you want it kept, you can fix it. (It's way past my bedtime anyway, g'nite...) Roger (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for volunteering. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the ownership change was briefly noted by the [very] local media, but no notability is asserted, likely because there's none to assert. Having read all the sources this just seems to be a piece of land with a gentle hill that people can roll down in a ball. It's no more notable than the local parks that every town has, and indeed a good deal less notable than most of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes GNG. – SJ + 02:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It really doesn't, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a yet to be created subsection of Amesbury, Massachusetts titled 'Recreation'. The sources cited by ShinmaWa are enough for inclusion somewhere but not enough to establish standalone notability (blogs, local papers). J04n(talk page) 01:14, 28 March 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 per WP:SNOW. Peridon (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page reads like a resume, and does not have sufficient sources Uberaccount (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added a couple of refs found on the first page of Google search, and I assume more can easily be found. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - May Sun is an established artist who has received many awards and commissions, e.g. two works for the Los Angeles Metro Art Project. Tornadox (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Keep Important artist --74.62.206.69 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Sheldon Forbes[reply]
- Keep. Notability seems established by the sources now cited in the article, notably the lengthy 1992 LA Times feature. Googling "May Sun" is a little challenging, with lots of false hits along with the usual paywalls, but GNews does appear to have lots of other coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources sufficiently demonstrate N. – SJ + 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject and some of her works have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources; subject clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep and close - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Also, notability is based upon sources, not whether or not they're present in articles. See WP:NRVE for more information. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 05:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- School of Management, RK University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable department of an Indian university. Article is almost purely promotional with no content worth saving. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that schools were considered automatically notable. Is this only publicly operated schools? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a school, despite the name. It's the department of a University. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't qualify as being automatically notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So this guideline applies and the question is whether this particular department has attained special notability. AllyD (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the badger. It would help if I'd linked to that in the nom, ah well. I can't see anywhere near enough coverage in order to satisfy WP:ORG - hence the nom. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all. I believe you have a problem with the use of language in the article here. Sisnce I am new to the wikipedia can you please suggest some modifications to change the ton of the article here?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, most of the article would need an extensive rewrite for it to be non-promotional. The first section is fine, however, much of the rest of it is either too promotional, or completely irrelvant (BBA + MBA Integrated Program seems irrelevant to me, and the Placement Records definitely are, especially when unsourced). The major problem is that, for a University department to be notable, it must have significant coverage in reliable sources, and I'm afraid that I strongly doubt this is the case here - but feel free to prove me wrong! If I believed the subject was notable, I'd have fixed the language myself. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, department of RK University. Doesn't seem to be a useful redirect title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was going tosuggest merging it into RK University but there really is nothing worth merging. J04n(talk page) 01:26, 28 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Login VSI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The included references are not discussions of the product but simply mentions of how the product is used "in the wild." I cannot find any references to support the notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references don't exactly seem to be coverage of the subject as significant in its own right. Ducknish (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. After a conversation with the author on my talk page I'm now feel as though this program may have enough coverage to be notable, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Ducknish (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I can cite the editor for WP:CANVASS Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After discussing the issue with Ducknish I added several other references where Login VSI is the main focus of the source instead of just a tool to show the performance of the vendors product. I also added a interview with the lead developer of Login VSI at Virtual-Strategy Magazine to increase notability.Frontaal (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Frontaal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the current refs: generally notable. – SJ + 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Armchair architecture (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)
Severe doubts about this article were raised as far back as 2007. It is either original research or a personal essay, but either way fails to put forward a convincing set of facts to support what is not a commonly used phrase. I can't see any way to rewrite it because the facts just aren't there. For example Prince Charles doesn't design buildings, he commissions an architect (famously Leon Krier) just like any other client. Calling him an armchair critic doesn't help because the article is about architects not critics. ProfDEH (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The expression is certainly notable and the concept also seems to be. There are many more people who could be added as examples. Borock (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One part neologism, one part OR/essay, one part dicdif, and I would argue the topic itself is unencyclopedic. It's a neologism in the sense that "armchair X" is used to describe someone with no formal training and limited background in a subject, X. A slang dictionary is used as reference just sort of proves this point... it's better served as a dicdef. The rest of the article seems to be OR/essay, opinion-piece sort of musing. I don't argue that it's not a legitimate term, it's just not enclyclopedic. It's a dicdef. Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Roodog2k above. The article simply applies a neologism based on POV to selected people, often with no evidence or fake references which do not use the term. Applying such a term to Jefferson (who was active in an era when the profession was much less formalised) is nonsensic. Applying it to Brad Pitt with a reference which does not use such label, raises BLP concerns. There is a lot of unreferenced incoherent POV in the article, making it rather damaging in educational terms, and certainly non-encyclopedic. --ELEKHHT 04:59, 23 March 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean Terrington Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for an anonymous editor - their rationale was posted on the talk page of the article, and is included below verbatim. On the merits, I make no recommendation. I will say, though, that - for an artist with the length of career noted in this article (in both number of releases and the span of time) - there sure aren't many sources out there. I could see this being a keep if good and reliable sources (independent of the subject) came forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because Sean Terrington Wright is not notable. He is a self-publisher who is using this Wikipedia page to promote his material. There are no independent sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No assertion of notability as a visual artist - indeed after "artist" in the first line and "created over 1000 paintings" in line 2 no mention at all that I can see. Should be judged just on his musical career. International Heroes seems best claim to fame. May be sources also under "Rikki Wright" but there are squads of people with that name. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A search of usual sources finds no independent citations. A couple of websites list him but one is his own and another a small artists club. No links for musical career in the name of the article --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No secondary refs to be found. No independent assertions of notability to be found. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK and WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:AUTHOR, WP:MUSIC, WP:ANYBIO, and pretty much anything else you could toss at it. I almost wish we could somehow keep this as a cautionary tale for creative types on how simply tossing out a lot of material won't make anyone care. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Motion Picture Mayhem (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)
T More cruft on a subject associated with Hoopla Worldwide (Jonathan Hay (publicist), Sabrina (pop singer), Audio Stepchild, Birdgang clothing). This piece has a over a dozensources but most are not reliable sources. A mix of sources associated with Barber, blogs, press releases, sources that don't mention Barber, passing mentions, associated topics. No charting, no significant awards, no indepth coverage. Created complete with deceptive claims not supported by sources used (Police raid on launch). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable recording collection. Notability not inherited. Majority of article seems to be more about artist (who already has his own article) rather than the recordings themselves. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Barber (musician) has now been deleted, this would now be eligible for speedy a9. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 25 March 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.