The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails the professor test, was created by blocked Bonkers The Clown ( talk · contribs), who has created dozens of non-articles. -- Zinghong ( talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator) with the following rationale "additional info". The additional info added was just some copyediting for interlinks, etc. The article still lacks sources that would show that the company is notable. There are no mentions in press or books about it, and even the crappy metric of Google Hits is <1000 when looking for Polish name. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Business-directory listing. No sign -- or references to -- any notability. Calton | Talk 23:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Standard "About us" biography/CV from bog-standard executive. Nothing but puffery. Calton | Talk 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Was previously deleted in 2011 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke). Was a minor local politician then; has since been a failed parliamentary candidate and become party functionary. Nothing since to indicate notability achieved. I strongly suspect self-promotion. Emeraude ( talk) 14:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
One consultant's promotional concept. The only bits not sourced TO said consultant Pamela Meyer Ph.D don't talk about this. Calton | Talk 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Standard entrepreneurial CV, with standard promotional refs. Calton | Talk 23:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The award listed is not significant and well known.
The prior AfD closed as no consensus. I still considered the article to be promotional as citing to The Register and containing promo language on "proprietary technology"; "publishes an annual report on cloud providers" (nothing remarkable about this, just self-promotion); etc. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. All of this suggests that's it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}} :{{la|I Am The Sea}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 3#{{anchorencode:I Am The Sea}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Am_The_Sea Stats]</span>) :({{Find sources AFD|I Am The Sea}}) The article claims that this was a single released by The Who, but there are no references to back this up, and [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AcdRcQMWEVQC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=%22the+who%22+%22i+am+the+sea%22+single&source=bl&ots=ktVw-ZnqC6&sig=QBGsGRq9tdPZCs-TKztisNEdIUs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH8a2DrcrRAhXmKMAKHYwMAHA4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20who%22%20%22i%20am%20the%20sea%22%20single&f=false this] reliable source suggests it was only ever a track on "Quadrophenia". Together with the lack of reliable sources actually about the track itself, this is not a notable song per [[WP:NSONGS]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC) *'''Comment''': I'm not especially concerned whether this song-article is kept, deleted, or merged-and-redirected to [[Quadrophenia]], but I am troubled that it appears to lead off with a false statement. I will ask the article-creator to clarify ... {{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} Can you please let us know where you obtained the information that the song "was released [presumably meaning as a single] without a B-side to accompany it", or else clarify what you meant by that sentence. Thanks. I also notice that [[I Am the Sea]] (note small "t") is already a redirect to [[Quadrophenia]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} My father owns a ton of Who albums and as far as I can tell there is no B-side. I've also Googled it and nothing comes up, which leads me to believe that this song was not recorded with a B-side. Many other songs on the album Quadrophenia were without B-sides, including but not limited to "Drowned", "Cut My Hair", "The Punk and The Godfather", "Sea and Sand" and "Bell Boy", so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this song has no B-side, due to a lack of evidence and a consistency throughout the album. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :::{{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} Thanks for the reply, but the real question is, is there evidence that "I Am the Sea" or the other songs you've just listed were "released"—meaning as singles, separately from the album—''at all''? A given album might have 15 songs on it, with only 3 or 4 being released as singles. For example, our [[Quadrophenia]] article lists singles for 3 songs but not the others.) By saying that "I Am the Sea" was released "without a B-side," we are saying that the song ''was'' released as an "A-side", that is, as a single, as opposed to just being included on the album. (Incidentally, it is very unlikely that a song like this would be released as an "A-side only," for reasons that were easier to explain before the whole world went digital.) I hope this clarifies what I'm asking. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC) ::::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} I've already been informed that it was simply a track and not a single, so I'll remoe that little bit of information. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :::::{{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} I've got most of The Who's original output on vinyl and have had for several decades, and read several biographies back to front until the paper is worn from thumb marks (including [[Dave Marsh]]'s "Before I get Old", [[Tony Fletcher]]'s "Dear Boy, The Life of Keith Moon", Andrew Neill and Matt Kent's "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere" and John Atkins' "The Who on Record") and taken quite a few Who related articles to GA (not least the main one on the band itself). While obviously [[WP:OWN]] still applies, I am pretty sure that if your unsourced claim was true, I'd have read about it somewhere. ''Perhaps'' it was released on promotional teasers to radio stations (where there is nothing unusual about having a one-sided bit of vinyl), but without any sort of reliable source, we can't put that information in the article. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC) :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs|list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)</small> * '''Keep''' I doubt that this was ever a single, but I consider that irrelevant. It's the opening track of [[Quadrophenia]], a ''major'' work of UK rock history, not just important within The Who's own work. This track stands out from almost everything else on the album, and even the rest of the Who's work. Just from its production alone, it's a significant step in Townshend's working style (no windmills here!). [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) * '''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]]. Fails [[WP:NSONGS]]. The song serves as an introduction to the rest of the album, and is best discussed in the context of the album as a whole. It does not have notability as an individual song.--[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) * '''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]] per [[WP:NSONGS]], and for homework consider having a similar debate about "[[Speak to Me]]". [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC) *'''Keep''' the song has clearly entered a lexicography beyond merely that of 'popular' music. And specifically for our purposes, it passes [[WP:NSONG]], as it has been the '''subject''' ('non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment') of '''multiple''' ('plenty' suffices here) '''non-trivial''' (philosphical?) sources. And since these sources pass [[WP:DEPTH]] and provide significicant, third party coverage, [[WP:GNG]] is passed also. Worth noting in passing that to redirect to ''[[Quadrophenia]]'' would endow this song with [[WP:UNDUEWEIGHT]] in that article. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ::That "Who and Philosophy" source looks like one man's rambling opinion, without any evidence it's actually factually correct. Mark Wilkerson's book is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] that contradicts more official biographies and lumps in far too much guesswork to be considered a reliable source. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC) :::Well; if one is prepared to make cracks about 'homework' one should probably be prepared to do it. What you say on the Wilkerson book sounds very much like an opinion, and there's not much indication that [[Omnibus Press]] is a self-publishing house. It ''is'' a ''specialist'' publishing house, however. Perhaps [[WP:RSN]] is the place to be? ::: Re: philosophy. As for 'one mans's rambling opinion' (an irony to be remarked upon no further!), even the 'sources' section- that ''you'' added- show there to be two authors involved: Gennaro, Rocco J, and Harison, Casey. Rocco is professor of Philosophy, and Harison a Faculty Member at the [[University of Southern Indiana]]. Other contributors are Dr G. Littmann, [[Southern Illinois University Edwardsville]], and prof. Scot Calef, [[Ohio Wesleyan University]]. ''And with many more besides!'' it being an academic treatment. Cheers, [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' The article has undergone significant changes, including the addition of numerous seemingly reliable sources, since the nomination and the two "redirect" votes. As such, more comments are needed. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)<br /> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|I Am The Sea]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> * <small>'''sock strike'''</small> <s> '''Keep''' This song is opening track of an album which is considered to be one of the most important records of rock history. Based on its popularity it deserve it own article. The article also has enough coverage from reliable sources</s> [[User:ChargerHellcat|ChargerHellcat]] ([[User talk:ChargerHellcat|talk]]) 11:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Kurykh|Kurykh]] ([[User talk:Kurykh|talk]]) 23:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|I Am The Sea]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> *'''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]] as specified above. Being the opening track is irrelevant if there are no sources that discuss why the track itself is important, and the sources provided are unimpressive. The book by Gennaro et al spends about a paragraph on this track, which is pretty much routine in a book that dives deep into the band. The book by Atkins is similar, briefly describing the song but certainly not in a way that makes it notable compared to the rest of the Who canon. Definitely a plausible search term and I wouldn't object to a brief analysis of the song in the article about the album, but not a notable stand-alone topic. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC). *'''Redirect''' I don't have anywhere near Ritchie's knowledge of The Who, but I've known their music for a while, and I know of no reason why the song needs a standalone article: and nothing in the article justifies this, either. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC) *'''Recommending Close''' from an outside administrator. I have nothing to refute what the people who voted 'redirect' have to say. I'd prefer it be kept as a standalone article but redirecting is in the best interest of the community. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC) *'''Delete.''' There is already a redirect at the correct capitalisation, [[I am the Sea]]. If there is a consensus the article should remain, then it should be at the correct capitalisation in any event. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC) ::{{reply|Richhoncho}} Presumably, you meant to '''Comment''' rather than delete? After all, an incorrect page title is not a qualification for deletion, and as you say, it can be moved. In fact, being [[WP:BOLD]], I will do so. Thanks for the pointer! [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) :::{{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. No I meant delete. There is no advantage of having millions of redirects as a result of miscapitalization. If the article is deleted, then the incorrect capitalization will have to be repointed. If the article is kept then there is no reason to keep the incorrect capitalization (subject to correct history merge). Your action was premature and unnecessary. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC) ::::Please, do not be disingenuous: we are not discussing a redirect's deletetion, but an article's. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::{{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. Because of your move this discussion should now be at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]], because it is no longer an article. I think you need to reconsider who is being 'disingenuous.' --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 12:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::: PS {{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. You also moved it to the wrong capitalization. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::::I noticed that as well, but I didn't move the page as it would have left us with two pages with the same content. I'm not able to delete pages and I'm not good at moving either. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC) ::::::::[https://open.spotify.com/track/0f0DUjcrkg9Vi4Eg0abLPi On Spotify] this is how it is capitalized (see below the album art). I'm pretty sure it was correct from the beginning. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::::::{{reply|UNSC Luke 1021}}. Spotify has its house style, as does Wikipedia, please check [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters]]. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
unashamed promotional vanity article from COI/SPA. numerous primary sources. no real RSes. some coverage in an esoteric publication (perhaps user contributed?) but run of the mill legal text - reports on cases and not what can be considered reliable, independent and significant. Rayman60 ( talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia experienced user like the person who made the comments above and I don't even know what all those acronyms mean (COI/SPA et cetera). So I can only respond as a normal person who occasionally uses Wikiepedia and feel somewhat bullied in the objection to my article. I work in the adoption field so am very aware of Randall Hicks and how big he is in the field. First about his worthiness as a lawyer. One of the criticisms above is "reports on cases and not what can be considered erliable, independent and significant." Actually, the citations I provided (law.justia.com) is the leading online reporter of published legal cases for the public to use. It is the first source almost always on Google. And if a person takes the time to go to each linked case, you will see Randall Hicks listed at the very start as the attorney of record for the prevailing party. And simply the fact they are "published" cases, shows their significance as setting precedent. Less than one percent of all cases are selected for publication. I added a New York Times link to an article on adoption quoting Randall Hicks and mentioning his book. Also, he is one of the bestselling adoption authors of "how to" adoption books. I added reviews of them from the two largest review entities in the world: Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. Sorry if I should have done this before, but I didn't think it was necessary. I'm likely not the best Wikipedia writer, but I did my best. So I don't think anyone can argue Randall Hicks is one of the leading attorneys in his field. As a writer, he not only has many books on the subject of adoption in both fiction and non-fiction, they are successful, well-reviewed and award-winning. The person proposing deletion seems to riducule the awards, which I don't understand. Every award Randall Hicks won, or was a finalist for, has a long-standing article page of its own on Wikipedia. For those in the mystery fiction world, the Anthony, Barry, Macavity and Gumshoe are significant awards. I also added a link for a book review for his most recent book on Step Parenting, which was not just reviewed by Library Journal, but gave it a rare "starred" review. The criticism above also seems to indicate links are only to Randall Hicks. I don't understand this criticism. Included in the sources were major print or web pubications. I did cite his own website, as it was hard to get personal information otherwise, but in looking at other author Wikipedia pages, they all seemed to do that, so I followed that template so to speak. I can take that out I guess. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to make this response. Thanks for your assistance in getting the article right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm responding again to you Rayman60, trying to do my best here, but feeling even more attacked, like I'm not one of the popular kids of Wikipedia, just someone wanting to add people and facts who are significant and of interest. I didn't plan to spend so much time on this, but now you have me feeling defensive and I feel like I have to improve the artice or "be rejected" which is hurtful. First off, there was something about me having a tie to the article person (Randall Hicks). If that matters, my only connection is I work in the adoption field, and he is pretty famous in that area. I saw him speak at a conference and had his sign one of his books. That does not make me biased, just interesed in my field, and by extension, him. Your second comment does not address the points I made. There in nothing "unabashedly vain" or whatever you said. He is a well known attorney and I cited his cases. He is a popular adoption author and I cited his books. He was an actor and I cited his roles. The sources are the New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, IMDb and the leading legal case reporter cite, law.justica. Yet you say they are not valid. I did make some changes. I had only cited RandallHicks.com for his film roles, but I changed it to the official cite of IMDb, which also turned up another role I didn't have, and I deleted one they did not have. Lastly, about your comment on the fact I've contributed little, I think I did several additions in adoption subjects years ago, but really can't recall. Not that I see that as relevant as I'm trying to contribute now. Thanks.
Okay, Rayman60, I think I have made the final edit which I hope meets your satisfaction. I added a legal citation. I am confused, however, why you initially found fault with the article, and why you have not withdrawn your proposal for deletion. I'm not sure how the process works. It's funny in that before I wrote this article, my first, I checked three other authors I like a lot and was going to write an article for one or more of them, thinking they were significant enough for a page, but not so well known that maybe they didn't have one yet. It turns out they all did. But here's why I even mention it. The three authors I thought I'd write about were: David Rosenfelt, Tim Dorsey and Barbara Seranella. And as far as references/sources go for all three of them, they all have either one, or no, references, other than their own website of similar entity. Yet you find fault with mine with not just many, but major sources, and actually criticize them. I can understand rejecting articles if someone is trying to "look big" when they have no widespread appeal, like someone's garage band or something. But I chose someone who is one of the most significant attorneys in his field with likely the most books on the subject. Separate from that is his success as an author, and evidently an actor too with his imdb listings. I will try to message you directly about why you feel this is someone's vanity piece as there is not a single complimentary adjective or anything like that - just facts about cases, books, and roles, and some basic personal info that is why I personally even look people up. Anyway, since I'm not a knowlegable Wikipedia user, I may fail at trying to message you directly, and if I do and you see this instead, I hope you will feel you can stop your sought-after deletion. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi sirlanz. Thanks for something constructive. I'm learning as I go and looked at it as a school research project: the more info the better. But that appears to not be what is wanted. I looked up other lawyers who were known in other fields, and tried to combine that with authors, as Randall Hicks is both. I will not go to the article and remove the legal information. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.27.12 ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to argue for my article. Now there are comments Hicks is not notable in his field, which is the threshold for the article being accepted. But previously I put the many sources of his fame in his field, such as being an expert guest on CBS This Morning, and national TV shows that are no longer on the air, like John & Leeza from Hollywood, The Home and Family Show, and Mike & Maty. These national shows reach a lot more than obscure publications. He hosted a PBS series, Adoption Forum. These are cited on imdb.com and in the San Diego Union Tribune Article. Other sources additionally cite the Today Show and Sally Jessy Raphael, but I got those from author bios, not independent cites like for the other shows. I cited his adoption case that went to the United States Supreme Court. This is clearly a very notable person. But I was told these details were "promotional" so I took it all out! So I just left in the citations to his books (reviews by unquestionable book review entities, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribue, January Magazine), a feature article in San Diego Union Tribune, a quotation in the New York Times with reference to his book, Adopting in America, and many mystery journals. His book awards or nominations are all by entities that are recognized by Wikipedia so clearly significant. Does someone who is not a respected expert/author in their field a guest on half a dozen national TV talk shows, have six or seven books out, and received at least one major mystery award and named a finalist for several others? Wikipedia should always be expanding to include new notable people, not act like a club keeping people out. Just my opinion. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought the article had more than enough sources where the books are reviewed, or the author quoted. Most author articles just have a couple sources. Today I added Rocky Mountain News, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Rocky Mountain News, Library Journal, and more. There are countless reviews or references in lesser newspapers but am just including the major ones I was able to find. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Gelo962 here, the article creator. I have a sincere question for those of you who know more than me about proper Wikipedia inclusion of facts. The person above mentions the author is not notable. One of the facts which showed Hicks's national recognition as an author and expert in the adoption field was the fact he's been on a bunch of national TV talk shows (CBS This Morning, The Today Show, et cetera.) Initially I mentioned those in the article. But someone said it was "promotional," so I took it out. I'm truly at a loss. I don't see it as promotional, but now that facts like that are not in there, there is someone saying there is nothing "notable" about him (despite his writing 7 or 8 books, reviews or mentions of the books in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal. . . So someone please tell me if I should add the TV talk shows back in there with cites to the newspapers that mention them and ihdb.com. Thanks so much. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
I am not sure if this page, or the Talk page is the right place to put this, so I am putting my reply to sirlanz that I've added cites as he requested in both places. I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Here is my comment made there. Thanks, Sirlanz, for pointing out the lack of needed cites. Here is my reply from Talk: Thanks SirLanz for your comments and pointing out that your concern is lack of cites of the Gumshoe and that there is no cite re the other three awards that he was an actual finalist (usually there are 3-5 titles short-listed), rather than "nominated" which I understand you to mean that anyone can be nominated for something. What is frustrating to me is I am sure I gave cites for all you requsted but the entire sentence re awards was deleted. I don't believe I did that. Did someone else? I do not know why as every author page lists awards and nominations (more on that in a moment. But to answer your concern I did the following: 1) I created links to the Wikipedia page for all four awards. Please note that rigth on the Wikipedia articles for the Gumshoe (winner) and Anthony (finalist), Hicks is listed right there on the page. But regardless, for all four awards, I've relisted links showing he was the winner or a finalist. I know you are now saying you didn't mean it when you said the awards were not significant, but may I address that anyway, perhaps to whomever deleted the sentence about them. Barnes and Noble, in their mystery/thriller section, lists the eleven major book awards in the genre. Please note that the Gumshoe, Anthony, Barry and Macavity are all listed. Now, about the significance of the four awards (even as a finalist and not being the winner) and the obvious propriety of listing the awards, I did a quick review of author articles on Wikipedia. Significantly, note that I did not go to pages of "small" authors rather the biggest authors, I think all New York Times bestselling authors. So you and others can check out my point that these major authors all have these four awards listed in their articles. Re the Gumshoe, it is significant enough that it is mentioned even when just a finalist ( Joseph Finder, Reed Ferrel Coleman), and major mystery authors' articles listing winning the Gumshoe ( C.J. Box, Barry Eisler), and other major authors listing the other three awards as winners or finalists ( Michael Connelly, Lee Child, Robert Crais). My point is I didn't even have to try to find such authors. The first half dozen I tried made my point. So I really feel I've addressed your concerns and you will elect to join those voting to keep the article. And no one has still answered my question... Hicks has been credited with being on 4 or 5 network talk shows (CBS This Morning, et cetera) and hosted a PBS series many years ago. These clearly show his national recognition. So do I list them to show that? Or will someone again state that is somehow promo not credits? Those people can't fairly have it both ways. Lastly, in looking at many author articles, I found blatant promo, where gushy blurbs of reviews were included. There is none of that in the article I created. Also, many longstanding author articles have only a cite or two besides the author website for info. My article is very well researched, with book review or book recommendations in the NYT, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, hollywood.com, ihdb.com, et cetera. Thanks so much for your reconsideration. All the above, and writing eight books, seem to clearly make a person notable. Ill try to copy this to the other page on retention/deletion to make sure you see it. Thanks. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo862
Question. I've asked this several times but no one has answered it. Maybe the bold with help. I'm looking for genuine advice here as I don't have the experience all the above people do. Re the question of national recognition and notariety, as well as of interest re the subject (Hicks), should I list all his appearances on the national TV talk shows? Except for CBS This Morning, which is still on, the others are not, but I recognize several of them as network shows, big in their day, reaching millions of people. I know the author's bio is evidently not sufficient as a source, and I seem to recall one or two of the articles I cited mentioned some of the TV shows and the PBS hosting, but I don't recall which ones and I don't want to go through them again. I know ihdb lists many of them. Is this seen as a credible source? I see them under the film biography in "Other Works." But many are from the 1990s so I'd have no idea how to find a "source" for them other than ihdb. So, again, do I list the five talk shows/news shows' credits from ihdb, or just mention them here toward showing Hicks's national recognition re his books but not mention them in the article? Thanks in advance for the help. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
Thanks for the response to my question re the TV shows. I actually just hoped for a "include them" or "don't include them," as there seems to be a lot of grey area and I'm trying to learn them and fit in and you all know them better than me. Frustrating to me is that the "delete" voters mention not enough national print media attention. I guess I disagree, but regardless, one can't dispute the multiple network TV and news appearances that are in addition to the print media. What percentage of listed authors on Wikipedia have been on 4 or 5 national network news/talk shows? Maybe less than one percent? But forced to decide on my own to list them in the article or not, I am of the opinion that mentioning them in the article is not appropriate as kind of showy - not directl related to an author page - but important to mention here for editors to be aware of as significant national recognition. So here they are listed on imdb, which I have always thought of as a legit site, but maybe it does not measure up to your standards? I honestly don't know, butI don't know where else to see TV shows someon appeared on listed, other than the "author bio" stuff, which I know is not acceptable. And it is funny that someone said they wanted more major press sites, because I listed more initially, but another editor removed them and said "over cited," so I kind of can't win. I'm not going to research them again and add them. I simply found them with plain old Google searches combining "Randall Hicks," with words like "The Baby Game, "Adopting in America," "Baby Crimes," "author," and "attorney." Thanks, Gelo962 ( talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
I see your point, Bearian, so I deleted "attorney" from the introductory line and left only "writer." I'd included "attorney" as one of his key books was written as an attorney and on a legal subject, but I get your point that's more of a sub note to be mentioned only within the article. Thanks. Gelo962 ( talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is completely unreferenced and it fails to signify why this association is notable. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"Around Alone was the catalyst for the development of sound rules, now recognized by the International Monohull Classes Association (IMOCA), which have produced the very fast yachts we see in around-the-world races today.". Letters to the editor are unacceptable as RS. And one line is absolutely not significant coverage. Is there something else you wanted to link? Because if you meant this link in reality, you need to first read up on what Wikipedia means by reliable sources before listing more sources. We're volunteers and it's an investment of time which should not be wasted. Ask me for any assistance if you don't understand the guidelines page. Thanks. Lourdes 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The family seems notable but I'm unable to find significant coverage confirming the information in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Meatsgains ( talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Enion Glas (
talk •
contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
*Move to user space and encourage article creator to read
WP:RS and pay particular attention to the need to source assertions in-line.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Delete, see below.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea about the sandboxes and draft namespace. Will use these tools for sure in the future. Apologies for any inconvinience guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, 25 edits were reverted without any reason. I put a lot of time adding realible sources so I at least expect reasons why you make changes
Also it has been a while since I finished constructing what the final article would look like and nobody has said anything. You are very quick to add the article to deletion but not to remove the deletion notice now that its fairly completed and sources added? I might not as experienced as you in wikipedia but please respect my time and effort a bit more. If this is the way you treat the new editors it leaves a lot to be said about the people running wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the reason why I deleted the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does the notice get automatically removed after a while or should it remove it myself? I have no idea on how to proceed. However, the 25 edits cannot be reverted automatically and seems like I have to do all the manual work again. Really? Penalizing a novice in this matter for his mistakes is not the way to keep new editors motivated and again says a lot about the "democratization of knowledge" that wikipedia sells to the world
The biographies are not of 10 different people. They are all the same family, with each generation producing a notable member. Some family pages have a more short style section based format to its presentation and some of them just include the links of their members. Ex. /info/en/?search=Essen_family. "This article has no notable members? Are you serious? It contains one of the two most famous/notable privateers of the Spanish colonies (along with Miguel Enriquez from Puerto Rico) and a heroe of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, a very important battle, perhaps the most important in the history of Spanish colonial Latin America. It contains one of the few rectors of the University of Salmanca that were born in the Americas (criollo) and a distinguished politician in the metropolis of Spain named Procer del Reino by Isabel II, a very uncommon thing at that time for an american criollo not born in Spain. Out of this family comes Jose Maria Heredia, compared by some to be the Walt Whitman of Latin America. The sources are all legitimate and they can be translated for verification. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
My intention from the beginning was to create an article about this family in more of a timeline format highlighting their main political, military or ecclessiastical merits. I could create perhaps an article in the House of Tudor fashion that Christroutman brought up, however it was not my intention to elaborate endlessly about the lives of each of them. If you would like to do so, some of the sources go over important epidoses of some of the character's lives.
Some families are quite extensive and it would make sense that cousins, distant cousins, half brothers, etc would have do be described on different links. However what distinguishes this family and makes it unique perhaps is that it is quite a small family, an each generation (not spread out branches, etc), which kept itself quite small if you notice, achieved notable merits. It is quite rare to find a family with so many merits generation after generation in the archives of the council of indies that you can access through archivesportaleurope.net. No other family from colonial Latin America has a hero in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, where all of the naval captains where pure Spaniards and Europeans (not criollos from America), a politician that achieved so many merits in the metropolis of Spain AND one of the best and most famous poets of Latin America considered to be the first Romantic poet of America, for which of course I only highlighted his name since he already had an article. If you can find a family with members such as this please point it out to me since I would love to read about them. Most colonial families from Latin America just achieve a noble title for killing a bunch of defenseless indigenous people or finding a gold or silver mine. In fact I left out a bunch of small achievements and positions from the family members just to keep this article easy to read.
Rarelly will you find a sources where they talk about just one family member. Usually the case is that you find all the members mentioned together in an article or a book. Other sources where they mention all the family members or the family as a whole are
Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Dominicanos Insignes en el exterior. Pag 11". CLIO Vol. 33.
Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Heredia: Centenario de Jose Maria Heredia, Pag. 139". Editorial Franciscana, Ciudad Trujillo 1939.
Machado Baéz, Manuel. Santiagueses ilustres de la colonia. 2nd Edition, Santo Domingo, Ediciones Centurión, 1972
Francisco Gregorio Campuzano was a PRIOR PROVINCIAL for a big region of South America (all the West Indies and Venezuela). You dont think that is quite a merit FOR A CRIOLLO? Please understand that this is a criollo family and most of the positions/achievements that they obtained where usually reserved for peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) For this reason I do not think he should be left out at all.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Also if you go to Google Books and type Campuzano Polanco you will find perhaps more than a hundred sources that talk about them and that I didnt include in the article. Sources in English and from different countries (Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)
https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- Enion Glas ( talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Google books gives you lots of sources for them as a family yes along with the 3 sources I pointed out above being the most elaborated perhaps-- Enion Glas ( talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I chose not to bluelink them for reasons stated above. No, the claims are not excessive. It is an interesting chapel and it IS unique. There are plenty of experts and sources talking about this chapel
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043079.1950.11407932?needAccess=true&journalCode=rcab20
What exactly is that does not give you confidence? Everything that is said has its citations.
Either you are flaming me because I am new here, which in that case I can only say that dealing with all of you has been a disgusting experience to say the least. Not only do you embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, which makes you sad negationists, but also you are giving a terrible image to this project and if I were running it, I would have taken away your administrator status for bullying a new editor that has put a lot of work on bringing interest to the colonial past of the Caribbean, which is a field that has not been studied much. Lot of information out there about the colonial past of Mexico and Peru perhaps, but not so much of the Caribbean
The article has had the deletion notice for 15 days now and nobody has given a fuck, which shows laziness and dictatorial disdain from your part. The only reason why you chose to write your lame ass comment was because I asked you to. I can also sense jealousy perhaps because this is a Spanish/Latin family with notable individuals as opposed to Anglo Saxon or northern European perhaps.
As I said the sources are there, these are not my words. Literately I have copy pasted the words of other historians here. Not my opinions, not my wishes. Only facts that are verifiable.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Its fair to assume that most of the users commenting here don't work in Caribbean topics often, so I'm just dropping by to let you know that I have seen José Campuzano Polanco mentioned in literature about pirates and corsairs while working on the Roberto Cofresí series. These books were published at Puerto Rico, so at least one member of this family appears notable enough to have his name mentioned in foreign publications. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is not a close translation of the Ruth Torres Agudo paper. It uses the format that she used which is the format that most if not all of the authors that have written about this family have used as well- a timeline/short description/synopsis of the characters. However my article includes much more information about the origins of the family and elaborates a bit more on the battles they fought (especially with Jose Campuzano Polanco and the Battle of Cartagena de Indias which she completely ignored in her paper). She also left out the poet Jose Maria Heredia as part of her timeline for unknown reasons. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 13:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding sources: Why is there a lack of trust about all the sources because they are mostly in Spanish? Again, I sense discrimination from some editors here that in a subtle way are saying "these sources are in Spanish, so they cannot be trusted". WHO THE FUCK RUNS THIS PLACE? Information comes in all languages. Perhaps it was my mistake to write this article in English if I knew all the arrogant anglo saxons were going to flame me. Should have written it in Spanish first, then I would have just translated it to English to please those that do not speak the second most spoken language in the world.
Regarding notability Some members have international notability- Jose Campuzano Polanco, Francisco Javier Caro and Jose Maria Heredia (who has a plaque at the Niagara Falls- /info/en/?search=Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Heredia_y_Heredia#/media/File:JoseMariaHeredia-plaque-niagarafalls.JPG), Garcia de Polanco being one of the first miners who landed in America with Columbus. The Polanco family are one of the earliest settlers in the Americas which is a notable thing too.
Other members have regional notability- Francisco Gregorio being a Prior Provincial (the only Spaniard criollo from Latin America that I have read about who has achieved such a position), Francisco who became a Mayor in Venezuela and features in Venezuelan publications for his contributions there and Adrian who became a prominent political figure in Cuba.
Others have local notability which is where some of you miss the point. Pedro Perez Polanco for example is a notable and meaningful character in Dominican Republic for having defended the island in both the english and the french invasions. The Polanco family are among the earliest settlers of the north of the island. They might not be notable as world figures but they mean a lot to the island along with other captains. Saying that he is not is like saying "Oh, but he only matters in Dominican Republic, who gives a fuck about a small island history". Well, if it wasnt for him and a few others, the island becomes a english colony and perhaps that creates a snowball effect and then the whole caribbean is lost to England.
Other notable locals that should not be ignored are:
Garcia Polanco becoming Vicar General in 1660 is also very notable since that position was also reserved to peninsulars (spaniards born in Spain). Only 2 more criollo spaniards achieved such position in the colony of Santo Domingo that I have read about.
Franscisco Campuzano Polanco being a MAESTRE DE CAMPO is also notable. Only the Governor of the colony of Santo Domingo usually held this military rank, with very few exceptions.
Jose Campuzano-Polanco Morillo being Provincial Mayor of the Santa Hermandad is also a notable feat.
Again, as said in the article, they achieved the highest positions possible for spaniard criollos below being governors or archbishops which were positions that only peninsulars could have. This does not mean that the positions they held were held by many others. Only 2 max 3 other criollos held such positions also. If the editors commenting here knew more about the power structure of the Spanish colonies it would be a no brainer to highlight the notabilty of these local individuals and the exclusivity of these achievements.
The Chapel of the Rosary owned and reconstructed by the family IS unique in America and the world and is also notable.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Regarding spltting the family into separate articlesThe timeline of this family is alsmot like a copy of the timeline of the colony of Santo Domingo, since the family was pretty much involved in every single meaningful event and period of it. Splitting the family into different articles completely misses the point of my article, which is to in a way use the history of a family and its genealogy to elaborate on important incidents of the history of the island that have been poorly studied and sometimes completely ignored even by the local people and historians of the Dominican Republic. The family was broken apart by the Treat of Basel in 1795 which forced all the colonial families of Santo Domingo to emigrate (see /info/en/?search=Timeline_of_Santo_Domingo), basically wiping out 300 years out of the collective memory of the people who habitates the island today and putting the whole family in an article attempts to fill in major blank spots in the big picture of the history of the island. Please lets keep this family together in an article instead of splitting it, like the Treaty of Basel did, into unconnected characters without a common ground. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The editors that want this article closed have gone silent after I have given them solid sources for the claims made here. Others now say "they dont have any views on the matter anymore". They have nothing to fight back now except to keep being negationists and giving wikipedia a very bad image. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have texted other editors in order to get them to contribute to the discussion and nobody seems to care which is why this article has gotten relisted twice. I on the other hand have done my best to keep on improving the article by adding new sources and replying to the comments and questions that have been asked. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Smmurphy I think the format you propose is valid. However I believe Pedro Perez Polanco might not be ideal as the title of the article since the amount of sources about him is not as extense as the Campuzano Polanco name/family as a whole. The major source of citations is definitely google books https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- and there you can see that Campuzano Polanco is what brings up the notability. I can red link some of the members I talked about in the Origins section of the article and write two articles, one about Jose Campuzano Polanco and another about Francisco Javier Caro. Jose Maria Heredia already has an article lwritten both in English and Spanish. None of the families from Santo Domingo achieved a title of nobility, unlike in Mexico, Peru and Cuba for example. The reason could be that both Garcia de Polanco, the first and founding member of the Polanco family in the island, and for sure as confirmed, Gregorio Campuzano, the founder of the Campuzano Polanco branch, were hidalgos before they arrived, which means untitled Spanish nobility. The fact that they had their coat of arms and their private burial chapel clearly confirms this. One thing I can guarantee you is that as a family, they are the most notable one in the colonial period of Santo Domingo, and I can take it as far as saying that they were the most notable and accomplished family in the whole Caribbean during the colonial times in terms of merits and longevity.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 09:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if I should go ahead and create the separate articles or wait until the consensus is reached. I dont want to spend time creating new articles if they are going to be deleted-- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok but in all honesty I have no time at the moment to recreate the whole thing with all the sources. It is very time consuming and I have lost enthusiasm due to the poor treatment I have received as a new editor. I have seen terrible articles with a few poor sources here in wikipedia that are still up and probably havent even been listed for deletion before. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has coached as senior level but only as a goalkeeper coach. Simione001 ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable and sounds like a puff piece I feel it does not pass WP:BIO. FITINDIA (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. North America 1000 22:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage from reliable sources. Currently the sources seem to redirect to places to search for information about the subject. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions) 00:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Article about an Assistant Professor that fails to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. A google search provides no information to pass WP:PROF. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 2 edits all of which are to this article. CBS527 Talk 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Entire article shows bold signs at company-initiated advertising and that alone violates our essential and non-negotiable policies because the information and sources here also violate this policy by only being published and republished business announcements, listings and mentions; as always, these subjects have no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone, and there's nothing else convincing here. Originally PRODed with concerns by Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. But consensus is that this needs a complete rewrite. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Uses WP:SPS and Primary Sources which are regurgitation of press releases in PR trade press pubs. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as an advertisement for a dissolved defunct company. This company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago, but nothing recent is availabe online, and the current article lists no sources for the vast majority of its content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 21:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:SOLDIER, reads like a memorial Gbawden ( talk) 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Dye is mentioned by name in 1950s volumes of Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the East - but only hard copies which we can scan. Would this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgreg ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
How do we submit the scans from the Who's Who books? Thatgreg ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)that greg Thatgreg ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have left a note on Thatgreg's talk page recommending he submit the scanned pages to OTRS for verification. If there's a better place for him to put them I'm all ears. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. this is just student accommodation that has existed for 3 years. All sources provided are primary. LibStar ( talk) 11:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable corporation. Only minimal independent news coverage, seems to fail WP:CORP. Alex Cohn ( talk) 22:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Multiple participants were interested in finding additional coverage regarding the band that took their inspiration from the subject, but unfortunately, no additional reliable sources were found to indicate notability for the subject on that front. Absent evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, the general consensus of this discussion is that the information about the subject would be better suited as a part of the List of Greyhawk deities, rather than as its own article. Mz7 ( talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't establish notability. The current link about the band doesn't appear to mention the connection in its current state, but that alone isn't enough either way. TTN ( talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This article should be deleted because all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awards. The article also fails WP:NOTDIR #7 because it is a simple listing with no context information. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awardsis incorrect. As for the NOTDIR#7 argument, that's merely a matter of writing a lead to start with. — Sam Sailor 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An amateur short film posted to YouTube with no coverage in non-self-published or independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. This is one of several articles by an SPA account promoting the same individuals. (E.g. Sudhu Tomari (Telefilm 2013) and Manab (Music Video 2016)), — CactusWriter (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable organization; a search for sources resulted mostly in passing mentions in news sites or unreliable sources such as company listing. I couldn't find enough significant reliable coverage specifically about the organization. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a notable organisation. The then prime minister of India Narasimha Rao inaugurated it in 1995. In year 2004, the then Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh awarded it with the title centre of excellence. Please check news link :
And
The Telegraph is a top newspaper in India. So you can trust the above link. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2405:204:B10E:BED1:DE94:C37E:E6E0:282 (
talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The institution also features in the Government of India, official website of North east council, after being eligible for financial assistances. Check it here: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2405:204:B10C:2858:8AB2:A337:8192:446 (
talk) 13:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If prime minister of India visits a institution, and awards it with the title CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE, then ofcourse it is a notable organisation. It is also mentioned in Govt of India website for North East council. So, I hope the article won't remain in article for deletion list anymore. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mahatabuz1997 (
talk •
contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Check the above comments and go through the links provided. And after that, please let me know by replying if the article will be still deleted, or what will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAnt1997 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I am again adding the links for your consideration.
The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp
If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?
Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206
The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.
There are many other websites and reference which mentions about the institution. But I only added the above two as these are the most reliable ones. I hope these will be sufficient. If you need more, ask for it.
*Please Cite Reasons It is a notable charitable organisation, famous in india, which also has branches all over india, one of the sister branch is
Sankara Nethralaya. so before deletion plz cite a reason.
AdmWiki (
talk) 21:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp
If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?
Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206
The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.
Also, Sankara Nethralaya situated in Chennai, India is a sister institution of it. There are many Nethralaya in India, run by a single charitable organisation. This article is about one of those Nethralaya, situated in Northeastern Indian city of Guwahati.
Nethralaya means the house of the Eye. These Nethralayas are eyecare hospitals and institutions all over India!!
Being the creator of this article, I would like to urge the administrator to do the decision of either keeping or deleting this article as soon as possible. Already about 10days have passed. I think its better to close this discussion soon. BlackAnt1997 ( talk) 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable doctor who lacks RSes. Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG. DGG and SwisterTwister, this is a good article to compare with AfD at Kevin Pho. Delta13C ( talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NRU - hasn't played in the World Rugby Sevens Series and WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack ( talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to International Federation of BodyBuilders. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 ( talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable city councillor. Zero sources (other than promotional links). Contested PROD. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG established. Very significant air show, 100th anniversary, etc. Referenced well enough to reliable sources, and more exist. Whether or not there are sockpuppets 'voting' in this AfD is irrelevant; the basis for keeping in policy/guideline is what is important, and that's been done here. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A one off air show is probably worthy of a sentence in the Swiss Air Force article, these types of one off air shows are not that uncommon but rarely notably for a stand-alone article The Banner talk 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation as I do not believe that all keep-voters are genuine editors. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. The Banner talk 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Article has been previously deleted (by way of AfD and speedy) but I can find no evidence of this person satisfying notability. Most, if not all sources seem to be mentioning him in passing. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Afro-Eurasia is a topic that merits its own article, but not sub-articles such as this. Afro-Eurasia is not a division of the world that is widely used. This article is redundant to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia.
Propose deletion and redirection to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. LukeSurl t c 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NARTIST. Previously deleted at Chhina the rapper. References are either not reliable or do not significantly discuss the rapper. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of notability or coverage from any independent (reliable or otherwise) sources. Only results I am able to find are standard listings and the college/orgs website. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear if this journalist it's really notable. The {{ notability}} tag was removed several times by the author, without improving article with content or reliable sources by which to establish notability. XXN, 18:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An "Internet TV network" -- whatever that's supposed to be -- of no discernible impact. One Christian Post article and a bunch of press releases makes up the sourcing here. Calton | Talk 18:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A list of causes of death of people that have been in Space, most of the deaths are not related to being a "space traveler" and we have plenty of list already available with this information. List of astronauts by name, List of space travelers by name, wikipedia is not a place for random lists. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. Lacking significant coverage. For example one source from gnews contains a one-line mention. Suspiciously created by an editor who has only worked on articles of people connected with this studio. LibStar ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No independent references discussing the magazine in depth. Only one issue published as yet: article creation too soon, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Coverage is completely lacking--a few directory-style entries on websites do not make up in-depth discussion in reliable sources. He has a YouTube channel--great. He tweets--great. No one in the press has taken notice of him, and the article should go. Drmies ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No evidence of notability has been presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost every page and article linked to from this page has been deleted at AFD. Entirely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The article in question does not appear to meet notability guidelines for biographies and has remained unchanged for some time. The article has had two nominations for speedy deletion, one from myself and another. The source here seems to dispute the claim of notability in the article. It incidates that Renard Widarto was in fact a project manager and not "convener" as the article implies. Wiki-Coffee Talk 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Claimed award appears to be a token trade show honorific, given out only twice in the award's two-decade history. Even if it were seen as a technical PORNBIO pass, that would be far outweighed by the complete failure to meet GNG requirements. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or Gbooks hits. PROD removed without article improvement or guideline-based argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 3M bookshelf game series. Sandstein 08:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Completing nomination on behalf of Sbalfour ( talk · contribs), whose rationale ( here) reads thus: "this is someone creating an article just because they can, and citing it with a commercial websitem then inserting personal experience, i.i. WP:original research". On the merits, I have no real opinion, except to note that some of the other games in the same series as this one do have articles - see TwixT, for example. If consensus is for deletion, a redirect to the article for the series ( 3M bookshelf game series) wouldn't be a horrible idea. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable junior competitor. Lots of hope nothing more. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I hava a feeling in my water that a csd will be declined because there is a source or two, but I see nothing here to suggest that this person is anything other than another bloke doing a job, possibly not very well. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Article attempting to inherit notability from a club this person previously ran and a music festival they co-founded. Only one reference actually discusses the subject of the article in detail, the other references discuss the club (not the person) and the music festival. A person cannot inherit notability from organisations they are associated with. Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Afrophilya, the music festival she founded. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Prod contested in 2009 with multiple issues since then. No evidence of notability, let alone even existence. While a I found mentions of a "Illinois Hockey Hall of Fame", I cannot find anything for an inline-specific version and thus this article fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude ( talk) 15:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Mifter ( talk) 03:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable location, no references. CatcherStorm talk 14:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Very little context. Not possible to identify physical location of this village. No references. CatcherStorm talk 14:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This single self-published sourced article fails WP:GNG." DePRODed as "this argument would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This single sourced article fails WP:GNG". DePRODed as "would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This article claims no notability, neither of the court system nor of the building as architecture. Fails WP:GNG]]". DePRODed as "needs afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This article claims no notability, fails WP:GNG". DePRODed as "this argument would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 05:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I simply could not find any hits about this book whatsoever. CSD was declined by Metropolitan90 on the grounds that A7 does not apply to books. An article on the book's author ( Ahmed Mukhtar Omar) created by this article's creator is currently up for speedy deletion. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 05:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks any real coverage about him, only a few quotes from him. A search found a little more of the same but nothing fog GNG. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was created in 2007 but User:Southasiatribune. The page contains no references but biography of its founder Shaheen Sehbai. I doubt South Asia Tribune meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Saqib ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor employee with lots of passing mentions in PR pieces, but no in-depth coverage on his career. Not enough of a search term to redirect to any of the associated companies. Should have been reviewed through AfC. czar 09:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable website. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Was declined several times at AfC, article creator decided to ignore process and simply moved it to mainspace. A working make-up artist, but the press is not enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a mayor. While the city is large enough that he could have an article if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG, it's not large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to its mayors just because they exist -- but the sourcing here doesn't get him over GNG, as it consists of a raw table of election results on the city's website, and two pieces of purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of him not running for other offices. This simply does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet notability standards based on content and sources in article. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is far from my field, but I couldn't find evidence to verify its notability. Boleyn ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. Sandstein 08:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been to AfD twice before, but received next to no responses, so were closed as no consensus. Hopefully we can get a consensus this time. I couldn't find anything to verify its notability, from article or Google search. It has a Swedish Wikipedia article, but that suffers from similar issues with sourcing and notability. Boleyn ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Unreferenced}}
only applies when there are zero sources, and general references and external links are sources. Even if there were no sources present in the article, it is not an argument for deletion, please see
WP:UGLY. —
Sam
Sailor 23:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)The result was delete. Has been replaced by CBD-DMH, which is apparently more ... chemically ... correct. Can be undeleted for the purpose of history merging if desired, but it's not clear that this is wanted or needed. Sandstein 08:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Mistake in structure, this compound does not exist and references instead list dimethylheptyl isomer. Leyo 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. XXN, 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Note: there are other people and characters with the same name, and it's very difficult to find source about this person - one more proof for lack of notability of this subject. XXN, 13:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable hotel. Unreferenced article for long time. WP:NOTTRAVEL. XXN, 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Biography of a non-notable person referenced to a passing mention in a single source, in two publications. Fails WP:ANYBIO.- Mr X 12:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 12:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable event, no coverage meeting WP:GNG and definitely nothing for WP:NEVENT. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find a single source for this person. The article may be a hoax. The article exists on fr.wiki. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. The article made no credible assertion of notability. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
References do not indicate notability CatcherStorm talk 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bade Bhaiyya Ki Dulhania. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Bade Bhaiyya Ki Dulhania: This appeared to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The actress appeared in one show so far and I failed to find anything to support her role in anthology series Yeh Hai Aashiqui and MTV Webbed. I also can't find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a list with content that is best covered on other already existing articles. The content refers purely to the results of one nation, and is of little use. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG: I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
List with only one entry. Fails WP:LISTN for not helping in navigation. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Information best contained in members' articles. Nikki♥ 311 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was R2 Deleted by Ultraexactzz. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 08:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No text and no references. Does not establish notability. Middle schools are seldom notable even with references. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the accurate but unhelpful statement that the content "needs copyediting but is understandable", despite extensive community discussion and consensus that machine translations are speedy-deletable. So now I need to ask the community to enforce it via AfD.
I want to be clear that this translation is fixable for someone with dual fluency. I could fix it. But the effort involved is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! — S Marshall T/ C 18:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Advertorially toned article about a YouTube channel, "referenced" entirely to (a) its own self-published content about itself and (b) non-notable blogs, with the exception of one piece of deadlinked media coverage. I would ordinarily just have speedied this, but it's already been speedied twice as blatant advertising and then got recreated again a third time in exactly the same form -- so unfortunately it has to come to AFD this time, so we can apply a liberal dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of non-notable model. Article has been flagged with COI issues and "sources" (before I moved them to External links) cannot be considered WP:RS. (Note: I messed up BLP PROD via Twinkle: hadn't noticed it had to be unsourced. I moved the "sources" to EL and uncited after PROD. My mistake.) — Iadmc ♫ talk 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have now added sources to the article in question. Rickard.Nosslin ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete G11 by Athaenara. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No signs of notability. Only 69 Google hits, all social media and tracks and videos and mentions in other Wikipedia articles. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I am using my discretion as an admin under WP:DPR#NAC to vacate the above closure and reclose this debate as soft delete. An undelete may be requested at WP:RFU without further formality. Stifle ( talk) 09:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, am vacating the above closure and reclosing this as soft delete. A request for undeletion may be made at WP:RFU without further reference to me. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso ( talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Restarted attempt at profile listing again immediately after the last deletion and nothing here convinces our policies are both satisfied and then also satisfied for substance; the history explained this was only meant as a personal listing since there were no attempts to change it to a better convincing article. As it is, such a "specific subject" is questionable since it's open to either payment for such claims or otherwise questionability. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
only one Guinness and rest is just a sequence of that, this is clearly a page meant for Self promotion, this does not pass the criteria for entry in Wikipedia. Its also surprising that How this page is published since such a long period without get noticed. my vote for deletion of this page Anu214 ( talk) 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu214 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
References consist of lists of tracks on Allmusic.com (which lacks independence), are trivial mentions, or come from the subject's own website. No non-trivial coverage appears to exist in reliable independent secondary sources, looks like subject does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICIAN. Also, almost certainly an autobiographical piece without a declared WP:COI. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost entirely unsourced BLP (the one source is to an awards site, not a reliable source), with the main list of achievements entirely unsourced. Previously deleted a copyvio, but I can’t see that earlier version to see if that still applies. But even if not, no evidence of notability, serious concerns over its neutrality. JohnBlackburne words deeds 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
According to AllMusic.com, he's got about half a dozen credits to his name. Couldn't find much else. Falls way short of WP:COMPOSER South Nashua ( talk) 19:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice about being moved to user space if someone asks. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Of all the sources in the article, only two independent sources ( here and here) even mention the organization, and one of these is an award announcement while the other a short event announcement. There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Brycehughes ( talk) 00:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I am working on additional sources I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I worked on a draft in sandbox. After pasting it into the article, I didn't realize it would quickly be tagged for deletion, rather than a process of recommendations for improvement. I appreciate any help/feedback. And answers to questions below:
Question 1: While working in sandbox, I used similar organization's articles as a guide, e.g., National Academy of Construction. Are its sources satisfactory? Question 2: Is this satisfactory secondary source coverage: http://www.enr.com/articles/38787-viewpoint-time-to-set-higher-safety-goals (Footnote 9)
Many thanks for any help/guidance so I can meet article requirements. User talk:MaeInJune —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- - - Help, please: Is this where the discussion for deletion happens? Thanks. Meanwhile, I'm working on sources. MaeInJune ( talk) 16:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps. I'll see what I can do. MaeInJune ( talk) 01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
---I have added secondary sources. After reading more on notability requirements/definition and reviewing other organization articles, I think the article and its secondary sources satisfy requirements. I guess I'll hear from someone? Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 22:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
---I am composing additional details relevant to this discussion and will upload in the next few hours. Thanks! MaeInJune ( talk) 22:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
---First: The original nomination-for-deletion comments state “There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources.”
Second: Regarding the “Google Test” Wikipedia states “Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet....Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.”” (see section 4.2: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test)
Last: The article/topic could be considered “highly specialized.” In addition, online industry and trade publication articles are often only searchable with a payed membership. In any case, a Google Scholar search for the article/topic yielded the following links to studies, papers etc., among others:
An Assessment of Best Practices and the Efficacy of an Open Repository in the Construction Industry http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784413517.232
Advancing the competitiveness and efficiency of the US construction industry, first of five mentions appears on page 8. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CJhhAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=%22national+academy+of+construction%22&ots=tgY2Y3T4y1&sig=ITpFEHhmOC6pdpS-gOnEkNP15i0#v=onepage&q=%22national%20academy%20of%20construction%22&f=false
Servant Leadership in Construction http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2008/paper/CPRT253002008.pdf
QUANTIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COSTS FOR THE U.S. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY http://www.library.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/gebkenr19272/gebkenr19272.pdf
Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Work Environment –Lessons Learned from the Unprevented Exposure of Miners to Coal Dust http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815021025
Wisdom Based Leadership Competencies http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.7173&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
--This discussion has been submitted to the DRN. Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This morning I was reading that Judge James Robarts, the judge that halted the Trump Immigration Order, was a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers. There is a page in Wikipedia. /info/en/?search=American_College_of_Trial_Lawyers
It was useful to visit that reference. It's an honorary organization. It is to the community of Trial Lawyers what the National Academy of Construction is to the construction industry. It’s only references are to it’s own web site. Clearly Wikipedia recognizes its importance and leaves it on line despite the poor references.
This page has far more references and serves a much larger community—(the construction industry is the second largest industry in the US and the largest in the world). The National Academy of Construction members include the generals and admirals that have led military construction, the directors of the largest US government construction agencies, the CEOs of our country’s largest design and construction companies and the editors of the industry’s largest construction industry publication. They will be as at least as noteworthy as the Trial Lawyers. This page should not be deleted. It will be as useful as a reference in future publications as the American College of Trial Lawyers. Charles B. Thomsen FAIA FCMAA Charlesbthomsen ( talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to Initial_D#Games. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since July 2008. The article was recently unredirected. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Most seems to be self puffery with the same press releases featuring in at least two sources. Own YouTube refs count for nothing. It appears to be someone who has apeared on radio and has talked to a famous actor. This looks very much like self publicity. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 04:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Per failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The only coverage I can find is [39] [40] and [41], although the latter two seem to focus on the band and not in depth on the subject. Other than that, the sources are gig lists (trivial coverage) and a news article relating to the subject's father ( WP:ITSA). Matthew Thompson talk to me! 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 18:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No Reliable source to show that this lady is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 09:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable minor corporation. Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no indication that Abushwesha meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The lead claims she won awards, but the body of the article doesn't provide sources for any awards, and Google News doesn't give any relevant results. Having a film she co-produced nominated for an award does not make her notable. No significant media coverage found via Google News either. Huon ( talk) 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails the professor test, was created by blocked Bonkers The Clown ( talk · contribs), who has created dozens of non-articles. -- Zinghong ( talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator) with the following rationale "additional info". The additional info added was just some copyediting for interlinks, etc. The article still lacks sources that would show that the company is notable. There are no mentions in press or books about it, and even the crappy metric of Google Hits is <1000 when looking for Polish name. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Business-directory listing. No sign -- or references to -- any notability. Calton | Talk 23:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Standard "About us" biography/CV from bog-standard executive. Nothing but puffery. Calton | Talk 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Was previously deleted in 2011 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke). Was a minor local politician then; has since been a failed parliamentary candidate and become party functionary. Nothing since to indicate notability achieved. I strongly suspect self-promotion. Emeraude ( talk) 14:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
One consultant's promotional concept. The only bits not sourced TO said consultant Pamela Meyer Ph.D don't talk about this. Calton | Talk 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Standard entrepreneurial CV, with standard promotional refs. Calton | Talk 23:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The award listed is not significant and well known.
The prior AfD closed as no consensus. I still considered the article to be promotional as citing to The Register and containing promo language on "proprietary technology"; "publishes an annual report on cloud providers" (nothing remarkable about this, just self-promotion); etc. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. All of this suggests that's it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}} :{{la|I Am The Sea}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 3#{{anchorencode:I Am The Sea}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Am_The_Sea Stats]</span>) :({{Find sources AFD|I Am The Sea}}) The article claims that this was a single released by The Who, but there are no references to back this up, and [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AcdRcQMWEVQC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=%22the+who%22+%22i+am+the+sea%22+single&source=bl&ots=ktVw-ZnqC6&sig=QBGsGRq9tdPZCs-TKztisNEdIUs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH8a2DrcrRAhXmKMAKHYwMAHA4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20who%22%20%22i%20am%20the%20sea%22%20single&f=false this] reliable source suggests it was only ever a track on "Quadrophenia". Together with the lack of reliable sources actually about the track itself, this is not a notable song per [[WP:NSONGS]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC) *'''Comment''': I'm not especially concerned whether this song-article is kept, deleted, or merged-and-redirected to [[Quadrophenia]], but I am troubled that it appears to lead off with a false statement. I will ask the article-creator to clarify ... {{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} Can you please let us know where you obtained the information that the song "was released [presumably meaning as a single] without a B-side to accompany it", or else clarify what you meant by that sentence. Thanks. I also notice that [[I Am the Sea]] (note small "t") is already a redirect to [[Quadrophenia]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} My father owns a ton of Who albums and as far as I can tell there is no B-side. I've also Googled it and nothing comes up, which leads me to believe that this song was not recorded with a B-side. Many other songs on the album Quadrophenia were without B-sides, including but not limited to "Drowned", "Cut My Hair", "The Punk and The Godfather", "Sea and Sand" and "Bell Boy", so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this song has no B-side, due to a lack of evidence and a consistency throughout the album. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :::{{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} Thanks for the reply, but the real question is, is there evidence that "I Am the Sea" or the other songs you've just listed were "released"—meaning as singles, separately from the album—''at all''? A given album might have 15 songs on it, with only 3 or 4 being released as singles. For example, our [[Quadrophenia]] article lists singles for 3 songs but not the others.) By saying that "I Am the Sea" was released "without a B-side," we are saying that the song ''was'' released as an "A-side", that is, as a single, as opposed to just being included on the album. (Incidentally, it is very unlikely that a song like this would be released as an "A-side only," for reasons that were easier to explain before the whole world went digital.) I hope this clarifies what I'm asking. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC) ::::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} I've already been informed that it was simply a track and not a single, so I'll remoe that little bit of information. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :::::{{ping|UNSC Luke 1021}} I've got most of The Who's original output on vinyl and have had for several decades, and read several biographies back to front until the paper is worn from thumb marks (including [[Dave Marsh]]'s "Before I get Old", [[Tony Fletcher]]'s "Dear Boy, The Life of Keith Moon", Andrew Neill and Matt Kent's "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere" and John Atkins' "The Who on Record") and taken quite a few Who related articles to GA (not least the main one on the band itself). While obviously [[WP:OWN]] still applies, I am pretty sure that if your unsourced claim was true, I'd have read about it somewhere. ''Perhaps'' it was released on promotional teasers to radio stations (where there is nothing unusual about having a one-sided bit of vinyl), but without any sort of reliable source, we can't put that information in the article. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC) :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs|list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)</small> * '''Keep''' I doubt that this was ever a single, but I consider that irrelevant. It's the opening track of [[Quadrophenia]], a ''major'' work of UK rock history, not just important within The Who's own work. This track stands out from almost everything else on the album, and even the rest of the Who's work. Just from its production alone, it's a significant step in Townshend's working style (no windmills here!). [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) * '''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]]. Fails [[WP:NSONGS]]. The song serves as an introduction to the rest of the album, and is best discussed in the context of the album as a whole. It does not have notability as an individual song.--[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) * '''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]] per [[WP:NSONGS]], and for homework consider having a similar debate about "[[Speak to Me]]". [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC) *'''Keep''' the song has clearly entered a lexicography beyond merely that of 'popular' music. And specifically for our purposes, it passes [[WP:NSONG]], as it has been the '''subject''' ('non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment') of '''multiple''' ('plenty' suffices here) '''non-trivial''' (philosphical?) sources. And since these sources pass [[WP:DEPTH]] and provide significicant, third party coverage, [[WP:GNG]] is passed also. Worth noting in passing that to redirect to ''[[Quadrophenia]]'' would endow this song with [[WP:UNDUEWEIGHT]] in that article. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ::That "Who and Philosophy" source looks like one man's rambling opinion, without any evidence it's actually factually correct. Mark Wilkerson's book is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] that contradicts more official biographies and lumps in far too much guesswork to be considered a reliable source. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC) :::Well; if one is prepared to make cracks about 'homework' one should probably be prepared to do it. What you say on the Wilkerson book sounds very much like an opinion, and there's not much indication that [[Omnibus Press]] is a self-publishing house. It ''is'' a ''specialist'' publishing house, however. Perhaps [[WP:RSN]] is the place to be? ::: Re: philosophy. As for 'one mans's rambling opinion' (an irony to be remarked upon no further!), even the 'sources' section- that ''you'' added- show there to be two authors involved: Gennaro, Rocco J, and Harison, Casey. Rocco is professor of Philosophy, and Harison a Faculty Member at the [[University of Southern Indiana]]. Other contributors are Dr G. Littmann, [[Southern Illinois University Edwardsville]], and prof. Scot Calef, [[Ohio Wesleyan University]]. ''And with many more besides!'' it being an academic treatment. Cheers, [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' The article has undergone significant changes, including the addition of numerous seemingly reliable sources, since the nomination and the two "redirect" votes. As such, more comments are needed. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)<br /> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|I Am The Sea]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> * <small>'''sock strike'''</small> <s> '''Keep''' This song is opening track of an album which is considered to be one of the most important records of rock history. Based on its popularity it deserve it own article. The article also has enough coverage from reliable sources</s> [[User:ChargerHellcat|ChargerHellcat]] ([[User talk:ChargerHellcat|talk]]) 11:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Kurykh|Kurykh]] ([[User talk:Kurykh|talk]]) 23:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|I Am The Sea]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> *'''Redirect''' to [[Quadrophenia]] as specified above. Being the opening track is irrelevant if there are no sources that discuss why the track itself is important, and the sources provided are unimpressive. The book by Gennaro et al spends about a paragraph on this track, which is pretty much routine in a book that dives deep into the band. The book by Atkins is similar, briefly describing the song but certainly not in a way that makes it notable compared to the rest of the Who canon. Definitely a plausible search term and I wouldn't object to a brief analysis of the song in the article about the album, but not a notable stand-alone topic. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC). *'''Redirect''' I don't have anywhere near Ritchie's knowledge of The Who, but I've known their music for a while, and I know of no reason why the song needs a standalone article: and nothing in the article justifies this, either. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC) *'''Recommending Close''' from an outside administrator. I have nothing to refute what the people who voted 'redirect' have to say. I'd prefer it be kept as a standalone article but redirecting is in the best interest of the community. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC) *'''Delete.''' There is already a redirect at the correct capitalisation, [[I am the Sea]]. If there is a consensus the article should remain, then it should be at the correct capitalisation in any event. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC) ::{{reply|Richhoncho}} Presumably, you meant to '''Comment''' rather than delete? After all, an incorrect page title is not a qualification for deletion, and as you say, it can be moved. In fact, being [[WP:BOLD]], I will do so. Thanks for the pointer! [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) :::{{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. No I meant delete. There is no advantage of having millions of redirects as a result of miscapitalization. If the article is deleted, then the incorrect capitalization will have to be repointed. If the article is kept then there is no reason to keep the incorrect capitalization (subject to correct history merge). Your action was premature and unnecessary. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC) ::::Please, do not be disingenuous: we are not discussing a redirect's deletetion, but an article's. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::{{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. Because of your move this discussion should now be at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]], because it is no longer an article. I think you need to reconsider who is being 'disingenuous.' --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 12:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::: PS {{reply|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}. You also moved it to the wrong capitalization. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::::I noticed that as well, but I didn't move the page as it would have left us with two pages with the same content. I'm not able to delete pages and I'm not good at moving either. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC) ::::::::[https://open.spotify.com/track/0f0DUjcrkg9Vi4Eg0abLPi On Spotify] this is how it is capitalized (see below the album art). I'm pretty sure it was correct from the beginning. [[User:UNSC Luke 1021|UNSC Luke 1021]] ([[User talk:UNSC Luke 1021|talk]]) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC) :::::::::{{reply|UNSC Luke 1021}}. Spotify has its house style, as does Wikipedia, please check [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters]]. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
unashamed promotional vanity article from COI/SPA. numerous primary sources. no real RSes. some coverage in an esoteric publication (perhaps user contributed?) but run of the mill legal text - reports on cases and not what can be considered reliable, independent and significant. Rayman60 ( talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia experienced user like the person who made the comments above and I don't even know what all those acronyms mean (COI/SPA et cetera). So I can only respond as a normal person who occasionally uses Wikiepedia and feel somewhat bullied in the objection to my article. I work in the adoption field so am very aware of Randall Hicks and how big he is in the field. First about his worthiness as a lawyer. One of the criticisms above is "reports on cases and not what can be considered erliable, independent and significant." Actually, the citations I provided (law.justia.com) is the leading online reporter of published legal cases for the public to use. It is the first source almost always on Google. And if a person takes the time to go to each linked case, you will see Randall Hicks listed at the very start as the attorney of record for the prevailing party. And simply the fact they are "published" cases, shows their significance as setting precedent. Less than one percent of all cases are selected for publication. I added a New York Times link to an article on adoption quoting Randall Hicks and mentioning his book. Also, he is one of the bestselling adoption authors of "how to" adoption books. I added reviews of them from the two largest review entities in the world: Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. Sorry if I should have done this before, but I didn't think it was necessary. I'm likely not the best Wikipedia writer, but I did my best. So I don't think anyone can argue Randall Hicks is one of the leading attorneys in his field. As a writer, he not only has many books on the subject of adoption in both fiction and non-fiction, they are successful, well-reviewed and award-winning. The person proposing deletion seems to riducule the awards, which I don't understand. Every award Randall Hicks won, or was a finalist for, has a long-standing article page of its own on Wikipedia. For those in the mystery fiction world, the Anthony, Barry, Macavity and Gumshoe are significant awards. I also added a link for a book review for his most recent book on Step Parenting, which was not just reviewed by Library Journal, but gave it a rare "starred" review. The criticism above also seems to indicate links are only to Randall Hicks. I don't understand this criticism. Included in the sources were major print or web pubications. I did cite his own website, as it was hard to get personal information otherwise, but in looking at other author Wikipedia pages, they all seemed to do that, so I followed that template so to speak. I can take that out I guess. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to make this response. Thanks for your assistance in getting the article right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm responding again to you Rayman60, trying to do my best here, but feeling even more attacked, like I'm not one of the popular kids of Wikipedia, just someone wanting to add people and facts who are significant and of interest. I didn't plan to spend so much time on this, but now you have me feeling defensive and I feel like I have to improve the artice or "be rejected" which is hurtful. First off, there was something about me having a tie to the article person (Randall Hicks). If that matters, my only connection is I work in the adoption field, and he is pretty famous in that area. I saw him speak at a conference and had his sign one of his books. That does not make me biased, just interesed in my field, and by extension, him. Your second comment does not address the points I made. There in nothing "unabashedly vain" or whatever you said. He is a well known attorney and I cited his cases. He is a popular adoption author and I cited his books. He was an actor and I cited his roles. The sources are the New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, IMDb and the leading legal case reporter cite, law.justica. Yet you say they are not valid. I did make some changes. I had only cited RandallHicks.com for his film roles, but I changed it to the official cite of IMDb, which also turned up another role I didn't have, and I deleted one they did not have. Lastly, about your comment on the fact I've contributed little, I think I did several additions in adoption subjects years ago, but really can't recall. Not that I see that as relevant as I'm trying to contribute now. Thanks.
Okay, Rayman60, I think I have made the final edit which I hope meets your satisfaction. I added a legal citation. I am confused, however, why you initially found fault with the article, and why you have not withdrawn your proposal for deletion. I'm not sure how the process works. It's funny in that before I wrote this article, my first, I checked three other authors I like a lot and was going to write an article for one or more of them, thinking they were significant enough for a page, but not so well known that maybe they didn't have one yet. It turns out they all did. But here's why I even mention it. The three authors I thought I'd write about were: David Rosenfelt, Tim Dorsey and Barbara Seranella. And as far as references/sources go for all three of them, they all have either one, or no, references, other than their own website of similar entity. Yet you find fault with mine with not just many, but major sources, and actually criticize them. I can understand rejecting articles if someone is trying to "look big" when they have no widespread appeal, like someone's garage band or something. But I chose someone who is one of the most significant attorneys in his field with likely the most books on the subject. Separate from that is his success as an author, and evidently an actor too with his imdb listings. I will try to message you directly about why you feel this is someone's vanity piece as there is not a single complimentary adjective or anything like that - just facts about cases, books, and roles, and some basic personal info that is why I personally even look people up. Anyway, since I'm not a knowlegable Wikipedia user, I may fail at trying to message you directly, and if I do and you see this instead, I hope you will feel you can stop your sought-after deletion. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi sirlanz. Thanks for something constructive. I'm learning as I go and looked at it as a school research project: the more info the better. But that appears to not be what is wanted. I looked up other lawyers who were known in other fields, and tried to combine that with authors, as Randall Hicks is both. I will not go to the article and remove the legal information. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.27.12 ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to argue for my article. Now there are comments Hicks is not notable in his field, which is the threshold for the article being accepted. But previously I put the many sources of his fame in his field, such as being an expert guest on CBS This Morning, and national TV shows that are no longer on the air, like John & Leeza from Hollywood, The Home and Family Show, and Mike & Maty. These national shows reach a lot more than obscure publications. He hosted a PBS series, Adoption Forum. These are cited on imdb.com and in the San Diego Union Tribune Article. Other sources additionally cite the Today Show and Sally Jessy Raphael, but I got those from author bios, not independent cites like for the other shows. I cited his adoption case that went to the United States Supreme Court. This is clearly a very notable person. But I was told these details were "promotional" so I took it all out! So I just left in the citations to his books (reviews by unquestionable book review entities, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribue, January Magazine), a feature article in San Diego Union Tribune, a quotation in the New York Times with reference to his book, Adopting in America, and many mystery journals. His book awards or nominations are all by entities that are recognized by Wikipedia so clearly significant. Does someone who is not a respected expert/author in their field a guest on half a dozen national TV talk shows, have six or seven books out, and received at least one major mystery award and named a finalist for several others? Wikipedia should always be expanding to include new notable people, not act like a club keeping people out. Just my opinion. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought the article had more than enough sources where the books are reviewed, or the author quoted. Most author articles just have a couple sources. Today I added Rocky Mountain News, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Rocky Mountain News, Library Journal, and more. There are countless reviews or references in lesser newspapers but am just including the major ones I was able to find. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Gelo962 here, the article creator. I have a sincere question for those of you who know more than me about proper Wikipedia inclusion of facts. The person above mentions the author is not notable. One of the facts which showed Hicks's national recognition as an author and expert in the adoption field was the fact he's been on a bunch of national TV talk shows (CBS This Morning, The Today Show, et cetera.) Initially I mentioned those in the article. But someone said it was "promotional," so I took it out. I'm truly at a loss. I don't see it as promotional, but now that facts like that are not in there, there is someone saying there is nothing "notable" about him (despite his writing 7 or 8 books, reviews or mentions of the books in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal. . . So someone please tell me if I should add the TV talk shows back in there with cites to the newspapers that mention them and ihdb.com. Thanks so much. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
I am not sure if this page, or the Talk page is the right place to put this, so I am putting my reply to sirlanz that I've added cites as he requested in both places. I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Here is my comment made there. Thanks, Sirlanz, for pointing out the lack of needed cites. Here is my reply from Talk: Thanks SirLanz for your comments and pointing out that your concern is lack of cites of the Gumshoe and that there is no cite re the other three awards that he was an actual finalist (usually there are 3-5 titles short-listed), rather than "nominated" which I understand you to mean that anyone can be nominated for something. What is frustrating to me is I am sure I gave cites for all you requsted but the entire sentence re awards was deleted. I don't believe I did that. Did someone else? I do not know why as every author page lists awards and nominations (more on that in a moment. But to answer your concern I did the following: 1) I created links to the Wikipedia page for all four awards. Please note that rigth on the Wikipedia articles for the Gumshoe (winner) and Anthony (finalist), Hicks is listed right there on the page. But regardless, for all four awards, I've relisted links showing he was the winner or a finalist. I know you are now saying you didn't mean it when you said the awards were not significant, but may I address that anyway, perhaps to whomever deleted the sentence about them. Barnes and Noble, in their mystery/thriller section, lists the eleven major book awards in the genre. Please note that the Gumshoe, Anthony, Barry and Macavity are all listed. Now, about the significance of the four awards (even as a finalist and not being the winner) and the obvious propriety of listing the awards, I did a quick review of author articles on Wikipedia. Significantly, note that I did not go to pages of "small" authors rather the biggest authors, I think all New York Times bestselling authors. So you and others can check out my point that these major authors all have these four awards listed in their articles. Re the Gumshoe, it is significant enough that it is mentioned even when just a finalist ( Joseph Finder, Reed Ferrel Coleman), and major mystery authors' articles listing winning the Gumshoe ( C.J. Box, Barry Eisler), and other major authors listing the other three awards as winners or finalists ( Michael Connelly, Lee Child, Robert Crais). My point is I didn't even have to try to find such authors. The first half dozen I tried made my point. So I really feel I've addressed your concerns and you will elect to join those voting to keep the article. And no one has still answered my question... Hicks has been credited with being on 4 or 5 network talk shows (CBS This Morning, et cetera) and hosted a PBS series many years ago. These clearly show his national recognition. So do I list them to show that? Or will someone again state that is somehow promo not credits? Those people can't fairly have it both ways. Lastly, in looking at many author articles, I found blatant promo, where gushy blurbs of reviews were included. There is none of that in the article I created. Also, many longstanding author articles have only a cite or two besides the author website for info. My article is very well researched, with book review or book recommendations in the NYT, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, hollywood.com, ihdb.com, et cetera. Thanks so much for your reconsideration. All the above, and writing eight books, seem to clearly make a person notable. Ill try to copy this to the other page on retention/deletion to make sure you see it. Thanks. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo862
Question. I've asked this several times but no one has answered it. Maybe the bold with help. I'm looking for genuine advice here as I don't have the experience all the above people do. Re the question of national recognition and notariety, as well as of interest re the subject (Hicks), should I list all his appearances on the national TV talk shows? Except for CBS This Morning, which is still on, the others are not, but I recognize several of them as network shows, big in their day, reaching millions of people. I know the author's bio is evidently not sufficient as a source, and I seem to recall one or two of the articles I cited mentioned some of the TV shows and the PBS hosting, but I don't recall which ones and I don't want to go through them again. I know ihdb lists many of them. Is this seen as a credible source? I see them under the film biography in "Other Works." But many are from the 1990s so I'd have no idea how to find a "source" for them other than ihdb. So, again, do I list the five talk shows/news shows' credits from ihdb, or just mention them here toward showing Hicks's national recognition re his books but not mention them in the article? Thanks in advance for the help. Gelo962 ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
Thanks for the response to my question re the TV shows. I actually just hoped for a "include them" or "don't include them," as there seems to be a lot of grey area and I'm trying to learn them and fit in and you all know them better than me. Frustrating to me is that the "delete" voters mention not enough national print media attention. I guess I disagree, but regardless, one can't dispute the multiple network TV and news appearances that are in addition to the print media. What percentage of listed authors on Wikipedia have been on 4 or 5 national network news/talk shows? Maybe less than one percent? But forced to decide on my own to list them in the article or not, I am of the opinion that mentioning them in the article is not appropriate as kind of showy - not directl related to an author page - but important to mention here for editors to be aware of as significant national recognition. So here they are listed on imdb, which I have always thought of as a legit site, but maybe it does not measure up to your standards? I honestly don't know, butI don't know where else to see TV shows someon appeared on listed, other than the "author bio" stuff, which I know is not acceptable. And it is funny that someone said they wanted more major press sites, because I listed more initially, but another editor removed them and said "over cited," so I kind of can't win. I'm not going to research them again and add them. I simply found them with plain old Google searches combining "Randall Hicks," with words like "The Baby Game, "Adopting in America," "Baby Crimes," "author," and "attorney." Thanks, Gelo962 ( talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
I see your point, Bearian, so I deleted "attorney" from the introductory line and left only "writer." I'd included "attorney" as one of his key books was written as an attorney and on a legal subject, but I get your point that's more of a sub note to be mentioned only within the article. Thanks. Gelo962 ( talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is completely unreferenced and it fails to signify why this association is notable. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"Around Alone was the catalyst for the development of sound rules, now recognized by the International Monohull Classes Association (IMOCA), which have produced the very fast yachts we see in around-the-world races today.". Letters to the editor are unacceptable as RS. And one line is absolutely not significant coverage. Is there something else you wanted to link? Because if you meant this link in reality, you need to first read up on what Wikipedia means by reliable sources before listing more sources. We're volunteers and it's an investment of time which should not be wasted. Ask me for any assistance if you don't understand the guidelines page. Thanks. Lourdes 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The family seems notable but I'm unable to find significant coverage confirming the information in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Meatsgains ( talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Enion Glas (
talk •
contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
*Move to user space and encourage article creator to read
WP:RS and pay particular attention to the need to source assertions in-line.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Delete, see below.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea about the sandboxes and draft namespace. Will use these tools for sure in the future. Apologies for any inconvinience guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, 25 edits were reverted without any reason. I put a lot of time adding realible sources so I at least expect reasons why you make changes
Also it has been a while since I finished constructing what the final article would look like and nobody has said anything. You are very quick to add the article to deletion but not to remove the deletion notice now that its fairly completed and sources added? I might not as experienced as you in wikipedia but please respect my time and effort a bit more. If this is the way you treat the new editors it leaves a lot to be said about the people running wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the reason why I deleted the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does the notice get automatically removed after a while or should it remove it myself? I have no idea on how to proceed. However, the 25 edits cannot be reverted automatically and seems like I have to do all the manual work again. Really? Penalizing a novice in this matter for his mistakes is not the way to keep new editors motivated and again says a lot about the "democratization of knowledge" that wikipedia sells to the world
The biographies are not of 10 different people. They are all the same family, with each generation producing a notable member. Some family pages have a more short style section based format to its presentation and some of them just include the links of their members. Ex. /info/en/?search=Essen_family. "This article has no notable members? Are you serious? It contains one of the two most famous/notable privateers of the Spanish colonies (along with Miguel Enriquez from Puerto Rico) and a heroe of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, a very important battle, perhaps the most important in the history of Spanish colonial Latin America. It contains one of the few rectors of the University of Salmanca that were born in the Americas (criollo) and a distinguished politician in the metropolis of Spain named Procer del Reino by Isabel II, a very uncommon thing at that time for an american criollo not born in Spain. Out of this family comes Jose Maria Heredia, compared by some to be the Walt Whitman of Latin America. The sources are all legitimate and they can be translated for verification. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
My intention from the beginning was to create an article about this family in more of a timeline format highlighting their main political, military or ecclessiastical merits. I could create perhaps an article in the House of Tudor fashion that Christroutman brought up, however it was not my intention to elaborate endlessly about the lives of each of them. If you would like to do so, some of the sources go over important epidoses of some of the character's lives.
Some families are quite extensive and it would make sense that cousins, distant cousins, half brothers, etc would have do be described on different links. However what distinguishes this family and makes it unique perhaps is that it is quite a small family, an each generation (not spread out branches, etc), which kept itself quite small if you notice, achieved notable merits. It is quite rare to find a family with so many merits generation after generation in the archives of the council of indies that you can access through archivesportaleurope.net. No other family from colonial Latin America has a hero in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, where all of the naval captains where pure Spaniards and Europeans (not criollos from America), a politician that achieved so many merits in the metropolis of Spain AND one of the best and most famous poets of Latin America considered to be the first Romantic poet of America, for which of course I only highlighted his name since he already had an article. If you can find a family with members such as this please point it out to me since I would love to read about them. Most colonial families from Latin America just achieve a noble title for killing a bunch of defenseless indigenous people or finding a gold or silver mine. In fact I left out a bunch of small achievements and positions from the family members just to keep this article easy to read.
Rarelly will you find a sources where they talk about just one family member. Usually the case is that you find all the members mentioned together in an article or a book. Other sources where they mention all the family members or the family as a whole are
Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Dominicanos Insignes en el exterior. Pag 11". CLIO Vol. 33.
Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Heredia: Centenario de Jose Maria Heredia, Pag. 139". Editorial Franciscana, Ciudad Trujillo 1939.
Machado Baéz, Manuel. Santiagueses ilustres de la colonia. 2nd Edition, Santo Domingo, Ediciones Centurión, 1972
Francisco Gregorio Campuzano was a PRIOR PROVINCIAL for a big region of South America (all the West Indies and Venezuela). You dont think that is quite a merit FOR A CRIOLLO? Please understand that this is a criollo family and most of the positions/achievements that they obtained where usually reserved for peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) For this reason I do not think he should be left out at all.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Also if you go to Google Books and type Campuzano Polanco you will find perhaps more than a hundred sources that talk about them and that I didnt include in the article. Sources in English and from different countries (Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)
https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- Enion Glas ( talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Google books gives you lots of sources for them as a family yes along with the 3 sources I pointed out above being the most elaborated perhaps-- Enion Glas ( talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I chose not to bluelink them for reasons stated above. No, the claims are not excessive. It is an interesting chapel and it IS unique. There are plenty of experts and sources talking about this chapel
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043079.1950.11407932?needAccess=true&journalCode=rcab20
What exactly is that does not give you confidence? Everything that is said has its citations.
Either you are flaming me because I am new here, which in that case I can only say that dealing with all of you has been a disgusting experience to say the least. Not only do you embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, which makes you sad negationists, but also you are giving a terrible image to this project and if I were running it, I would have taken away your administrator status for bullying a new editor that has put a lot of work on bringing interest to the colonial past of the Caribbean, which is a field that has not been studied much. Lot of information out there about the colonial past of Mexico and Peru perhaps, but not so much of the Caribbean
The article has had the deletion notice for 15 days now and nobody has given a fuck, which shows laziness and dictatorial disdain from your part. The only reason why you chose to write your lame ass comment was because I asked you to. I can also sense jealousy perhaps because this is a Spanish/Latin family with notable individuals as opposed to Anglo Saxon or northern European perhaps.
As I said the sources are there, these are not my words. Literately I have copy pasted the words of other historians here. Not my opinions, not my wishes. Only facts that are verifiable.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Its fair to assume that most of the users commenting here don't work in Caribbean topics often, so I'm just dropping by to let you know that I have seen José Campuzano Polanco mentioned in literature about pirates and corsairs while working on the Roberto Cofresí series. These books were published at Puerto Rico, so at least one member of this family appears notable enough to have his name mentioned in foreign publications. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is not a close translation of the Ruth Torres Agudo paper. It uses the format that she used which is the format that most if not all of the authors that have written about this family have used as well- a timeline/short description/synopsis of the characters. However my article includes much more information about the origins of the family and elaborates a bit more on the battles they fought (especially with Jose Campuzano Polanco and the Battle of Cartagena de Indias which she completely ignored in her paper). She also left out the poet Jose Maria Heredia as part of her timeline for unknown reasons. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 13:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding sources: Why is there a lack of trust about all the sources because they are mostly in Spanish? Again, I sense discrimination from some editors here that in a subtle way are saying "these sources are in Spanish, so they cannot be trusted". WHO THE FUCK RUNS THIS PLACE? Information comes in all languages. Perhaps it was my mistake to write this article in English if I knew all the arrogant anglo saxons were going to flame me. Should have written it in Spanish first, then I would have just translated it to English to please those that do not speak the second most spoken language in the world.
Regarding notability Some members have international notability- Jose Campuzano Polanco, Francisco Javier Caro and Jose Maria Heredia (who has a plaque at the Niagara Falls- /info/en/?search=Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Heredia_y_Heredia#/media/File:JoseMariaHeredia-plaque-niagarafalls.JPG), Garcia de Polanco being one of the first miners who landed in America with Columbus. The Polanco family are one of the earliest settlers in the Americas which is a notable thing too.
Other members have regional notability- Francisco Gregorio being a Prior Provincial (the only Spaniard criollo from Latin America that I have read about who has achieved such a position), Francisco who became a Mayor in Venezuela and features in Venezuelan publications for his contributions there and Adrian who became a prominent political figure in Cuba.
Others have local notability which is where some of you miss the point. Pedro Perez Polanco for example is a notable and meaningful character in Dominican Republic for having defended the island in both the english and the french invasions. The Polanco family are among the earliest settlers of the north of the island. They might not be notable as world figures but they mean a lot to the island along with other captains. Saying that he is not is like saying "Oh, but he only matters in Dominican Republic, who gives a fuck about a small island history". Well, if it wasnt for him and a few others, the island becomes a english colony and perhaps that creates a snowball effect and then the whole caribbean is lost to England.
Other notable locals that should not be ignored are:
Garcia Polanco becoming Vicar General in 1660 is also very notable since that position was also reserved to peninsulars (spaniards born in Spain). Only 2 more criollo spaniards achieved such position in the colony of Santo Domingo that I have read about.
Franscisco Campuzano Polanco being a MAESTRE DE CAMPO is also notable. Only the Governor of the colony of Santo Domingo usually held this military rank, with very few exceptions.
Jose Campuzano-Polanco Morillo being Provincial Mayor of the Santa Hermandad is also a notable feat.
Again, as said in the article, they achieved the highest positions possible for spaniard criollos below being governors or archbishops which were positions that only peninsulars could have. This does not mean that the positions they held were held by many others. Only 2 max 3 other criollos held such positions also. If the editors commenting here knew more about the power structure of the Spanish colonies it would be a no brainer to highlight the notabilty of these local individuals and the exclusivity of these achievements.
The Chapel of the Rosary owned and reconstructed by the family IS unique in America and the world and is also notable.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Regarding spltting the family into separate articlesThe timeline of this family is alsmot like a copy of the timeline of the colony of Santo Domingo, since the family was pretty much involved in every single meaningful event and period of it. Splitting the family into different articles completely misses the point of my article, which is to in a way use the history of a family and its genealogy to elaborate on important incidents of the history of the island that have been poorly studied and sometimes completely ignored even by the local people and historians of the Dominican Republic. The family was broken apart by the Treat of Basel in 1795 which forced all the colonial families of Santo Domingo to emigrate (see /info/en/?search=Timeline_of_Santo_Domingo), basically wiping out 300 years out of the collective memory of the people who habitates the island today and putting the whole family in an article attempts to fill in major blank spots in the big picture of the history of the island. Please lets keep this family together in an article instead of splitting it, like the Treaty of Basel did, into unconnected characters without a common ground. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The editors that want this article closed have gone silent after I have given them solid sources for the claims made here. Others now say "they dont have any views on the matter anymore". They have nothing to fight back now except to keep being negationists and giving wikipedia a very bad image. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have texted other editors in order to get them to contribute to the discussion and nobody seems to care which is why this article has gotten relisted twice. I on the other hand have done my best to keep on improving the article by adding new sources and replying to the comments and questions that have been asked. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Smmurphy I think the format you propose is valid. However I believe Pedro Perez Polanco might not be ideal as the title of the article since the amount of sources about him is not as extense as the Campuzano Polanco name/family as a whole. The major source of citations is definitely google books https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4-- and there you can see that Campuzano Polanco is what brings up the notability. I can red link some of the members I talked about in the Origins section of the article and write two articles, one about Jose Campuzano Polanco and another about Francisco Javier Caro. Jose Maria Heredia already has an article lwritten both in English and Spanish. None of the families from Santo Domingo achieved a title of nobility, unlike in Mexico, Peru and Cuba for example. The reason could be that both Garcia de Polanco, the first and founding member of the Polanco family in the island, and for sure as confirmed, Gregorio Campuzano, the founder of the Campuzano Polanco branch, were hidalgos before they arrived, which means untitled Spanish nobility. The fact that they had their coat of arms and their private burial chapel clearly confirms this. One thing I can guarantee you is that as a family, they are the most notable one in the colonial period of Santo Domingo, and I can take it as far as saying that they were the most notable and accomplished family in the whole Caribbean during the colonial times in terms of merits and longevity.-- Enion Glas ( talk) 09:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if I should go ahead and create the separate articles or wait until the consensus is reached. I dont want to spend time creating new articles if they are going to be deleted-- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok but in all honesty I have no time at the moment to recreate the whole thing with all the sources. It is very time consuming and I have lost enthusiasm due to the poor treatment I have received as a new editor. I have seen terrible articles with a few poor sources here in wikipedia that are still up and probably havent even been listed for deletion before. -- Enion Glas ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has coached as senior level but only as a goalkeeper coach. Simione001 ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable and sounds like a puff piece I feel it does not pass WP:BIO. FITINDIA (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. North America 1000 22:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage from reliable sources. Currently the sources seem to redirect to places to search for information about the subject. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions) 00:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Article about an Assistant Professor that fails to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. A google search provides no information to pass WP:PROF. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 2 edits all of which are to this article. CBS527 Talk 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Entire article shows bold signs at company-initiated advertising and that alone violates our essential and non-negotiable policies because the information and sources here also violate this policy by only being published and republished business announcements, listings and mentions; as always, these subjects have no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone, and there's nothing else convincing here. Originally PRODed with concerns by Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. But consensus is that this needs a complete rewrite. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Uses WP:SPS and Primary Sources which are regurgitation of press releases in PR trade press pubs. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as an advertisement for a dissolved defunct company. This company was previously somewhat notable 20 years ago, but nothing recent is availabe online, and the current article lists no sources for the vast majority of its content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 21:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moved back to Draft space for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:SOLDIER, reads like a memorial Gbawden ( talk) 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Dye is mentioned by name in 1950s volumes of Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the East - but only hard copies which we can scan. Would this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgreg ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
How do we submit the scans from the Who's Who books? Thatgreg ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)that greg Thatgreg ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have left a note on Thatgreg's talk page recommending he submit the scanned pages to OTRS for verification. If there's a better place for him to put them I'm all ears. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. this is just student accommodation that has existed for 3 years. All sources provided are primary. LibStar ( talk) 11:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable corporation. Only minimal independent news coverage, seems to fail WP:CORP. Alex Cohn ( talk) 22:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Multiple participants were interested in finding additional coverage regarding the band that took their inspiration from the subject, but unfortunately, no additional reliable sources were found to indicate notability for the subject on that front. Absent evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, the general consensus of this discussion is that the information about the subject would be better suited as a part of the List of Greyhawk deities, rather than as its own article. Mz7 ( talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't establish notability. The current link about the band doesn't appear to mention the connection in its current state, but that alone isn't enough either way. TTN ( talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This article should be deleted because all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awards. The article also fails WP:NOTDIR #7 because it is a simple listing with no context information. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
all the information given in the article can be found in Country Music Association Awardsis incorrect. As for the NOTDIR#7 argument, that's merely a matter of writing a lead to start with. — Sam Sailor 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An amateur short film posted to YouTube with no coverage in non-self-published or independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. This is one of several articles by an SPA account promoting the same individuals. (E.g. Sudhu Tomari (Telefilm 2013) and Manab (Music Video 2016)), — CactusWriter (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable organization; a search for sources resulted mostly in passing mentions in news sites or unreliable sources such as company listing. I couldn't find enough significant reliable coverage specifically about the organization. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a notable organisation. The then prime minister of India Narasimha Rao inaugurated it in 1995. In year 2004, the then Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh awarded it with the title centre of excellence. Please check news link :
And
The Telegraph is a top newspaper in India. So you can trust the above link. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2405:204:B10E:BED1:DE94:C37E:E6E0:282 (
talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The institution also features in the Government of India, official website of North east council, after being eligible for financial assistances. Check it here: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2405:204:B10C:2858:8AB2:A337:8192:446 (
talk) 13:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If prime minister of India visits a institution, and awards it with the title CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE, then ofcourse it is a notable organisation. It is also mentioned in Govt of India website for North East council. So, I hope the article won't remain in article for deletion list anymore. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mahatabuz1997 (
talk •
contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Check the above comments and go through the links provided. And after that, please let me know by replying if the article will be still deleted, or what will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAnt1997 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I am again adding the links for your consideration.
The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp
If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?
Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206
The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.
There are many other websites and reference which mentions about the institution. But I only added the above two as these are the most reliable ones. I hope these will be sufficient. If you need more, ask for it.
*Please Cite Reasons It is a notable charitable organisation, famous in india, which also has branches all over india, one of the sister branch is
Sankara Nethralaya. so before deletion plz cite a reason.
AdmWiki (
talk) 21:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The prime minister of India visited it in the year 2004,and awarded with the title centre of excellence, as per the The Telegraph newspaper. Here is the link : https://www.telegraphindia.com/1041122/asp/guwahati/story_4032596.asp
If a prime minister can visit and award a title to a institution, then no one can claim that it is not a notable institution. Isn't it?
Also, The North east council of Government of India, provided financial assistance to the institution, and also written about the organisation in their official website. Here is the link : http://necouncil.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=130&subsublinkid=206
The above website ends with gov.in, which means it is regulated by government of India. So it is a reliable source.
Also, Sankara Nethralaya situated in Chennai, India is a sister institution of it. There are many Nethralaya in India, run by a single charitable organisation. This article is about one of those Nethralaya, situated in Northeastern Indian city of Guwahati.
Nethralaya means the house of the Eye. These Nethralayas are eyecare hospitals and institutions all over India!!
Being the creator of this article, I would like to urge the administrator to do the decision of either keeping or deleting this article as soon as possible. Already about 10days have passed. I think its better to close this discussion soon. BlackAnt1997 ( talk) 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable doctor who lacks RSes. Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG. DGG and SwisterTwister, this is a good article to compare with AfD at Kevin Pho. Delta13C ( talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NRU - hasn't played in the World Rugby Sevens Series and WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack ( talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to International Federation of BodyBuilders. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non notable. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 ( talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable city councillor. Zero sources (other than promotional links). Contested PROD. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG established. Very significant air show, 100th anniversary, etc. Referenced well enough to reliable sources, and more exist. Whether or not there are sockpuppets 'voting' in this AfD is irrelevant; the basis for keeping in policy/guideline is what is important, and that's been done here. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A one off air show is probably worthy of a sentence in the Swiss Air Force article, these types of one off air shows are not that uncommon but rarely notably for a stand-alone article The Banner talk 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation as I do not believe that all keep-voters are genuine editors. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. The Banner talk 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Article has been previously deleted (by way of AfD and speedy) but I can find no evidence of this person satisfying notability. Most, if not all sources seem to be mentioning him in passing. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Afro-Eurasia is a topic that merits its own article, but not sub-articles such as this. Afro-Eurasia is not a division of the world that is widely used. This article is redundant to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia.
Propose deletion and redirection to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. LukeSurl t c 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NARTIST. Previously deleted at Chhina the rapper. References are either not reliable or do not significantly discuss the rapper. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of notability or coverage from any independent (reliable or otherwise) sources. Only results I am able to find are standard listings and the college/orgs website. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear if this journalist it's really notable. The {{ notability}} tag was removed several times by the author, without improving article with content or reliable sources by which to establish notability. XXN, 18:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An "Internet TV network" -- whatever that's supposed to be -- of no discernible impact. One Christian Post article and a bunch of press releases makes up the sourcing here. Calton | Talk 18:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A list of causes of death of people that have been in Space, most of the deaths are not related to being a "space traveler" and we have plenty of list already available with this information. List of astronauts by name, List of space travelers by name, wikipedia is not a place for random lists. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. Lacking significant coverage. For example one source from gnews contains a one-line mention. Suspiciously created by an editor who has only worked on articles of people connected with this studio. LibStar ( talk) 17:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No independent references discussing the magazine in depth. Only one issue published as yet: article creation too soon, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Coverage is completely lacking--a few directory-style entries on websites do not make up in-depth discussion in reliable sources. He has a YouTube channel--great. He tweets--great. No one in the press has taken notice of him, and the article should go. Drmies ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No evidence of notability has been presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost every page and article linked to from this page has been deleted at AFD. Entirely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The article in question does not appear to meet notability guidelines for biographies and has remained unchanged for some time. The article has had two nominations for speedy deletion, one from myself and another. The source here seems to dispute the claim of notability in the article. It incidates that Renard Widarto was in fact a project manager and not "convener" as the article implies. Wiki-Coffee Talk 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Claimed award appears to be a token trade show honorific, given out only twice in the award's two-decade history. Even if it were seen as a technical PORNBIO pass, that would be far outweighed by the complete failure to meet GNG requirements. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or Gbooks hits. PROD removed without article improvement or guideline-based argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 3M bookshelf game series. Sandstein 08:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Completing nomination on behalf of Sbalfour ( talk · contribs), whose rationale ( here) reads thus: "this is someone creating an article just because they can, and citing it with a commercial websitem then inserting personal experience, i.i. WP:original research". On the merits, I have no real opinion, except to note that some of the other games in the same series as this one do have articles - see TwixT, for example. If consensus is for deletion, a redirect to the article for the series ( 3M bookshelf game series) wouldn't be a horrible idea. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable junior competitor. Lots of hope nothing more. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I hava a feeling in my water that a csd will be declined because there is a source or two, but I see nothing here to suggest that this person is anything other than another bloke doing a job, possibly not very well. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Article attempting to inherit notability from a club this person previously ran and a music festival they co-founded. Only one reference actually discusses the subject of the article in detail, the other references discuss the club (not the person) and the music festival. A person cannot inherit notability from organisations they are associated with. Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Afrophilya, the music festival she founded. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Prod contested in 2009 with multiple issues since then. No evidence of notability, let alone even existence. While a I found mentions of a "Illinois Hockey Hall of Fame", I cannot find anything for an inline-specific version and thus this article fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude ( talk) 15:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Mifter ( talk) 03:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable location, no references. CatcherStorm talk 14:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Very little context. Not possible to identify physical location of this village. No references. CatcherStorm talk 14:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This single self-published sourced article fails WP:GNG." DePRODed as "this argument would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This single sourced article fails WP:GNG". DePRODed as "would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This article claims no notability, neither of the court system nor of the building as architecture. Fails WP:GNG]]". DePRODed as "needs afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PRODed as "So every district and many larger talukas in India have a district court and various other courts functioning under it. I see no reason why the legal infrastructure system of every district should have a separate article. This article claims no notability, fails WP:GNG". DePRODed as "this argument would need afd". §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 05:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I simply could not find any hits about this book whatsoever. CSD was declined by Metropolitan90 on the grounds that A7 does not apply to books. An article on the book's author ( Ahmed Mukhtar Omar) created by this article's creator is currently up for speedy deletion. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 05:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks any real coverage about him, only a few quotes from him. A search found a little more of the same but nothing fog GNG. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mifter ( talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was created in 2007 but User:Southasiatribune. The page contains no references but biography of its founder Shaheen Sehbai. I doubt South Asia Tribune meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Saqib ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor employee with lots of passing mentions in PR pieces, but no in-depth coverage on his career. Not enough of a search term to redirect to any of the associated companies. Should have been reviewed through AfC. czar 09:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable website. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Was declined several times at AfC, article creator decided to ignore process and simply moved it to mainspace. A working make-up artist, but the press is not enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a mayor. While the city is large enough that he could have an article if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG, it's not large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to its mayors just because they exist -- but the sourcing here doesn't get him over GNG, as it consists of a raw table of election results on the city's website, and two pieces of purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of him not running for other offices. This simply does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet notability standards based on content and sources in article. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is far from my field, but I couldn't find evidence to verify its notability. Boleyn ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. Sandstein 08:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been to AfD twice before, but received next to no responses, so were closed as no consensus. Hopefully we can get a consensus this time. I couldn't find anything to verify its notability, from article or Google search. It has a Swedish Wikipedia article, but that suffers from similar issues with sourcing and notability. Boleyn ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Unreferenced}}
only applies when there are zero sources, and general references and external links are sources. Even if there were no sources present in the article, it is not an argument for deletion, please see
WP:UGLY. —
Sam
Sailor 23:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)The result was delete. Has been replaced by CBD-DMH, which is apparently more ... chemically ... correct. Can be undeleted for the purpose of history merging if desired, but it's not clear that this is wanted or needed. Sandstein 08:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Mistake in structure, this compound does not exist and references instead list dimethylheptyl isomer. Leyo 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. XXN, 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Note: there are other people and characters with the same name, and it's very difficult to find source about this person - one more proof for lack of notability of this subject. XXN, 13:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Unremarkable hotel. Unreferenced article for long time. WP:NOTTRAVEL. XXN, 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Biography of a non-notable person referenced to a passing mention in a single source, in two publications. Fails WP:ANYBIO.- Mr X 12:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 12:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable event, no coverage meeting WP:GNG and definitely nothing for WP:NEVENT. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find a single source for this person. The article may be a hoax. The article exists on fr.wiki. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. The article made no credible assertion of notability. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
References do not indicate notability CatcherStorm talk 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bade Bhaiyya Ki Dulhania. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Bade Bhaiyya Ki Dulhania: This appeared to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The actress appeared in one show so far and I failed to find anything to support her role in anthology series Yeh Hai Aashiqui and MTV Webbed. I also can't find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a list with content that is best covered on other already existing articles. The content refers purely to the results of one nation, and is of little use. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG: I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
List with only one entry. Fails WP:LISTN for not helping in navigation. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Information best contained in members' articles. Nikki♥ 311 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was R2 Deleted by Ultraexactzz. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 08:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No text and no references. Does not establish notability. Middle schools are seldom notable even with references. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the accurate but unhelpful statement that the content "needs copyediting but is understandable", despite extensive community discussion and consensus that machine translations are speedy-deletable. So now I need to ask the community to enforce it via AfD.
I want to be clear that this translation is fixable for someone with dual fluency. I could fix it. But the effort involved is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! — S Marshall T/ C 18:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Advertorially toned article about a YouTube channel, "referenced" entirely to (a) its own self-published content about itself and (b) non-notable blogs, with the exception of one piece of deadlinked media coverage. I would ordinarily just have speedied this, but it's already been speedied twice as blatant advertising and then got recreated again a third time in exactly the same form -- so unfortunately it has to come to AFD this time, so we can apply a liberal dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of non-notable model. Article has been flagged with COI issues and "sources" (before I moved them to External links) cannot be considered WP:RS. (Note: I messed up BLP PROD via Twinkle: hadn't noticed it had to be unsourced. I moved the "sources" to EL and uncited after PROD. My mistake.) — Iadmc ♫ talk 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have now added sources to the article in question. Rickard.Nosslin ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete G11 by Athaenara. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No signs of notability. Only 69 Google hits, all social media and tracks and videos and mentions in other Wikipedia articles. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I am using my discretion as an admin under WP:DPR#NAC to vacate the above closure and reclose this debate as soft delete. An undelete may be requested at WP:RFU without further formality. Stifle ( talk) 09:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, am vacating the above closure and reclosing this as soft delete. A request for undeletion may be made at WP:RFU without further reference to me. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso ( talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Restarted attempt at profile listing again immediately after the last deletion and nothing here convinces our policies are both satisfied and then also satisfied for substance; the history explained this was only meant as a personal listing since there were no attempts to change it to a better convincing article. As it is, such a "specific subject" is questionable since it's open to either payment for such claims or otherwise questionability. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
only one Guinness and rest is just a sequence of that, this is clearly a page meant for Self promotion, this does not pass the criteria for entry in Wikipedia. Its also surprising that How this page is published since such a long period without get noticed. my vote for deletion of this page Anu214 ( talk) 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu214 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
References consist of lists of tracks on Allmusic.com (which lacks independence), are trivial mentions, or come from the subject's own website. No non-trivial coverage appears to exist in reliable independent secondary sources, looks like subject does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICIAN. Also, almost certainly an autobiographical piece without a declared WP:COI. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost entirely unsourced BLP (the one source is to an awards site, not a reliable source), with the main list of achievements entirely unsourced. Previously deleted a copyvio, but I can’t see that earlier version to see if that still applies. But even if not, no evidence of notability, serious concerns over its neutrality. JohnBlackburne words deeds 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
According to AllMusic.com, he's got about half a dozen credits to his name. Couldn't find much else. Falls way short of WP:COMPOSER South Nashua ( talk) 19:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice about being moved to user space if someone asks. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Of all the sources in the article, only two independent sources ( here and here) even mention the organization, and one of these is an award announcement while the other a short event announcement. There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Brycehughes ( talk) 00:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I am working on additional sources I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I worked on a draft in sandbox. After pasting it into the article, I didn't realize it would quickly be tagged for deletion, rather than a process of recommendations for improvement. I appreciate any help/feedback. And answers to questions below:
Question 1: While working in sandbox, I used similar organization's articles as a guide, e.g., National Academy of Construction. Are its sources satisfactory? Question 2: Is this satisfactory secondary source coverage: http://www.enr.com/articles/38787-viewpoint-time-to-set-higher-safety-goals (Footnote 9)
Many thanks for any help/guidance so I can meet article requirements. User talk:MaeInJune —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- - - Help, please: Is this where the discussion for deletion happens? Thanks. Meanwhile, I'm working on sources. MaeInJune ( talk) 16:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps. I'll see what I can do. MaeInJune ( talk) 01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
---I have added secondary sources. After reading more on notability requirements/definition and reviewing other organization articles, I think the article and its secondary sources satisfy requirements. I guess I'll hear from someone? Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 22:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
---I am composing additional details relevant to this discussion and will upload in the next few hours. Thanks! MaeInJune ( talk) 22:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
---First: The original nomination-for-deletion comments state “There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources.”
Second: Regarding the “Google Test” Wikipedia states “Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet....Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.”” (see section 4.2: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test)
Last: The article/topic could be considered “highly specialized.” In addition, online industry and trade publication articles are often only searchable with a payed membership. In any case, a Google Scholar search for the article/topic yielded the following links to studies, papers etc., among others:
An Assessment of Best Practices and the Efficacy of an Open Repository in the Construction Industry http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784413517.232
Advancing the competitiveness and efficiency of the US construction industry, first of five mentions appears on page 8. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CJhhAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=%22national+academy+of+construction%22&ots=tgY2Y3T4y1&sig=ITpFEHhmOC6pdpS-gOnEkNP15i0#v=onepage&q=%22national%20academy%20of%20construction%22&f=false
Servant Leadership in Construction http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2008/paper/CPRT253002008.pdf
QUANTIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COSTS FOR THE U.S. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY http://www.library.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/gebkenr19272/gebkenr19272.pdf
Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Work Environment –Lessons Learned from the Unprevented Exposure of Miners to Coal Dust http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815021025
Wisdom Based Leadership Competencies http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.7173&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
--This discussion has been submitted to the DRN. Thanks. MaeInJune ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This morning I was reading that Judge James Robarts, the judge that halted the Trump Immigration Order, was a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers. There is a page in Wikipedia. /info/en/?search=American_College_of_Trial_Lawyers
It was useful to visit that reference. It's an honorary organization. It is to the community of Trial Lawyers what the National Academy of Construction is to the construction industry. It’s only references are to it’s own web site. Clearly Wikipedia recognizes its importance and leaves it on line despite the poor references.
This page has far more references and serves a much larger community—(the construction industry is the second largest industry in the US and the largest in the world). The National Academy of Construction members include the generals and admirals that have led military construction, the directors of the largest US government construction agencies, the CEOs of our country’s largest design and construction companies and the editors of the industry’s largest construction industry publication. They will be as at least as noteworthy as the Trial Lawyers. This page should not be deleted. It will be as useful as a reference in future publications as the American College of Trial Lawyers. Charles B. Thomsen FAIA FCMAA Charlesbthomsen ( talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to Initial_D#Games. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since July 2008. The article was recently unredirected. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Most seems to be self puffery with the same press releases featuring in at least two sources. Own YouTube refs count for nothing. It appears to be someone who has apeared on radio and has talked to a famous actor. This looks very much like self publicity. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 04:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Per failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The only coverage I can find is [39] [40] and [41], although the latter two seem to focus on the band and not in depth on the subject. Other than that, the sources are gig lists (trivial coverage) and a news article relating to the subject's father ( WP:ITSA). Matthew Thompson talk to me! 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 18:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No Reliable source to show that this lady is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 09:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable minor corporation. Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no indication that Abushwesha meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The lead claims she won awards, but the body of the article doesn't provide sources for any awards, and Google News doesn't give any relevant results. Having a film she co-produced nominated for an award does not make her notable. No significant media coverage found via Google News either. Huon ( talk) 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)