 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sam Keeley
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Sam Keeley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of a "new" actor. Searching for independent coverage I find a lot of social media and similar hits. Two brief mentions associating his name with his character in a just released movie. Thinking this is a case of WP:TOOSOON but I wanted to get the community's consensus. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Though Sam Keeley is a relatively 'New' Actor, he has not only quite a fan following, but has appeared in a large enough quantity of projects that should automatically qualify him for a wikipedia page. Information about his work is on his imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4187130/ and his agency profile : http://www.lisarichards.ie/actorsm/sam-keeley-actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – MuZemike 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Six roles is hardly an enormous quantity of projects- I've seen people with far more to their resume get deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. A fanbase also doesn't guarantee that you'll pass WP:ARTIST either. I know of more than a few podcast authors with huge fanbases that don't pass notability guidelines. What counts here is that you can prove Keeley's notability with reliable sources, which unfortunately I'm unable to find. I do see where he's been in a movie that won an award, but that movie's notability is not transferred to Keeley (see WP:NOTINHERITED). He just doesn't pass WP:ARTIST at this time. It's too soon to add him to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
- Do Not Delete. By six roles you are obviously going by his imdb page, which is in fact incomplete. To date he is much closer to 10 projects performing in 3 more television series and a short film. I understand why you might be rallying for his deletion, but what you haven't taken into account is the quantity of projects he has performed in coupled with the amount of time he has been a working actor. It hasn't even been two years since his first film and already he has performed in a large quantity of projects. He is an actor that is, without a doubt, on the rise, and quite frankly, what is the point in deleting a page that will need to be rewritten a short time in the future when a page for him becomes even more necessary than it is now. Also, about your comments concerning fanbase...I mean no offense by this, but podcast authors are not actors. They don't have nearly the same type of popularity as actors do. Is wikipedia not an online encyclopaedia for the people? Why, when an actor has a fanbase, would you not supply that fanbase with the necessary information concerning said actor. Its baffling to me that this article is even being considered for deletion. It is not meaningless drivel, it is not purposeless, it is an information resource concerning a rising stars career to date, something which can, and WILL be useful to many fans, movie buffs and other people for a very long time. When Sam Keeley stops working, stops acting... then, and only then will I accept that this article isn't worthy of a place on this site, but for right now, deletion would not only be rash and unthinking, but completely inconsiderate to all fans out there that want this article to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. I beg to differ on the fanbase for podcast authors. There are some out there that had such a large fanbase that they actually ended up becoming published authors, such as Scott Sigler. He does all of his main publishing through podcasting and his paper books all started as podcasts that did so well that a publisher picked them up. There are other podcast authors such as Phil Rossi that don't pass notability guidelines for this site, yet have enough of a fanbase that they're able to live off of the donations they get from said fanbase. It's a different type of area, but the premise is the same. Being an actor doesn't automatically give you notability and having 10 roles or 100 roles does not automatically bestow notability either, nor does time served. Also, we can't predict what will happen in Keeley's future. He might go on to become the next Orlando Bloom or he might fade away from the public eye. We can't predict the future and we can't keep an article because he might eventually pass notability guidelines one day. That goes against WP:CRYSTAL. What we need here are reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument for keeping a page because something can be useful but still not pass notability guidelines. We could talk until the sun goes down and comes back up, but at the end of it all we'll still need those reliable sources to prove notability. Regardless of whether or not he'll one day be more famous or how useful this is, notability is shown through reliable sources. It'd be nice if we could keep every article, but there are guidelines to follow as far as notability goes. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Although if you want, you could ask if you could WP:USERFY the article if it gets deleted. That will allow you to not only work on the article but also add reliable sources to it until it passes notability guidelines. Again, it's the reliable sources that will probably end up keeping this article from being kept. You need sources that are independent of Keeley and aren't business industry listings, IMDb pages, or entries that merely show he acted in something. A reliable source would be a news interview with Keeley or a media interview from someone that's considered to be notable and reliable. (For example, even the Daily Mail in all its tabloid glory could be considered a reliable source as long as it focused on Keeley.) Articles that merely quote Keeley or only mention that he acted in something don't really count as reliable sources, just trivial ones. Anything released by him or his agents doesn't count as a reliable source proving notability since it came from a primary source. I hope this helps in explaining why the article is up for deletion and why the lack of reliable sources will be what might ultimately get it removed. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Keep - he has form and is notable already. Red Hurley ( talk) 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- But we still need reliable sources to show that he's notable. He might have starred in things that have gotten media attention, but unless we have something that is focusing on him, he doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Notability is not transferred from or inherited by working on a notable film or with another notable person. We need reliable sources and they just aren't here in this article and I can't find any. If anyone can find enough reliable sources then I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just can't find any and that's really my only big thing about this AfD- the lack of reliable sources. Just be aware that as long as the article lacks reliable sources per WP:RS, this article will always be tagged for notability and it'll probably end up going to AfD again. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited from films in which he plays small roles. An assertion of a fan base does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. Lagrange 613 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Lagrange613 has it right. Subject's one starring role was in a small, independent film. Otherwise, appeared on a single episode of a TV series and a couple of tiny film roles. The lack of evidence for notability is thus unsurprising. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr Fuddlesticks
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Mr Fuddlesticks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is largely a WP:ONEEVENT situation. It's not about a specific individual but it covers several living people in a negative light and doesn't really have any lasting notability. Received trivial local news coverage. v/r - T P 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Smells stronly like an attempt to prolong the embarrassment for the subjects of a one-day news story. "The blogosphere was abuzz..." -- oh, brother! EEng ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I have a feeling I'll be voting "delete", but I'm going to at least try to clean this article up first to see if there's anything here worth keeping. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete. I hemmed and hawed over this because while there has been several news stories about this, I think that this qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT. There might be some issues of freedom of speech, but this just hasn't really gone all that far or gotten that much attention, all things considering. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, but this just doesn't seem to have any lasting notability at this time. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- — Dugn8r ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep.I think this should play out. This is an issue of free speech and this case will have far-reaching implications for years to come. -- Dugn8r ( talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so?
EEng (
talk)
04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is sort of a tricky area because it has the potential to become something more notable, but it just isn't there yet. Free speech doesn't always guarantee big press. Phillip Greaves and his pedophile guide is a great example of this. While repugnant, his guide technically fell under "free speech" and many people were predicting that his trial would turn into a huge media event where freedom of speech was going to be under debate. But that never happened and the entire case was quietly settled and Greaves was never heard of again. The same premise is going on here. You have something that has gotten a bit of news promotion and free speech is being banded about, but you can't really predict how it will end. Maybe it'll become more widely known, maybe it won't. We can't predict it, so we have to judge on whether it is notable now, not whether or not it'll be notable later on down the line. ( WP:CRYSTAL) Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so?
EEng (
talk)
04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. If it becomes more notable, the article can always be recreated (and is more likely to be in any case).
- Please KEEP the City of Renton is abusing their power not just in this case but in MANY cases. They might be next on the Department of Justices investigation hit list. Their abuse of power must be stopped. They think they are above the law and removing this only furthers that idea. Please leave it there to see how it plays out and as reminder that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions! -- (comment left on this AfD's Talk by user Nagem319 [1])— Nagem319 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC).
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for either side of the issue and we cannot keep a page because something may or may not happen. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. I dislike people abusing their authority as much as the next person (it's a sore point of mine), but we cannot keep something unless it is shown to pass notability guidelines. We're not an advocate for either side and we can't keep a page just to make a point against anyone. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete as not a notable event. Its geographical scope is limited to Renton, Washington, a town of 90,000. Coverage doesn't seem to have lasted much beyond the initial news cycle. It may be too soon to judge its eventual impact, but for now it's had little. Happy to revisit without prejudice at deletion review if more comes of this. Lagrange 613 17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure.
Mark Peterson-Perez
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. reddogsix ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mark Peterson-Perez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. reddogsix ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment - I added several front page news stories direcly about the individual in response to the "minor activist" and "passing reference" objection. Ghits and Gnews hits are lacking because the main sources are not online. PPdd ( talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd ( talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual. You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. reddogsix ( talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added four front page news sources directly about the subject in response to your comment. PPdd ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong.
PPdd (
talk)
03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I only see 36 GHits and 1 GNEWs for "Mark Peterson-Perez" and 57 GHits and 1 GNEWS for "Mark Petersen-Perez". reddogsix ( talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I get "About 2,900 results (0.08 seconds)" for "Mark Petersen-Perez" and "About 118 results (0.09 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez". With the incorrect spelling, I get "1 result (0.24 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez", and "1 result (0.31 seconds) "for 'Mark Peterson-Perez'".
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong.
PPdd (
talk)
03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location ( talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS [11] put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd ( talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.
- Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location ( talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)
- 2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd ( talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 ( talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Striken comment and discussion of it
|
|---|
|
|
- Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
- "Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.
- "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy
- Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.
- Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues. ManicalCritic ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
KeepComment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite ( talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however.
Carrite (
talk)
16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd ( talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however.
Carrite (
talk)
16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Collapse Soapboxing by anonymous editor unrelated to AFD discussion
|
|---|
|
- Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
- Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(add to top of list)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Alma-Atinskaya
- Alma-Atinskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL. Proposed stations do not get an article on Wikipedia. Artem Karimov ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A lot of things wrong with this. Firstly,
WP:CRYSTAL applies to unverified speculation. Even verified speculated topics can have articles. But in this case, it actually is verified.
[23]. To boot, it is long-standing practice that rail stations are considered notable and, in addition to the aforementioned article,
this other one lends the topic to passing even the letter of WP:GNG. --
Oakshade (
talk)
05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Existing stations are notable, not projects. Artem Karimov ( talk) 11:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Projects, like this, can be notable. Even proposed projects can be notable. -- Oakshade ( talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, neither "long-standing practice" nor a couple of brief blurbs make something notable. Only in-depth coverage does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- since this is due to open next year, it or at least the railway is presumably already under construction. That is substantial enough not to be caught by WP:CRYSTAL, in my view. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, I would concur that stations that are under construction or are scheduled to open soon on lines that are under construction are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The station is currently being constructed, so its existence is not a matter of speculation. Goudzovski ( talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for my bad English :) This station isn't "proposed" as nominator said! This station is building now. There are some sources to prove my words. Firstly, you can see article in Russian Wikipedia, in which there are 4 photos of building of the station. On the one of these photos you can find that station will be open in 2012 (I made these photos in August) Also Alma-Atinskaya station was visited by
Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow. He said that this station will be open in time (in the end of 2012, probably in December).
- It's good luck that I live in this district of Moscow, where station was building (ever my nickname connected to this district!
). After passing my exams, I can make another photos, in which all users can understand that the process of building the station continues! And now - Keep this article. --
Brateevsky (
talk to me)
18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's good luck that I live in this district of Moscow, where station was building (ever my nickname connected to this district!
- Keep: per Goudzovski-- Sabri76' talk 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sam Keeley
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Sam Keeley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of a "new" actor. Searching for independent coverage I find a lot of social media and similar hits. Two brief mentions associating his name with his character in a just released movie. Thinking this is a case of WP:TOOSOON but I wanted to get the community's consensus. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Though Sam Keeley is a relatively 'New' Actor, he has not only quite a fan following, but has appeared in a large enough quantity of projects that should automatically qualify him for a wikipedia page. Information about his work is on his imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4187130/ and his agency profile : http://www.lisarichards.ie/actorsm/sam-keeley-actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – MuZemike 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Six roles is hardly an enormous quantity of projects- I've seen people with far more to their resume get deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. A fanbase also doesn't guarantee that you'll pass WP:ARTIST either. I know of more than a few podcast authors with huge fanbases that don't pass notability guidelines. What counts here is that you can prove Keeley's notability with reliable sources, which unfortunately I'm unable to find. I do see where he's been in a movie that won an award, but that movie's notability is not transferred to Keeley (see WP:NOTINHERITED). He just doesn't pass WP:ARTIST at this time. It's too soon to add him to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
- Do Not Delete. By six roles you are obviously going by his imdb page, which is in fact incomplete. To date he is much closer to 10 projects performing in 3 more television series and a short film. I understand why you might be rallying for his deletion, but what you haven't taken into account is the quantity of projects he has performed in coupled with the amount of time he has been a working actor. It hasn't even been two years since his first film and already he has performed in a large quantity of projects. He is an actor that is, without a doubt, on the rise, and quite frankly, what is the point in deleting a page that will need to be rewritten a short time in the future when a page for him becomes even more necessary than it is now. Also, about your comments concerning fanbase...I mean no offense by this, but podcast authors are not actors. They don't have nearly the same type of popularity as actors do. Is wikipedia not an online encyclopaedia for the people? Why, when an actor has a fanbase, would you not supply that fanbase with the necessary information concerning said actor. Its baffling to me that this article is even being considered for deletion. It is not meaningless drivel, it is not purposeless, it is an information resource concerning a rising stars career to date, something which can, and WILL be useful to many fans, movie buffs and other people for a very long time. When Sam Keeley stops working, stops acting... then, and only then will I accept that this article isn't worthy of a place on this site, but for right now, deletion would not only be rash and unthinking, but completely inconsiderate to all fans out there that want this article to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. I beg to differ on the fanbase for podcast authors. There are some out there that had such a large fanbase that they actually ended up becoming published authors, such as Scott Sigler. He does all of his main publishing through podcasting and his paper books all started as podcasts that did so well that a publisher picked them up. There are other podcast authors such as Phil Rossi that don't pass notability guidelines for this site, yet have enough of a fanbase that they're able to live off of the donations they get from said fanbase. It's a different type of area, but the premise is the same. Being an actor doesn't automatically give you notability and having 10 roles or 100 roles does not automatically bestow notability either, nor does time served. Also, we can't predict what will happen in Keeley's future. He might go on to become the next Orlando Bloom or he might fade away from the public eye. We can't predict the future and we can't keep an article because he might eventually pass notability guidelines one day. That goes against WP:CRYSTAL. What we need here are reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument for keeping a page because something can be useful but still not pass notability guidelines. We could talk until the sun goes down and comes back up, but at the end of it all we'll still need those reliable sources to prove notability. Regardless of whether or not he'll one day be more famous or how useful this is, notability is shown through reliable sources. It'd be nice if we could keep every article, but there are guidelines to follow as far as notability goes. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Although if you want, you could ask if you could WP:USERFY the article if it gets deleted. That will allow you to not only work on the article but also add reliable sources to it until it passes notability guidelines. Again, it's the reliable sources that will probably end up keeping this article from being kept. You need sources that are independent of Keeley and aren't business industry listings, IMDb pages, or entries that merely show he acted in something. A reliable source would be a news interview with Keeley or a media interview from someone that's considered to be notable and reliable. (For example, even the Daily Mail in all its tabloid glory could be considered a reliable source as long as it focused on Keeley.) Articles that merely quote Keeley or only mention that he acted in something don't really count as reliable sources, just trivial ones. Anything released by him or his agents doesn't count as a reliable source proving notability since it came from a primary source. I hope this helps in explaining why the article is up for deletion and why the lack of reliable sources will be what might ultimately get it removed. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Keep - he has form and is notable already. Red Hurley ( talk) 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- But we still need reliable sources to show that he's notable. He might have starred in things that have gotten media attention, but unless we have something that is focusing on him, he doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Notability is not transferred from or inherited by working on a notable film or with another notable person. We need reliable sources and they just aren't here in this article and I can't find any. If anyone can find enough reliable sources then I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just can't find any and that's really my only big thing about this AfD- the lack of reliable sources. Just be aware that as long as the article lacks reliable sources per WP:RS, this article will always be tagged for notability and it'll probably end up going to AfD again. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited from films in which he plays small roles. An assertion of a fan base does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. Lagrange 613 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Lagrange613 has it right. Subject's one starring role was in a small, independent film. Otherwise, appeared on a single episode of a TV series and a couple of tiny film roles. The lack of evidence for notability is thus unsurprising. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr Fuddlesticks
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Mr Fuddlesticks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is largely a WP:ONEEVENT situation. It's not about a specific individual but it covers several living people in a negative light and doesn't really have any lasting notability. Received trivial local news coverage. v/r - T P 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Smells stronly like an attempt to prolong the embarrassment for the subjects of a one-day news story. "The blogosphere was abuzz..." -- oh, brother! EEng ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I have a feeling I'll be voting "delete", but I'm going to at least try to clean this article up first to see if there's anything here worth keeping. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete. I hemmed and hawed over this because while there has been several news stories about this, I think that this qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT. There might be some issues of freedom of speech, but this just hasn't really gone all that far or gotten that much attention, all things considering. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, but this just doesn't seem to have any lasting notability at this time. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- — Dugn8r ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep.I think this should play out. This is an issue of free speech and this case will have far-reaching implications for years to come. -- Dugn8r ( talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so?
EEng (
talk)
04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is sort of a tricky area because it has the potential to become something more notable, but it just isn't there yet. Free speech doesn't always guarantee big press. Phillip Greaves and his pedophile guide is a great example of this. While repugnant, his guide technically fell under "free speech" and many people were predicting that his trial would turn into a huge media event where freedom of speech was going to be under debate. But that never happened and the entire case was quietly settled and Greaves was never heard of again. The same premise is going on here. You have something that has gotten a bit of news promotion and free speech is being banded about, but you can't really predict how it will end. Maybe it'll become more widely known, maybe it won't. We can't predict it, so we have to judge on whether it is notable now, not whether or not it'll be notable later on down the line. ( WP:CRYSTAL) Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so?
EEng (
talk)
04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. If it becomes more notable, the article can always be recreated (and is more likely to be in any case).
- Please KEEP the City of Renton is abusing their power not just in this case but in MANY cases. They might be next on the Department of Justices investigation hit list. Their abuse of power must be stopped. They think they are above the law and removing this only furthers that idea. Please leave it there to see how it plays out and as reminder that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions! -- (comment left on this AfD's Talk by user Nagem319 [1])— Nagem319 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC).
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for either side of the issue and we cannot keep a page because something may or may not happen. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. I dislike people abusing their authority as much as the next person (it's a sore point of mine), but we cannot keep something unless it is shown to pass notability guidelines. We're not an advocate for either side and we can't keep a page just to make a point against anyone. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete as not a notable event. Its geographical scope is limited to Renton, Washington, a town of 90,000. Coverage doesn't seem to have lasted much beyond the initial news cycle. It may be too soon to judge its eventual impact, but for now it's had little. Happy to revisit without prejudice at deletion review if more comes of this. Lagrange 613 17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure.
Mark Peterson-Perez
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. reddogsix ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mark Peterson-Perez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. reddogsix ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment - I added several front page news stories direcly about the individual in response to the "minor activist" and "passing reference" objection. Ghits and Gnews hits are lacking because the main sources are not online. PPdd ( talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd ( talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual. You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. reddogsix ( talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added four front page news sources directly about the subject in response to your comment. PPdd ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong.
PPdd (
talk)
03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I only see 36 GHits and 1 GNEWs for "Mark Peterson-Perez" and 57 GHits and 1 GNEWS for "Mark Petersen-Perez". reddogsix ( talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I get "About 2,900 results (0.08 seconds)" for "Mark Petersen-Perez" and "About 118 results (0.09 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez". With the incorrect spelling, I get "1 result (0.24 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez", and "1 result (0.31 seconds) "for 'Mark Peterson-Perez'".
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong.
PPdd (
talk)
03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location ( talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS [11] put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd ( talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.
- Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location ( talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)
- 2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd ( talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 ( talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Striken comment and discussion of it
|
|---|
|
|
- Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
- "Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.
- "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy
- Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.
- Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues. ManicalCritic ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
KeepComment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite ( talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however.
Carrite (
talk)
16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd ( talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however.
Carrite (
talk)
16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Collapse Soapboxing by anonymous editor unrelated to AFD discussion
|
|---|
|
- Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
- Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(add to top of list)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Alma-Atinskaya
- Alma-Atinskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL. Proposed stations do not get an article on Wikipedia. Artem Karimov ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A lot of things wrong with this. Firstly,
WP:CRYSTAL applies to unverified speculation. Even verified speculated topics can have articles. But in this case, it actually is verified.
[23]. To boot, it is long-standing practice that rail stations are considered notable and, in addition to the aforementioned article,
this other one lends the topic to passing even the letter of WP:GNG. --
Oakshade (
talk)
05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Existing stations are notable, not projects. Artem Karimov ( talk) 11:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Projects, like this, can be notable. Even proposed projects can be notable. -- Oakshade ( talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, neither "long-standing practice" nor a couple of brief blurbs make something notable. Only in-depth coverage does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- since this is due to open next year, it or at least the railway is presumably already under construction. That is substantial enough not to be caught by WP:CRYSTAL, in my view. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, I would concur that stations that are under construction or are scheduled to open soon on lines that are under construction are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The station is currently being constructed, so its existence is not a matter of speculation. Goudzovski ( talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for my bad English :) This station isn't "proposed" as nominator said! This station is building now. There are some sources to prove my words. Firstly, you can see article in Russian Wikipedia, in which there are 4 photos of building of the station. On the one of these photos you can find that station will be open in 2012 (I made these photos in August) Also Alma-Atinskaya station was visited by
Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow. He said that this station will be open in time (in the end of 2012, probably in December).
- It's good luck that I live in this district of Moscow, where station was building (ever my nickname connected to this district!
). After passing my exams, I can make another photos, in which all users can understand that the process of building the station continues! And now - Keep this article. --
Brateevsky (
talk to me)
18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's good luck that I live in this district of Moscow, where station was building (ever my nickname connected to this district!
- Keep: per Goudzovski-- Sabri76' talk 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.