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 Speedy Delete per G6. MrKIA11 ( talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Winklevoss twin (disambiguation)
- Winklevoss twin (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary disambig page, see Winklevoss twins SpeakFree (talk) 20:11, 8 May 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 speedy delete by WP:CSD#G12 of [1]. lifebaka ++ 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Tom Cruise Picture
- Tom Cruise Picture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, have secondary sources used the term "Tom Cruise Picture" or "Tom Cruise Forumla"? -- Cirt ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article would be better off if it was renamed to Analysis of Tom Cruise films. After all, it is not information about a new film with Tom Cruise but an analysis of films with Tom Cruise in it. GVnayR ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the mainstay of the text was lifted from
here. Copyright issue?
Asnac (
talk)
17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Response - the wording of the text could be altered to avert copyright issues. GVnayR ( talk) 17:23, 8 May 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. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Allan Dearing
- Allan Dearing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Subject is a reporter at a radio station. The show he reports on won a regional RTNDA award, but he personally did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKT ( talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The award does not appear to be a significant one, and in particular, the source that shows he won it is a press release. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:33, 9 May 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 in 12 days. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
List of bus routes in Central Suffolk
AfDs for this article:
- List of bus routes in Central Suffolk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was nominated for deletion in March, and the result was "no consensus". I believe that the article continues to merit deletion. It is almost entirely unsourced, except for a link to a petition (not a reliable source) which does not even mention most of the bus routes listed in this article. It appears to violate the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear to be organized in a way that would actually help someone who wanted to take a bus from one specified location to another specified location in this region. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to article covering the whole of Suffolk, per my reasoning last time, with the caveat that such merged article must not use colour-coded text in violation of WP:COLOUR. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is has created one therefore this page should NOT BE DELETED untill the page is made. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It would help if the nominator could say what has changed in the relatively short time since the previous discussion, other than the decision not going the way they wanted?
Sergeant Cribb (
talk)
17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not so much what has changed, as what hasn't changed. The last AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin wrote, "I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere." It hasn't been noticeably improved; it was unsourced then, and it still is unsourced. Nor has it been combined elsewhere. --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- In context, that sentence was "I encourage a merger discussion, however, per Redrose64, and I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere". Would it not have been best to initiate the merge discussion first? RichardOSmith ( talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not so much what has changed, as what hasn't changed. The last AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin wrote, "I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere." It hasn't been noticeably improved; it was unsourced then, and it still is unsourced. Nor has it been combined elsewhere. --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The merge option was a vote for keeping the material - the burden is on those who voted keep/merge to take action to save the material since they have failed to do so, a second AfD is justified Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with RichardOSmith. Respect the previous close, please, and have the merger discussion before coming back here. Consensus can change, but in the few weeks since the last AfD, it probably hasn't.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic. There is no evidence of notability for any of these routes and what are those school buses doing there for goodness sake? Fails on WP:Notability and WP:Notguide at the very least. It is unsourced and appears to be pure original research. Wikipedia should not be providing this type of information which is likely to become outdated and could put us in the morally reprehensible position of misinforming the public.-- Charles ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of the article is original research. Everything on there has sources, but it is not easy to use PDFs as sources. Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's unsourced, but perfectly sourceable; the source being Suffolk County Council Passenger Transport Unit,
here. This also kills off the "original research" argument and explains what the school bus stuff was doing there.
It's unencyclopaedic but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. We're also a gazetteer, among other things (see the first pillar), and this is content that belongs in a gazetteer.
Notability, of course, requires multiple independent secondary sources. Because of our gazetteer function, there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes, and it will be trivial for a Suffolk-based user to source this list to maps.
Wikipedia risks its content becoming out of date, and thereby misinforming the public, all the time, every day, across a vast range of topic areas, and it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that we should delete content for this reason.— S Marshall T/ C 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to hold off on commenting but to be honest your repeated claims at AfDs require comment. Obviously you can quote some general purpose (i.e; not sector specific such as the NPTG) gazetteer that lists the Bus Routes of Central Suffolk as part of it's data? General gazetteers tend to stop at Village level rarely going to list the neighbourhoods of a village - and recent discussion of our gazetteer function on the village pump (policy) consensus was that the limit of our gazetteer function was only communities recognised by the government anything smaller than that would have to stand on individual notability. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_79#Notability_of_cities.2C_towns.2C_and_neighborhoods If you believe that the bar on gazetteer status extends as far down as Bus routes (as you continue to claim) then show me a consensus that agrees with that position. Secondly you claim that "there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes" again this is misrepresentation - consensus is that *some* maps *might* be secondary sources but it depends on the map and how it is used. In the last AfD the Colchester one you were the only person to claim that the map there could be used to establish notability and even other editors who voted keep disagreed with you, additionally I raised your POV at RFC where the response was that even if the council is independent we cannot be sure the map is secondary it may be a primary source by an independent organisation see also Wikipedia:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent. I think potentially a bigger issue than Charles out of date argument if that these lists may be considered a WP:COPYVIO of the timetables that these lists are being copied from as they are essentially only derivative works of those lists. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The most substantive issue you raise is whether a bus timetable's copyrightable. It's a reasonable question to ask. I personally doubt it—insufficient sweat of the brow—but I do suggest that you raise the matter on WT:CP so that we can be sure. As for the discussions you link, on the subject of gazetteers (as with most other subjects) I've always tended to agree more with administrator Postdlf and less with now-banned user Gavin.collins. User Whatamidoing is usually worth listening to and I often agree with her, but in this specific case (about maps) she is wrong. Maps are secondary sources. The primary source is the aerial photography on which the map is based. And finally, if you wish to claim that bus routes should be excluded from Wikipedia's gazetteer function, then I suggest that you should begin an RFC on the subject. At the moment it is custom and practice that lists of bus routes are acceptable on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that we have so many of them.— S Marshall T/ C 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aerial Photography has no bearing in whether maps are secondary sources about bus routes as the route itself is not visible on aerial photography (unlike a fixed infrastructure public transport system) - that information is gathered in some other way (either provided by the bus company or physically collected by the mapping company) and in that case whatamIdoing is correct. In the case of Colchester you were arguing for the use of a map that was figurative and not based on aerial photography at all.
- We already have the substantial RFC still open on the subject of lists of Bus Routes, I linked to it above - consensus is toward these routes being removed from wikipedia's gazetteer function unless they can clearly meet the GNG without the extremely liberal interpretation of source material that you favour . Despite twice having the RfC reach expire we have no admin close as yet - despite a request for such on ANI.
- An other stuff exists argument does not mean that this list should exist - up until the AfDs of articles by Adam, Rcsprinter, and Wilbysuffolk AfD's of lists such as there overwhelmingly closed as delete except for a few high profile examples such as London (nominated twice, kept twice) or a few pushed to no consensus as these have. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Responding to your first paragraph first, the map is not being used as a source for each individual bus route. Per
WP:AOAL point #8, individual items on a list don't have to be separately notable. Rather, the map is being used as a source for the list as a whole. It indicates that bus routes run through central Suffolk, and thus it is appropriate for Wikipedia to list them. Thus, the map is a secondary source, because the primary source, the aerial photography, will show the bus stops.
In response to your second paragraph, I do not see a clear consensus in the discussion, and I suspect this is why no administrator has closed it as if there were. Rather, what we have are stale discussions showing that there is, fundamentally, little agreement between editors about how these matters should be handled. Where there is no consensus, we don't remove material from the encyclopaedia, so the lack of consensus favours my position.
The "other stuff exists" argument is part of WP:ATA, which is not a policy or guideline. It's an essay that I'm free to disregard. When it suits me, I habitually do disregard it. WP:ATA isn't a coherent or logical argument, it's just a shopping list of things that some editors think other people shouldn't be allowed to say. I see no reason to pay any attention to it.— S Marshall T/ C 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was rather rambling, 1. I never claimed anywhere that individual routes need to be notable, 2. Maps also show sewer lines in central Suffolk it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to list them because their existence on a map does not make them notable. 3. Can you see a 3inch diameter pole even with a sheet of metal sticking out of it from an aerial photograph - no is the answer - Some Stops may have obvious road markings or an obvious shelter but in general aerial photography is not use to map the actual route - rather the Primary source route data is overlaid on the road data taken from aerial photograph - The Bus data still remains primary in this process.
- Only MickMacNee and after restoration from the archive Wnt support the existence of these lists with some neutral commentators, the consensus is clearly against although the debate remains in how we deal with them (wholesale deletion or replacement with prose article covering the actually notable subject related to the list.) I will ask for a close again at ANI.
- I see no reason to pay any attention to it. - Well feel not to pay attention, but it is good advice - this article should be judged on it's own merits not on the fact that another article does have merit in remaining. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep then merge Per Redrose. This page should stay here untill list of bus routes in suffolk is made. Please tell me how this page is not notable. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Without causing offence, could I ask you to consider being mentored by WormThatTurned as Adam and Rcsprinter already have. Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia asking how often have reliable secondary sources "noted" the subject. This is different from real world notability where everyone within that region may "know" the routes and consider them notable. For suffolk I can find no sources that are both reliable and secondary - in fact I'm getting more sources for Suffolk county NY than for the UK county. If instead of sources discussing simply the routes; we find sources generally duscussing Bus Transport in the region rather than specifically discussing routes in the region (and perhaps only making trivial mention if the routes) then articles for that region should only be general overviews of Bus Transport in the region with small mention of routes - we should most certainly not be creating articles simply on the basis that that region has a bus system so it's routes must be notable. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. I realise they are completly not notable as I have given up on them quickly. I also find them horribly boring to make. I do realise this page is not notable and should be merged into the List of bus routes in suffolk when it gets made or deleted. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel directory - that is why Wikitravel exists. Wikipedia is not a place for bus/trane spotters - that is exactly why Wikia was created. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Simple Bob essentially. Personally an article on Suffolk bus routes is pushing it in my book as well if all it does is list stuff. Give me some text with some examples of routes and a link to an external site where I can find the information from and I'm happy to have it. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep Page is notable as it contains several towns, many of which are well known. I have read through the comments and have been improving the page as much as possible. If anyone could help with using PDFs as references, then please contact me as I am not sure myself.
Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Don't those towns already have their own articles? That would seem to me to establish only the notability of the settlements, not of the bus route. The settlements have several lists of their own already. Don't they? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they do all have their own articles, but I have been told before, that a list of bus routes is notable, if the town is notable or famous itself. Adam mugliston Talk 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It would be really helpful to be able to find that precedent then. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is somewhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester, but I'm not quite sure. Adam mugliston Talk 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I see a reference to a population of the city being >100,000. Now, I sort of know Leiston quite well and it doesn't really come close to that :-) Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per it not being original research, not being inappropriate for Wikipedia (as with all these nominations it would be good if the nominator could actually say how it fails WP:NOTDIR), not being unsourceable, and there having been insufficient time or action since the previous AfD for anything to have changed. It may be better to merge this with other article(s), but AfD is not the place to have that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the nom, but I would say that Notdir links to
directory for it's definition, which is;
...a repository or database of information which is heavily optimized for reading...
- I'm not the nom, but I would say that Notdir links to
directory for it's definition, which is;
- This is simply a database of Bus Routes optimized for reading - no more encyclopaedic than databases of Patent Filings which are given as an example of what not to create. On your latter point - as I've said above; merging was a reason to keep this information and should have been undertaken by those wishing to keep in the last AfD . As they failed to do that, it is reasonable to consider all options and AfD is a place where Mergers, Userfications, Renames as well as Deletes can be discussed. Perhaps the process should be renamed
Articles for Discussion to match the process for categories.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Articles for discussion" has been proposed several times and the history of those proposals is too complicated for me to summarise here. However as it stands, AfD is not currently articles for discussion, and so it should not be treated as such.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are two different issues here. In order to initiate a request for a merge, one should not go to AfD, but instead follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Merging. On the other hand, WP:AFD makes it clear that a merge is a potential outcome of an AfD, if an article is nominated for deletion but the consensus among the AfD participants is to merge. Recommending a merge as one's recommendation in an AfD is common and not a problem. In this case, I actually did believe the page under consideration should be deleted (not merged), and I still do. However, I recognize that depending on how this AfD goes, it might wind up being merged instead. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Articles for discussion" has been proposed several times and the history of those proposals is too complicated for me to summarise here. However as it stands, AfD is not currently articles for discussion, and so it should not be treated as such.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is simply a database of Bus Routes optimized for reading - no more encyclopaedic than databases of Patent Filings which are given as an example of what not to create. On your latter point - as I've said above; merging was a reason to keep this information and should have been undertaken by those wishing to keep in the last AfD . As they failed to do that, it is reasonable to consider all options and AfD is a place where Mergers, Userfications, Renames as well as Deletes can be discussed. Perhaps the process should be renamed
Articles for Discussion to match the process for categories.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that there was insufficient time or action since the preceding AfD for anything to have changed. The time that had passed since closing of the prior AfD was 38 days, and the article had received approximately 27 edits during that time. However, no sources were added. In fact, since this new AfD began, the article has gone from having one unreliable source to zero sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to Blue Square Thing, I am now able to reference this article. Within a few days, every route in this article will be referenced. Adam mugliston Talk 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify Adam, are these you have all primary sources such as timetables for verifying facts or do you have independent secondary sources required for establishing the notability of the subject? Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- These timetables are all from the County Council website and I have seen several lists of bus routes only containing a link to the county council's transport departament. Adam mugliston Talk 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Which raises an interesting point (imo). If the list is available off-wiki, as this one is, I tend to think that a summary article - i.e. using text in those sentence and paragraph things - is worth considering, perhaps with a brief bullet list of major routes if necessary. People can then look at the SCC site nice and simply. This, of course, has the added advantage that less work creating and then maintaining is required - with a lower probability that the article becomes hideously dated at some point in the future. That's an argument, imo, for an effective deletion in my book, although with the interesting content retained. Given that there's likely to have been local press coverage of bus route closures etc... you've then got your notability that you'll always struggle with in a list form. My 2 euros worth anyway. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the links to timetables are on various pages of the SCC webistes, so there isn't one complete list anywhere.
Adam mugliston
Talk
17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @BST: It's worth reading through the AFD of Adam's article listing routes in Colchester Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester we gave him the same advice that you do here - Write a prose article based on the general subject of bus transport in the town/region (which in that case was justified in notability by sources on that subject); Adam continued to claim the article was moving toward that position but has remained an unencyclopaedic list. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Stuart.Jamieson: I don't necessarily want to discuss other articles here, but Colchester is definetly moving towards a more prose article, but the list will remain. Adam mugliston Talk 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Adam - aren't they all on this page though? Sure, the individual timetables can be linked, but you run the risk, amongst other things, of the urls for them changing every six months or so. Honestly, I really think the workload in that case is way past the cost:benefit. As an aside, I'm not sure I recognise Leiston, Sax, Aldeburgh and Southwold (at least) as being in Central Suffolk. I imagine we probably need to move swiftly to a Bus routes in Suffolk article which is prose based. I'd strongly suggest that that would be a better use of time. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Stuart - No, they're not, some are on another Suffolk on Board page, some on Customer Service Direct. Adam mugliston Talk 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Can you show us where exactly? Sorry, but I can't find them based on that information. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the links to timetables are on various pages of the SCC webistes, so there isn't one complete list anywhere.
Adam mugliston
Talk
17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. [3], [4] and [5]. Adam mugliston Talk 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, last one's a school bus searchable thingy. I really don't see how this is ever going to be a reference for anything - it might be an external link possibly, but never a reference. The second one is a very useful reference for a text-based article about bus routes because it summarises changes, but it's got no timetable information on it that the first link - which is the same one I included above - has. Which brings me back to my previous point - from a pure timetable point of view, they all seem to be in one place pretty much. Link to there rather than trying to include a shed load of information which will just get out of date and be a pain in the elbow to change ever six months Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a searchable thingy, but it is a reference, because when the route code is typed in, a PDF file can be loaded containing the timetable (see the reference for route 552). Adam mugliston Talk 17:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a reference because I can't possibly verify information by looking at the page itself. It's a tool I can use, sure. A useful tool no doubt, but the page itself won't tell me the information I need directly - you might use it to find a reference for the 552, but the 55s is also linked from the first page - the one with all the timetables on it. That's the core page in all of this. Again, as an external link, perhaps, it might have some use, but not as a reference. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you are not local and do not know the bus routes around here. I am not critisising this but I realise I need to explain. The 55s on the first page are only 551 and 552, 558 is not a school bus and the rest of the school buses require the CSD page. A link to the PDF timetable will be provided. Adam mugliston Talk 17:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
*Typo - 55s should be 552. If you're going to argue that dedicated school buses are notable enough to be included in any form on wiki then I'm afraid I would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
18:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- All I am saying is that school buses could be included into a local bus route list and that they are referencable. Adam mugliston Talk </small> 18:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- How are they notable? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well why are London's school bus routes notable? Adam mugliston Talk 18:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are not. They are listcruft and "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument.-- Charles ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You keep on accusing me of using 'Other Stuff Exits' all the time and falsely every time. For you bus routes may not be notable and for me, let's say types of cow, aren't notable. Does that mean I can nominate an article about a type of cow for deletion? Adam mugliston Talk 19:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You just did use the "other stuff exists" argument re. London bus routes and you have often done so before. It is not about what you or I regard as important but about WP guidelines.-- Charles ( talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they have any notability at all it's because as far as I can tell they're open to public use as well. Some school bus services in Suffolk are, or have been in the past (Eastern Counties used to operate at least two of the Leiston High School buses as standard services which only ran M-F during term time on their standard Sax - Aldeburgh route). Most aren't - a coach which picks up only school kids along it's route isn't a standard public bus service. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Charles - In that case can you show me a point (not just a link an exact point) in the guidelines where it says Lists of bus routes aren't notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing - Yes, some still are public services, but I still don't see the problem in including them into a list where there are other routes more notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You want to include buses which no-one other than school kids can get on in a wikipedia article just because they exist? Not because they show any notability whatsoever, but just because they exist? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well in my mind and several other peoples' minds, they are notable. Of course there are many people in whose they won't. Like I mentioned for me types of cow aren't notable, as for you school bus routes aren't. Adam mugliston Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @BST To quote adam I am a bus maniac, but only for routes and timetables. I'm not interested in what kind of bus it is, just where it goes. I can tell you all of the bus routes with timetables around where I live so the answer to your question would be yes he does want to add every bus route in the UK even buses which no-one other than school kids can get on because that interests him irrespective of whether the subject in notable.
- @Adam our notability guideline says if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. So are there reliable third party sources on the subject of Bus Routes in Suffolk, can I get a book from the library specifically about Bus Routes in Suffolk, Has a Newspaper written an article discussing the subject of Suffolk Bus Routes as a collective group? The answer is no - This subject does not meet our notability threshold, and should be deleted. Despite being mentored, it appears that you still fail to grasp the concept that personal opinions of what is or is not notable do not affect Wikipedia inclusion criteria where notability is based on whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart, can you please stop using quotes from mine and Rcsprinter's private talk page, as you do not know the context of the quote. That relates to my hobby, free-time, not on Wikipedia. What I don't understand about Wikipedia is why do we have to keep on deleting pages. It's not like we're gonna run out of space or something and just because a bunch of people who think children should not edit Wikipedia or that bus routes shouldn't be on Wikipedia think that the article should be delete, they delete it for the load of other people who may want to see it. What is the problem with just leaving pages, which are properly made and on which disagreement with deletion is likely, because there are people who will read it and people who don't like it? That way, I could delete every page I don't like on here (which I obviously won't do). Adam mugliston Talk 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Try
WP:FIVE.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- As my interest in cattle breeds has been raised perhaps an analogy would help. Cattle breeds are equivalent to makes and models of bus and are similarly notable. There may be a small number of farms important to the improvement of a breed that would be notable in a prose article just as there a few tourist bus routes that are considered notable. A list of all farms using a breed of cattle would not be notable or encyclopedic and the vast majority of suburban and small town bus routes are not notable.-- Charles ( talk) 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
*Adam, please be aware that with every edit you make you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Which means that as long as I properly attribute the quote, it can be used by anyone for any purpose and it is most certainly not "private" in any sense of the word. At the moment your editing and insistence in creating articles which are purely lists of bus routes exactly mirrors your hobby as stated in this quote - when I have reason to believe your two interests have diverged I will stop using this quote in relation to your editing. Generally I am an inclusionist voting keep on most AfD's I vote on; however I do vote delete on topics I feel are not helpful in the creation of a working encyclopaedia. The reason we should keep
Wikipedia:NOT is to reduce dilution of good article quality - consider would the subject be included in a formal paper encyclopaedia (regardless of paper limitations) or even as SMarshall claims formal paper Gazetteer - as I see no evidence that these would, they should not be included in this electronic one.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Folks, we're straying into a few comments on contributors rather than content here. While Stuart is technically right about the licensing position, what Adam has said on Wikipedia about his hobbies and interests is not relevant to this AfD. This AfD is about an article and the topic that the article aims to cover, not about Adam's hobbies or interests, nor even about Adam's choices of material to edit or articles to create. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Demiurge1000, whilst I appreciate that
arguments to avoid discourages
arguments to the person, I think that some comment on the editors is relevant in consideration of question "can the article be saved?" It seems reasonable for anyone who has not yet formed a clear opinion on the value of an article and who don't have access to sources to improve it themselves to ask the question of whether editors who are doing the bulk of the editing in this area have the ability and motivation to improve it in a way that outweighs the arguments for deleting the content. - Not a debate that should be had here but just saying...
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Charles - What I had meant to say, although I may not have worded it properly for which I apologise, is that as for you, bus routes aren't notable, as for me cattle breeds are not. What I am trying to explain is that notable for you will not equal notable for me or notable for any other user on Wikipedia, although all may be within WP guidelines.
- Demiurge1000, whilst I appreciate that
arguments to avoid discourages
arguments to the person, I think that some comment on the editors is relevant in consideration of question "can the article be saved?" It seems reasonable for anyone who has not yet formed a clear opinion on the value of an article and who don't have access to sources to improve it themselves to ask the question of whether editors who are doing the bulk of the editing in this area have the ability and motivation to improve it in a way that outweighs the arguments for deleting the content. - Not a debate that should be had here but just saying...
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing - I have looked through the link, thank you and I have to come to a conclusion that the red pillar, or the last one, actually supports my case. The title states that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia, as long as everything is done within reason. Using this, I think it is possible to argue that that means a list of bus routes can be notable, if there are other users who agree.
- @Stuart.Jamieson - Although my hobby and what I do on Wikipedia clash, I still do not want to put *every* bus route onto Wikipedia. I won't argue about school bus routes. If you think that that improves the notability of the page, I will be happy to delete thh school bus sections.
- Keep and Merge to an article covering bus routes for the whole of Suffolk. As has been pointed out already, the nominator has not explained how the topic of the article fails WP:NOTDIR; information of this nature could indeed be considered suitable for a gazetteer. The previous AfD already closed as No Concensus, and no stronger arguments have been made to justify simply repeating the AfD in the hope that this time deletion will be achieved. Yes it's true that the article has not been significantly improved since the last AfD, but the time period in question is very short, and no convincing reasons have been given to suggest that improvement is impossible or definitely won't happen. Another issue is that much of the discussion made favouring deletion of the article concentrates on the interests and editing behaviour of the article's creator. Such discussion is not at all relevant to whether this article should be kept, and should be disregarded. In this context, it's also concerning that of the four people arguing for deletion, one of them has been involved in canvassing inappropriately to votestack on another AfD of an article created by Adam, and one of them was responsible for posting Adam's personal details (subsequently oversighted) in a dispute related to an AfD of another article created by him. This does all seem to be getting a bit too personal at times. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lists of Bus routes fail WP:NOTDIR as suggested by the nominator because they fall into the same category as Radio Schedules and Patent filings - as types of Lists that are not to be created on wikipedia. I've also asked SMarshall and repeat the challenge to Demiurge to show a general purpose gazetteer that includes bus routes. Yes one or two specialist gazetteers do cover Bus routes and nothing else but WP:5P is that we contain elements of specialist gazetteers we are not a wholesale copy of them - elements would be the few routes and lists of routes that can be considered notable by our usual tests - none of which apply here. No one has shown that these routes individually or that this subject is notable in any meaningful way - so we should not have an article on it full stop. There are Alternative Outlets for this material notably the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia and WikiTravel so there is no need for us to host this information at this level of detail. In previous AfD's I have made suggestions to remove the lists and to encourage writing of well sourced articles on bus transport in the region (without any list) and if I believed that would happen I would consider voting for userfication but I no longer believe that would happen and is why debate on the editors creating/expanding these articles is relevant to keeping the article. On Demiurge,s statements above, I can't comment on Adam's "Outing" but the editor accused of Canvassing approached me in advance at that time looking for ways to bring a more consensus based interpretation of Policy into the debate (where SMarshall's left field interpretation was being repeated by a number of other inexperienced keep voters) whilst his attempts to achieve that were interpreted as votestacking it was not his intent and he apologised when informed that his messages were in fact being seen as Canvassing. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I, too, wish to bring a more concensus based interpretation of Policy into these debates; and I, too, think that everyone that !voted the same way as me in previous AfDs would be able to assist with that, and that everyone that !voted the opposite way to me in previous AfDs has a "left field interpretation" :-). But that doesn't mean I can go around messaging multiple of the people that !voted the same way as me about a new AfD, while messaging none of people who !voted the other way. However, I do accept the explanation that the editor concerned wasn't aware at the time that this was regarded as inappropriate canvassing. My comments on that past AfD incident here were merely intended to highlight some of the too-personal focus that has crept into many of these AfD discussions, something that's also evident in this one, with large parts of the discussion being about the article creator, not about the article or the article topic. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
13:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be your wish but it certainly isn't mine and I don't think it's Charles' either - When SMarshall made the claim about bus maps asserting the notability of the route system - he could provide no policy or noticeboard discussion that backed up that interpretation - so it is reasonable to open up the claim to further neutral discussion even if that discussion went against my personal vote on the AfD. The same is also true of the claim that Bus routes fulfil our gazetteer function despite not meeting the GNG this also needs policy or noticeboard discussion to back up the interpretation. Another reason that a personal focus has crept into this (and the other) debates is because of the responses the creator has made it Talkpages/on other noticeboards and in AfDs - Even his last post here, he again gave an argument that equated to subjects being notable because the editors creating/editing them feel them to be notable (though I do note he has since reworded this making reference to Wikipedia guideline but it wasn't in his original post.)Since his arguments are often based upon his beliefs (or in other cases his personal
ownership of articles) responding to his points is unfortunately often responding on him personally.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe we are all here to express our own opinions on the subject. My opinion/belief is what I had said previously and as I stressed a lot recently, I guarantee yours will differ. But, as we are here to commment on the article, not me, I think it is still possible to only comment on the article and its contents. If you wish to discuss my opinions/beliefs with me, feel free to do so on my talk page or by e-mail, but here, as Demiurge said, we should only comment on the contents of the article, by expressing our opinions/beliefs about it and its notability. Adam mugliston Talk 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be your wish but it certainly isn't mine and I don't think it's Charles' either - When SMarshall made the claim about bus maps asserting the notability of the route system - he could provide no policy or noticeboard discussion that backed up that interpretation - so it is reasonable to open up the claim to further neutral discussion even if that discussion went against my personal vote on the AfD. The same is also true of the claim that Bus routes fulfil our gazetteer function despite not meeting the GNG this also needs policy or noticeboard discussion to back up the interpretation. Another reason that a personal focus has crept into this (and the other) debates is because of the responses the creator has made it Talkpages/on other noticeboards and in AfDs - Even his last post here, he again gave an argument that equated to subjects being notable because the editors creating/editing them feel them to be notable (though I do note he has since reworded this making reference to Wikipedia guideline but it wasn't in his original post.)Since his arguments are often based upon his beliefs (or in other cases his personal
ownership of articles) responding to his points is unfortunately often responding on him personally.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good Lord. Well, thank you for that refreshing view, Stuart.Jamieson; this is the first time that I've been called an "inexperienced keep voter" by someone with less than two thousand edits! I'll take issue with the idea that using maps as sources for geographical articles is a "left field interpretation", as well. I believe it to be mainstream, normal practice and entirely uncontroversial.— S Marshall T/ C 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never said you were "inexperienced keep voter" I said that inexperienced keep voters were backing your position either repeating it verbatim or voting with a per SMarshall.
- experience at taking part in debate/forming consensus does not equal high edit count, some of the editors involved in the previous debates have high mainspace edit counts but low counts in other namespaces - hence my use of inexperienced.
- My own editcount is misleading, after my first edit in 2007 I misplaced my password and edited as an IP until late 2009 early 2010 when I rediscovered it. That IP was dynamic starting 149.x.x.x or something and I have no means to identify the edits let alone count them or associate them with this account.
- Maps being used a source to verify facts is routine. Claiming that something is notable simply because it appears on a map appears to be original and unique to you hence "Left field". If you can provide evidence that community consensus supports your interpretation I will gladly strike that comment - but everywhere I've looked, consensus is against that interpretation. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 08:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The type of map being used is significant.
Ordnance Survey maps (and similar) are highly accurate in their depiction of geographical features but never show bus routes; about the only bus-related information shown on them is the position of major bus stations (a symbol looking rather like this
but magenta not red,
as here). On the other hand, maps produced by the local authority with the specific intention of showing bus routes will do so in great detail but are otherwise geographically compromised, showing few streets where buses do not run; many buildings and other features may be omitted entirely,
as here - a map where the only buildings appear to be schools and railway stations. Going even further are maps
like this where there is no attempt at accurate geography - all the roads are shown as straight lines at 45° or 90° to each other, spaced in such a way as to allow all the bus stops to be represented. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The type of map being used is significant.
Ordnance Survey maps (and similar) are highly accurate in their depiction of geographical features but never show bus routes; about the only bus-related information shown on them is the position of major bus stations (a symbol looking rather like this
- Keep Lists of bus routes are customarily accepted on Wikipedia, and this one is so long, it would not easily fit onto the main page. Sebwite ( talk) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Customarily accepted" isn't a reason for keeping - in fact only 31% of these lists that have come to AfD have closed keep with 51% being deleted and the remaining 18% not reaching consensus. We currently have somewhere between 160 and 180 of these lists with a disproportionate number focusing on the counties of England (not the rest of the UK) and the East coast of the U.S.A. (Particularly counties/districts of N.Y. and N.J.) - for the rest of the world we "customarily" only list routes in major population centres and even then I would be voting to delete unless the article shows some notability through reliable secondary sources rather simply because the routes exist. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's really relevant anyway, but it isn't necessarily disproportionate for there to be more "bus routes" lists covering counties of England than other parts of the UK... there are, quite simply, a lot more counties, and a lot more bus routes, in England than in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The disproportion is between those counties and the rest of the world - not between those counties and the rest of the UK - even much larger nations and states don't have as many of these lists as England does.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart: Where can the details of the bus route lists that have gone to AfD be found? --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Metropolitan - our search facility is quite good; the statistics above were based on AfDs of articles with "List of Bus Routes" in them, but just using "Bus Routes" covers more bases.
a search for intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the total number of AfDs (currently 42)
a search for "result was delete" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as delete (currently 18 - 42%)
a search for "result was keep" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as keep (currently 6 - 14%)
a search for "no consensus" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs that failed to reach consensus (currently 9 - 21%)
- @Metropolitan - our search facility is quite good; the statistics above were based on AfDs of articles with "List of Bus Routes" in them, but just using "Bus Routes" covers more bases.
- I'm on the mobile just now, so can't say what the remaining 9 closed as some may have been merged or userfied. I suspect the closing admins have had to use a more complex closing statement to sum upthe debate. The previous statistics I gave for "List of Bus Routes" tallied exactly unlike this. Of course many other articles have been deleted through PROD and CSD that won't be counted here. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart: Where can the details of the bus route lists that have gone to AfD be found? --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
15:00, 19 May 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 Withdraw as recently created content fork of existing article.
Gjâma
- Gjâma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Irrelevant subject, 8 hits on Google books, sourced with you tube videos, partly on foreign language, without international references. Untranslatable with Google translate WhiteWriter speaks 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Vajtim. The topic has been on DYK and some parts from the Gjovalin Shkurtaj sources can be used on Vajtim.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooo, bravo, i didnt find that! Closing AfD, and merging. -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:43, 8 May 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 Deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as G3: Blatant hoax: G7: Author blanked). Mtking ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Jean moukarzel
- Jean moukarzel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No Indication that this person is notable (fails WP:GNG), no GNEWS hits. no content other than the info box and his picture. Mtking ( talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Absolutely no references, even changing the search terms to Maronite Lebanese Catholic Youth, Maronite Youth in Lebanon, all sorts of combinations of this. I had considered if the article was a possible contender for WP:USERFY, but it will really need to start from scratch again. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not Delete Jean Moukarzel is one of the rising stars in Lebanon. He's a member of one of the most prestigious management consulting firm and has graduated from Europe's best business school HEC Paris. Jean will soon become a Parliament member of the Lebanese Parliament representing the Metn region. Long live Jean Moukarzel, thanks for giving so much to your native country, Lebanon
- personal attack removed - Note to closing admin - I have removed a personal attack from the same ip editor who posted the above "do not delete" post. Mtking ( talk) 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - When this article was assessed all it had was a blank page and an infobox. If a tag such as {{Under construction}} had been placed on the article, then it would not have ended up here. Article and history now shows 20 edits and a BLP page with content and no references. Article may now likely survive AfD with {{uncategorized}} and {{references}} tags. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Still no indication passes either WP:GNG or WP:V. As a aside when I fist found the article the picture was of Michel Suleiman Mtking ( talk) 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete With no references and no seeming way to get any verifiable information, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. If, as the IP user asserts, the person is about to be notable, the article can be created from scratch from sources when they do appear. He iro 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
DeleteNo notability shown and nothing found by searching -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Struck - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC))- Comment In this edit, the original author replaced the content with "Time for the joke to end". Is that enough to make it a Speedy G3/G7? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I kinda read it as such when I reverted it earlier, but figured more seasoned heads would opine on it. I was in the process of trying to find the last good version of the article when you reverted to it right after my edit. It seems to meet the requirements of a hoax article to me. Delete away. He iro 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted - including a comment at WP:ANI, that's three who agree on G3/G7, so it's boldly gone -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the hoax creator and his IP? Should anything be done about them, warning? block? Ignore and deny? Dont often deal with the likes of this myself
He
iro
09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, looks like you are on it. Over and out,
He
iro
09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I've issued a warning - I think that should suffice for now -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, looks like you are on it. Over and out,
He
iro
09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the hoax creator and his IP? Should anything be done about them, warning? block? Ignore and deny? Dont often deal with the likes of this myself
He
iro
09:02, 9 May 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.
![[22]](/info/en/?search=File:Systembusmodel.png){kind=link}
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq ( talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Dick Crest
- Dick Crest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual does not meet the general notability guideline, there is are reliable sources establishing this subjects notability. This article seems to simply promote an unknown individual.
Thisbites (
talk)
06:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I rescind my nomination, upon further review he is of note for his role in NFL halftime shows, TV program, and due to press he has received. Thisbites ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep as nomination is rescinded. Article needs wikifying, although. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dick Crest was a significant contributor to the musical life of the San Francisco Bay Area, through his work as a music educator at the College of San Mateo and as a band leader at the popular Russian River resort of Rio Nido. Sallyrob ( talk) 18:54, 8 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Clay Sell
- Clay Sell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is a deputy secretary of energy notable enough? Most refs are quoting things he's said, not really about him. I think he's not notable enough for an article. The-Pope ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope ( talk) 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope ( talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd lean keep. Was interviewed by a San Diego newspaper, [26] and Interfax. [27] His move to Hunt Oil [28] also got coverage in Harper's. [29] And his frat and alma mater think he's famous :) [30] [31] [32] Fences& Windows 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Weak Keep- Have number of references in newspapers as seen in Google news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhi. mehta333 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Deputy Secretary is the #2 at a major government department. More often than not, it's the deputy who actually does the work. I'd argue the prominence of the position alone is sufficient, but in this case Fences and Windows also has coverage meeting WP:GNG as well. Ray Talk 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sumsum2010· T· C 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If he is important enough that the media regularly quotes things he has said then he is notable enough to have an article about him. While substantive coverage is the preffered way to establish notability, I think this should also count. Monty 845 06:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- comment: That view is probably the reverse of most people's view - I'd think that you need to have something published about the person, not just what they have to say about/on behalf of the company/department/organisation/etc that they represent. Having said that, if people think that this position is senior/important/respected enough to "automatically" convey notability, then I'm fine by that - I know little of the US government sector and understand that not everything is on google yet. The-Pope ( talk) 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - references found satisfy basic criteria for WP:People -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 9 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
After the Burial
- After the Burial ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band does not appear not have garnered any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does it seem to have met any of the other criteria of WP:BAND. Bongo matic 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very strong keep great band still rising and have 2 albums out through Sumerian. Sumerian Records have Bizzy Bone and Asking Alexandria on their roster, both these artists have achieved worldwide recognition and fame in the media and as to say for After the Burial's part, they have taken tour with several groups even bigger than those two. They are in Revolver, have a music video currently in development and are by the sorts have garnered a good fan base for fans of prog metal and/or metalcore alike. Deleting this article is out of the question. -- GunMetal Angel 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Seymour Duncan" the world famous guitar-pickup brand, is proud to have the guitarists Trent Hafdahl and Justin Lowe of After The Burial under their wings, along with many other artists like: Johnny Christ, Synyster Gates and Zacky Vengeance from Avenged Sevenfold, Bruce Kulick and Paul Stanley from Kiss, Mark Morton and Will Adler from Lamb of God, David Gilmour of Pink Floyd and last but not least Slash Hudson from Guns N' Roses and Velvet Revolver, just to mention a few.
- I see no reason in deleting this article, the band is well known worldwide for their technical metal music, very much equal to Born of Osiris, Veil of Maya and Periphery ( Sumerian Records), and is still growing. - ChristianTJ 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC +1 hour) Edit: 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC + 1 hour)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Guitar pickup endorsements don't constitute coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note, an article lacking sources does not mean the article is not notable, it just means no one has yet taken time to look through and establish information with the sources included to the article, Wikipedia is a work in progress after all. --
GunMetal Angel
05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reply I agree. But I don't see any sources and all indications are that this is a band that is still in the up and coming rather than arrived stage of their career. Noi prejudice to recreation when they do get the coverage but I just don;t see it now. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Weak keep. With two albums on Sumerian they should meet the inclusion criteria, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage in reliable sources. There is an Allmusic bio and a review, so while there would ideally be more sources than that, there is at least something on which to base the article.-- Michig ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Note also the Billboard chart placings.-- Michig ( talk) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sumsum2010· T· C 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A great band, known worldwide, has 3 released albums, and here's more sources to keep the page up: Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives - After the Burial and last.fm-After the Burial.--( Snkmad ( talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
- Unfortunately neither Encyclopaedia Metallum nor last.fm are reliable sources.-- Michig ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 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. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Family Forest
- Family Forest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Notability ( WP:GNG, perh. WP:CORPDEPTH), self-publicity ( WP:SPIP), neutrality ( WP:NPOV) and perhaps conflict of interest ( WP:COI). [AfD following removal of PROD, reason - "take to AFD please"] While Google Books turns up 8000 hits, when you remove the ones for which the owner is author, it drops to 1800, mostly irrelevant. Adding genealogy as keyword drops it to 88, and I didn't see any there that actually gave it coverage, as opposed to just using the trademark name. No hits in Google News. An orphan for over 2 years. Of the 11 references cited, all web URLs: 2 are redirecting to an irrelevant page, the original no longer being available; 4 are self-published or press releases; 3 (redundant) point to a page about George Bush being related to Hugh Hefner, and don't name the product/project/whatever it is; one is a review of a product on a non-notable blog; and one is in a reliable independent source, but it is an article about Sarah Palin being related to Alec Baldwin, only mentions Family Forest in passing, and consists almost entirely of quotes from the owner, so it debatably fails WP:SPIP. None of them give the Family Forest significant reliable independent coverage. The page was created and most of the material added by a single user, User:Ancestralmktg, whose activity has been limited almost exclusively to this one article. The whole thing just looks like an attempt at marketing publicity via Wikipedia. Agricolae ( talk) 06:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 ( talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with editing to remove unverified material and promotional tone. Contrary to nominator's summary, at least some of the references cited do appear to be substantial coverage from reliable sources [40] [41]. It's true that they mention the name of the company/project only once in the article, but the whole reference is about information derived from the project and quoting its founder/director. I believe this is notable; perhaps it could be renamed/redirected to the founder Bruce Harrison, who may be more notable than his company. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sum total that has found in reliable sources: "Bruce and Kristine Harrison founded the Family Forest Project in 1995, and since have mapped the ancestral histories of thousands of political leaders, celebrities and historical figures, as well as everyday people." The other supposed reference doesn't mention Family Forest, but instead "a group called Millisecond Publishing which puts out a line of ancestral history CDs from Waimea, Hawaii. . . . Harrison said his ancestry research program now has enough data to map generation-by-generation ancestral pathways to the ancestors of up to 2 billion people." OK, let's commit a
WP:SYN and conclude that this is really referring to Family Forest even though it doesn't say so. Even if I were to grant you that the whole articles are about 'the project', two whole articles over a 15 year period is not substantial coverage. (My sister's curio shop has gotten reported in the newspaper more frequently than that.) But I won't grant that. I don't accept that the articles are about the project, they are not. They are also not about Harrison - what I listed above is all they say about Harrison, which does no better at satisfying
WP:BIO notability. (And the quotes are just "Harrison says . . . " and "Harrison claimed . . . " which is no better than a press release in terms of fact-checking: they are admitting that they are taking his word for it.) Those two articles are about the findings, two entirely distinct findings. He sent out a press releases on a slow news day that said Politico P being related to Actor B, and later that Porn Publisher H was a distant relative of Politicos B and K, and someone said, "that's cute" and wrote a story about the relationships. The articles mention the project only to give context and called him up for some quotes, but there is no way you can call these two articles substantial coverage and have that term retain any meaning. (It is no different than when CNN reports on a scientific finding, and mention that the work was done by Joe Scientist in the Lab for Interesting Experimentation, where they have been studying the topic for several years. That story is about the finding, not about the scientist and not about the lab group, and neither of the latter two gain substantial notability from two such mentions in 15 years.) From
WP:CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." In those cites, that is all we get.
Agricolae (
talk)
17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it is the company or the person (and it looks to me like the person is more notable), they have generated a significant amount of press, and that is supposed to be the criterion here. Whether the stories were inspired by a press release or not is irrelevant; the stories were written by independent reliable sources. Whether their calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. "
WP:Verifiability, not truth". When your sister's curio shop gets written up at
MSNBC,
CBS News,
USA Today, and similar national sources, feel free to write an article about her. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, significant coverage, in depth is supposed to be the criterion. Significant. In Depth. The company has been named in passing in one article. The product in another. The man gets quoted in both, but the same can be said of the guy who has a tornado hit his house. Surely getting your name mentioned by a national news source twice in 15 years can't be how low the significance bar has dropped, can it? Again, the stories were no more about the project or about the man than a report about a scientific discovery (of the type found on CNN or BBC every week) is about the researcher or the lab - they always interview the graduate student who is the primary author of the study and that doesn't make the graduate student notable. Such coverage is insufficient to pass the WP:BIO bar, and that is all this guy got. As to the project, everything about the project in those two articles cannot possibly produce more than a stub, and as we have already seen, that lacks the depth required by WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not questioning the accuracy of this particular bit of esoterica. I just don't see how 'mentioned once or twice, briefly, to provide context for a story about something else' can be considered significant coverage in depth of the type required for notability for the company, the product or the man. The only thing that got notable coverage here was Genealogical relationship between Alec Baldwin and Sarah Palin, and Genealogical relationship between Hugh Heffner and Whoever, and we really don't need a Wikipedia article on a genealogical kinship. Agricolae ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it is the company or the person (and it looks to me like the person is more notable), they have generated a significant amount of press, and that is supposed to be the criterion here. Whether the stories were inspired by a press release or not is irrelevant; the stories were written by independent reliable sources. Whether their calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. "
WP:Verifiability, not truth". When your sister's curio shop gets written up at
MSNBC,
CBS News,
USA Today, and similar national sources, feel free to write an article about her. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just more genealogy hobbyists wasting our time. Srnec ( talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not many "genealogy hobbyists" make the national news! --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- They seem to, with the same type of story, every election cycle. That and the "the candidate with the 'best' royal descent always wins" nonsense that gets reported every election. Just like the latest guy who claims to have Bigfoot's head in his freezer, or claims to have a perpetual motion machine, and we have a page on perpetual motion machines, but not on each guy making the claim even though his name showed up in the newspaper. Agricolae ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not many "genealogy hobbyists" make the national news! --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - insufficient notability to meet WP:ORG. References are principally who is related to who; some references return a 404. Blog entries cited as references. As noted above, WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied by any references or search results. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:17, 8 May 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 Closed by nominator as Withdrawn.. Mtking ( talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2011 Imbaba Church Attacks
- 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not a news service (see wikinews), no indication of lasting noteworthiness, the coverage is all of a
WP:ROUTINE type.
Mtking (
talk) 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC) - I still firmly believe that this is not what WP is about, there is no indication that this is going to be of lasting significance, however this is going to be
WP:SNOW so I will withdraw
Mtking (
talk)
22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep (Strongly) This is not a news coverage, and I have no personal gain in creating the article. This is a very relevant event when it comes to Egyptian history, and will be long remembered. Also, the incident has been already covered by all major news agencies in the world. Please let me know how i can help improve the article to meet the standards of Wikipedia encyclopedia. -- Fire Green Horse ( talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Violent conflct between Muslims and Christians in Egypt that results in many deaths and destruction of churches is of a notability far beyond routine news coverage, especially given the broader context of widespread turmoil in the Arab world. These incidents have already received coverage in reliable sources and this article can be expected to develop and improve over time. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - subject of article has notability beyond news coverage with regard to inter-religious relations. Agree, article will acquire further notability when developed from this broader perspective. Article needs attention with regard to WP:NPOV -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Snow keep This is an important, notable incident. Patently worthy of an article. I.Casaubon ( talk) 13:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Snow Keep notable well-sourced topic. There is no reason to nominate an article for deletion only because you are unfortable with the fact that Islamic extremists are accused of vandalism. -- Reference Desker ( talk) 13:51, 8 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yunus Centre
- Yunus Centre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in reliable sources Artem Karimov ( talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As the personal office of a
Nobel Peace Prize laureate (
Muhammad Yunus) and one of two think-tanks related to
Social business, this should clearly be included in Wikipedia. Yunus Centre helped to set up all Social Business with major multinationals such as
Danone,
Veolia,
Intel,
Adidas or
BASF. Just have a look at their homepage or at one of the
44.000 Google hits. Or
see their 14,000 fans on Facebook --
Talebian (
talk)
06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Google hits or Facebook fans do not matter.
Reliable sources do.
Artem Karimov (
talk)
11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So which sources would then be reliable for a think tank in a developing country? Honestly speaking, you seem to lack understanding of these things. Did you ever think about the possibility of having to review each case individually instead of referring to some guidelines like an apparatchik? --
Talebian (
talk)
06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now that's a speculation. Можешь называть меня аппаратчиком, but WP:V and WP:RS apply the same for everyone and everything. Your rhethoric will not help the subject gain notability. Artem Karimov ( talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- So which sources would then be reliable for a think tank in a developing country? Honestly speaking, you seem to lack understanding of these things. Did you ever think about the possibility of having to review each case individually instead of referring to some guidelines like an apparatchik? --
Talebian (
talk)
06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Google hits or Facebook fans do not matter.
Reliable sources do.
Artem Karimov (
talk)
11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As the personal office of a
Nobel Peace Prize laureate (
Muhammad Yunus) and one of two think-tanks related to
Social business, this should clearly be included in Wikipedia. Yunus Centre helped to set up all Social Business with major multinationals such as
Danone,
Veolia,
Intel,
Adidas or
BASF. Just have a look at their homepage or at one of the
44.000 Google hits. Or
see their 14,000 fans on Facebook --
Talebian (
talk)
06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: That Mr. Yunus is notable no one would deny. That his personal think tank is notable is wholly unproven; of course the organization's website and Facebook page do not qualify as reliable sources. Rather than mere Google hits, if one is to do a search for links, I'd try Google News ... which only returns three hits about Muhammad Yunus himself, and which mention the center only as casual references. Ravenswing 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Once more, keep in mind that this is a think tank in a developing country - that's also why Google News is totally irrelevant. The Yunus Centre acts as the implementation think-do tank for all social businesses related to Grameen (as mentioned above: Danone, Intel etc.), but these companies will always mention the name of Prof. Yunus instead of the Yunus Centre. See
the new social business with Uniqlo here. Moreover, the Yunus Centre is responsible for the implementation of
Social business classes. See the reference at the
Asian Institute of Technology
here or, to mention an American example,
California State University Channel Islands
here. --
Talebian (
talk)
07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mere reference to the subject is not enough. There must be at least some coverage in reliable sources. There is none hence Yunus centre is not notable. Artem Karimov ( talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There is nothing in WP:V or WP:ORG which waives the policies' requirements of sourcing for organizations based in "developing" countries. WP:V's language is clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Talebian's energies would be better utilized uncovering reliable, independent, third-party sources (from a city which is the home, as to that, of four English-language newspapers of national circulation) which would validate this article rather than in exhortations to ignore Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or in violations of WP:CIVIL as happened above. Ravenswing 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep article about this notable organization and expand with information about the growing Yunus Centre operations in Bangkok, Glasgow and Abu Dhabi, described in
reliable sources, such as
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
- Now that is something. As soon as these RS are integrated into the article, this nomination can be delisted. Artem Karimov ( talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - as per reliable sources given above by unsigned contribution of Cullen328 . Yunnus himself is a well known microfinancer, the references listed above are independent of the subject and give coverage of the work of the Yunnus Centre. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:38, 8 May 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 Speedy Delete per G6. MrKIA11 ( talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Winklevoss twin (disambiguation)
- Winklevoss twin (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary disambig page, see Winklevoss twins SpeakFree (talk) 20:11, 8 May 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 speedy delete by WP:CSD#G12 of [1]. lifebaka ++ 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Tom Cruise Picture
- Tom Cruise Picture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, have secondary sources used the term "Tom Cruise Picture" or "Tom Cruise Forumla"? -- Cirt ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article would be better off if it was renamed to Analysis of Tom Cruise films. After all, it is not information about a new film with Tom Cruise but an analysis of films with Tom Cruise in it. GVnayR ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the mainstay of the text was lifted from
here. Copyright issue?
Asnac (
talk)
17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Response - the wording of the text could be altered to avert copyright issues. GVnayR ( talk) 17:23, 8 May 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. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Allan Dearing
- Allan Dearing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Subject is a reporter at a radio station. The show he reports on won a regional RTNDA award, but he personally did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKT ( talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — PK T(alk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The award does not appear to be a significant one, and in particular, the source that shows he won it is a press release. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:33, 9 May 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 in 12 days. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
List of bus routes in Central Suffolk
AfDs for this article:
- List of bus routes in Central Suffolk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was nominated for deletion in March, and the result was "no consensus". I believe that the article continues to merit deletion. It is almost entirely unsourced, except for a link to a petition (not a reliable source) which does not even mention most of the bus routes listed in this article. It appears to violate the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear to be organized in a way that would actually help someone who wanted to take a bus from one specified location to another specified location in this region. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to article covering the whole of Suffolk, per my reasoning last time, with the caveat that such merged article must not use colour-coded text in violation of WP:COLOUR. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is has created one therefore this page should NOT BE DELETED untill the page is made. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It would help if the nominator could say what has changed in the relatively short time since the previous discussion, other than the decision not going the way they wanted?
Sergeant Cribb (
talk)
17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not so much what has changed, as what hasn't changed. The last AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin wrote, "I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere." It hasn't been noticeably improved; it was unsourced then, and it still is unsourced. Nor has it been combined elsewhere. --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- In context, that sentence was "I encourage a merger discussion, however, per Redrose64, and I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere". Would it not have been best to initiate the merge discussion first? RichardOSmith ( talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not so much what has changed, as what hasn't changed. The last AfD discussion closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin wrote, "I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere." It hasn't been noticeably improved; it was unsourced then, and it still is unsourced. Nor has it been combined elsewhere. --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The merge option was a vote for keeping the material - the burden is on those who voted keep/merge to take action to save the material since they have failed to do so, a second AfD is justified Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with RichardOSmith. Respect the previous close, please, and have the merger discussion before coming back here. Consensus can change, but in the few weeks since the last AfD, it probably hasn't.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic. There is no evidence of notability for any of these routes and what are those school buses doing there for goodness sake? Fails on WP:Notability and WP:Notguide at the very least. It is unsourced and appears to be pure original research. Wikipedia should not be providing this type of information which is likely to become outdated and could put us in the morally reprehensible position of misinforming the public.-- Charles ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of the article is original research. Everything on there has sources, but it is not easy to use PDFs as sources. Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's unsourced, but perfectly sourceable; the source being Suffolk County Council Passenger Transport Unit,
here. This also kills off the "original research" argument and explains what the school bus stuff was doing there.
It's unencyclopaedic but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. We're also a gazetteer, among other things (see the first pillar), and this is content that belongs in a gazetteer.
Notability, of course, requires multiple independent secondary sources. Because of our gazetteer function, there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes, and it will be trivial for a Suffolk-based user to source this list to maps.
Wikipedia risks its content becoming out of date, and thereby misinforming the public, all the time, every day, across a vast range of topic areas, and it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that we should delete content for this reason.— S Marshall T/ C 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to hold off on commenting but to be honest your repeated claims at AfDs require comment. Obviously you can quote some general purpose (i.e; not sector specific such as the NPTG) gazetteer that lists the Bus Routes of Central Suffolk as part of it's data? General gazetteers tend to stop at Village level rarely going to list the neighbourhoods of a village - and recent discussion of our gazetteer function on the village pump (policy) consensus was that the limit of our gazetteer function was only communities recognised by the government anything smaller than that would have to stand on individual notability. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_79#Notability_of_cities.2C_towns.2C_and_neighborhoods If you believe that the bar on gazetteer status extends as far down as Bus routes (as you continue to claim) then show me a consensus that agrees with that position. Secondly you claim that "there's a consensus that maps are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purposes" again this is misrepresentation - consensus is that *some* maps *might* be secondary sources but it depends on the map and how it is used. In the last AfD the Colchester one you were the only person to claim that the map there could be used to establish notability and even other editors who voted keep disagreed with you, additionally I raised your POV at RFC where the response was that even if the council is independent we cannot be sure the map is secondary it may be a primary source by an independent organisation see also Wikipedia:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent. I think potentially a bigger issue than Charles out of date argument if that these lists may be considered a WP:COPYVIO of the timetables that these lists are being copied from as they are essentially only derivative works of those lists. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The most substantive issue you raise is whether a bus timetable's copyrightable. It's a reasonable question to ask. I personally doubt it—insufficient sweat of the brow—but I do suggest that you raise the matter on WT:CP so that we can be sure. As for the discussions you link, on the subject of gazetteers (as with most other subjects) I've always tended to agree more with administrator Postdlf and less with now-banned user Gavin.collins. User Whatamidoing is usually worth listening to and I often agree with her, but in this specific case (about maps) she is wrong. Maps are secondary sources. The primary source is the aerial photography on which the map is based. And finally, if you wish to claim that bus routes should be excluded from Wikipedia's gazetteer function, then I suggest that you should begin an RFC on the subject. At the moment it is custom and practice that lists of bus routes are acceptable on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that we have so many of them.— S Marshall T/ C 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aerial Photography has no bearing in whether maps are secondary sources about bus routes as the route itself is not visible on aerial photography (unlike a fixed infrastructure public transport system) - that information is gathered in some other way (either provided by the bus company or physically collected by the mapping company) and in that case whatamIdoing is correct. In the case of Colchester you were arguing for the use of a map that was figurative and not based on aerial photography at all.
- We already have the substantial RFC still open on the subject of lists of Bus Routes, I linked to it above - consensus is toward these routes being removed from wikipedia's gazetteer function unless they can clearly meet the GNG without the extremely liberal interpretation of source material that you favour . Despite twice having the RfC reach expire we have no admin close as yet - despite a request for such on ANI.
- An other stuff exists argument does not mean that this list should exist - up until the AfDs of articles by Adam, Rcsprinter, and Wilbysuffolk AfD's of lists such as there overwhelmingly closed as delete except for a few high profile examples such as London (nominated twice, kept twice) or a few pushed to no consensus as these have. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Responding to your first paragraph first, the map is not being used as a source for each individual bus route. Per
WP:AOAL point #8, individual items on a list don't have to be separately notable. Rather, the map is being used as a source for the list as a whole. It indicates that bus routes run through central Suffolk, and thus it is appropriate for Wikipedia to list them. Thus, the map is a secondary source, because the primary source, the aerial photography, will show the bus stops.
In response to your second paragraph, I do not see a clear consensus in the discussion, and I suspect this is why no administrator has closed it as if there were. Rather, what we have are stale discussions showing that there is, fundamentally, little agreement between editors about how these matters should be handled. Where there is no consensus, we don't remove material from the encyclopaedia, so the lack of consensus favours my position.
The "other stuff exists" argument is part of WP:ATA, which is not a policy or guideline. It's an essay that I'm free to disregard. When it suits me, I habitually do disregard it. WP:ATA isn't a coherent or logical argument, it's just a shopping list of things that some editors think other people shouldn't be allowed to say. I see no reason to pay any attention to it.— S Marshall T/ C 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was rather rambling, 1. I never claimed anywhere that individual routes need to be notable, 2. Maps also show sewer lines in central Suffolk it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to list them because their existence on a map does not make them notable. 3. Can you see a 3inch diameter pole even with a sheet of metal sticking out of it from an aerial photograph - no is the answer - Some Stops may have obvious road markings or an obvious shelter but in general aerial photography is not use to map the actual route - rather the Primary source route data is overlaid on the road data taken from aerial photograph - The Bus data still remains primary in this process.
- Only MickMacNee and after restoration from the archive Wnt support the existence of these lists with some neutral commentators, the consensus is clearly against although the debate remains in how we deal with them (wholesale deletion or replacement with prose article covering the actually notable subject related to the list.) I will ask for a close again at ANI.
- I see no reason to pay any attention to it. - Well feel not to pay attention, but it is good advice - this article should be judged on it's own merits not on the fact that another article does have merit in remaining. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep then merge Per Redrose. This page should stay here untill list of bus routes in suffolk is made. Please tell me how this page is not notable. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Without causing offence, could I ask you to consider being mentored by WormThatTurned as Adam and Rcsprinter already have. Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia asking how often have reliable secondary sources "noted" the subject. This is different from real world notability where everyone within that region may "know" the routes and consider them notable. For suffolk I can find no sources that are both reliable and secondary - in fact I'm getting more sources for Suffolk county NY than for the UK county. If instead of sources discussing simply the routes; we find sources generally duscussing Bus Transport in the region rather than specifically discussing routes in the region (and perhaps only making trivial mention if the routes) then articles for that region should only be general overviews of Bus Transport in the region with small mention of routes - we should most certainly not be creating articles simply on the basis that that region has a bus system so it's routes must be notable. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. I realise they are completly not notable as I have given up on them quickly. I also find them horribly boring to make. I do realise this page is not notable and should be merged into the List of bus routes in suffolk when it gets made or deleted. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel directory - that is why Wikitravel exists. Wikipedia is not a place for bus/trane spotters - that is exactly why Wikia was created. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Simple Bob essentially. Personally an article on Suffolk bus routes is pushing it in my book as well if all it does is list stuff. Give me some text with some examples of routes and a link to an external site where I can find the information from and I'm happy to have it. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep Page is notable as it contains several towns, many of which are well known. I have read through the comments and have been improving the page as much as possible. If anyone could help with using PDFs as references, then please contact me as I am not sure myself.
Adam mugliston Talk 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Don't those towns already have their own articles? That would seem to me to establish only the notability of the settlements, not of the bus route. The settlements have several lists of their own already. Don't they? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they do all have their own articles, but I have been told before, that a list of bus routes is notable, if the town is notable or famous itself. Adam mugliston Talk 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It would be really helpful to be able to find that precedent then. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is somewhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester, but I'm not quite sure. Adam mugliston Talk 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I see a reference to a population of the city being >100,000. Now, I sort of know Leiston quite well and it doesn't really come close to that :-) Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per it not being original research, not being inappropriate for Wikipedia (as with all these nominations it would be good if the nominator could actually say how it fails WP:NOTDIR), not being unsourceable, and there having been insufficient time or action since the previous AfD for anything to have changed. It may be better to merge this with other article(s), but AfD is not the place to have that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the nom, but I would say that Notdir links to
directory for it's definition, which is;
...a repository or database of information which is heavily optimized for reading...
- I'm not the nom, but I would say that Notdir links to
directory for it's definition, which is;
- This is simply a database of Bus Routes optimized for reading - no more encyclopaedic than databases of Patent Filings which are given as an example of what not to create. On your latter point - as I've said above; merging was a reason to keep this information and should have been undertaken by those wishing to keep in the last AfD . As they failed to do that, it is reasonable to consider all options and AfD is a place where Mergers, Userfications, Renames as well as Deletes can be discussed. Perhaps the process should be renamed
Articles for Discussion to match the process for categories.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Articles for discussion" has been proposed several times and the history of those proposals is too complicated for me to summarise here. However as it stands, AfD is not currently articles for discussion, and so it should not be treated as such.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are two different issues here. In order to initiate a request for a merge, one should not go to AfD, but instead follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Merging. On the other hand, WP:AFD makes it clear that a merge is a potential outcome of an AfD, if an article is nominated for deletion but the consensus among the AfD participants is to merge. Recommending a merge as one's recommendation in an AfD is common and not a problem. In this case, I actually did believe the page under consideration should be deleted (not merged), and I still do. However, I recognize that depending on how this AfD goes, it might wind up being merged instead. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Articles for discussion" has been proposed several times and the history of those proposals is too complicated for me to summarise here. However as it stands, AfD is not currently articles for discussion, and so it should not be treated as such.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is simply a database of Bus Routes optimized for reading - no more encyclopaedic than databases of Patent Filings which are given as an example of what not to create. On your latter point - as I've said above; merging was a reason to keep this information and should have been undertaken by those wishing to keep in the last AfD . As they failed to do that, it is reasonable to consider all options and AfD is a place where Mergers, Userfications, Renames as well as Deletes can be discussed. Perhaps the process should be renamed
Articles for Discussion to match the process for categories.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that there was insufficient time or action since the preceding AfD for anything to have changed. The time that had passed since closing of the prior AfD was 38 days, and the article had received approximately 27 edits during that time. However, no sources were added. In fact, since this new AfD began, the article has gone from having one unreliable source to zero sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to Blue Square Thing, I am now able to reference this article. Within a few days, every route in this article will be referenced. Adam mugliston Talk 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify Adam, are these you have all primary sources such as timetables for verifying facts or do you have independent secondary sources required for establishing the notability of the subject? Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- These timetables are all from the County Council website and I have seen several lists of bus routes only containing a link to the county council's transport departament. Adam mugliston Talk 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Which raises an interesting point (imo). If the list is available off-wiki, as this one is, I tend to think that a summary article - i.e. using text in those sentence and paragraph things - is worth considering, perhaps with a brief bullet list of major routes if necessary. People can then look at the SCC site nice and simply. This, of course, has the added advantage that less work creating and then maintaining is required - with a lower probability that the article becomes hideously dated at some point in the future. That's an argument, imo, for an effective deletion in my book, although with the interesting content retained. Given that there's likely to have been local press coverage of bus route closures etc... you've then got your notability that you'll always struggle with in a list form. My 2 euros worth anyway. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the links to timetables are on various pages of the SCC webistes, so there isn't one complete list anywhere.
Adam mugliston
Talk
17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @BST: It's worth reading through the AFD of Adam's article listing routes in Colchester Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester we gave him the same advice that you do here - Write a prose article based on the general subject of bus transport in the town/region (which in that case was justified in notability by sources on that subject); Adam continued to claim the article was moving toward that position but has remained an unencyclopaedic list. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Stuart.Jamieson: I don't necessarily want to discuss other articles here, but Colchester is definetly moving towards a more prose article, but the list will remain. Adam mugliston Talk 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Adam - aren't they all on this page though? Sure, the individual timetables can be linked, but you run the risk, amongst other things, of the urls for them changing every six months or so. Honestly, I really think the workload in that case is way past the cost:benefit. As an aside, I'm not sure I recognise Leiston, Sax, Aldeburgh and Southwold (at least) as being in Central Suffolk. I imagine we probably need to move swiftly to a Bus routes in Suffolk article which is prose based. I'd strongly suggest that that would be a better use of time. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Stuart - No, they're not, some are on another Suffolk on Board page, some on Customer Service Direct. Adam mugliston Talk 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Can you show us where exactly? Sorry, but I can't find them based on that information. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the links to timetables are on various pages of the SCC webistes, so there isn't one complete list anywhere.
Adam mugliston
Talk
17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. [3], [4] and [5]. Adam mugliston Talk 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, last one's a school bus searchable thingy. I really don't see how this is ever going to be a reference for anything - it might be an external link possibly, but never a reference. The second one is a very useful reference for a text-based article about bus routes because it summarises changes, but it's got no timetable information on it that the first link - which is the same one I included above - has. Which brings me back to my previous point - from a pure timetable point of view, they all seem to be in one place pretty much. Link to there rather than trying to include a shed load of information which will just get out of date and be a pain in the elbow to change ever six months Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a searchable thingy, but it is a reference, because when the route code is typed in, a PDF file can be loaded containing the timetable (see the reference for route 552). Adam mugliston Talk 17:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a reference because I can't possibly verify information by looking at the page itself. It's a tool I can use, sure. A useful tool no doubt, but the page itself won't tell me the information I need directly - you might use it to find a reference for the 552, but the 55s is also linked from the first page - the one with all the timetables on it. That's the core page in all of this. Again, as an external link, perhaps, it might have some use, but not as a reference. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you are not local and do not know the bus routes around here. I am not critisising this but I realise I need to explain. The 55s on the first page are only 551 and 552, 558 is not a school bus and the rest of the school buses require the CSD page. A link to the PDF timetable will be provided. Adam mugliston Talk 17:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
*Typo - 55s should be 552. If you're going to argue that dedicated school buses are notable enough to be included in any form on wiki then I'm afraid I would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
18:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- All I am saying is that school buses could be included into a local bus route list and that they are referencable. Adam mugliston Talk </small> 18:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- How are they notable? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well why are London's school bus routes notable? Adam mugliston Talk 18:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are not. They are listcruft and "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument.-- Charles ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You keep on accusing me of using 'Other Stuff Exits' all the time and falsely every time. For you bus routes may not be notable and for me, let's say types of cow, aren't notable. Does that mean I can nominate an article about a type of cow for deletion? Adam mugliston Talk 19:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You just did use the "other stuff exists" argument re. London bus routes and you have often done so before. It is not about what you or I regard as important but about WP guidelines.-- Charles ( talk) 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they have any notability at all it's because as far as I can tell they're open to public use as well. Some school bus services in Suffolk are, or have been in the past (Eastern Counties used to operate at least two of the Leiston High School buses as standard services which only ran M-F during term time on their standard Sax - Aldeburgh route). Most aren't - a coach which picks up only school kids along it's route isn't a standard public bus service. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Charles - In that case can you show me a point (not just a link an exact point) in the guidelines where it says Lists of bus routes aren't notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing - Yes, some still are public services, but I still don't see the problem in including them into a list where there are other routes more notable. Adam mugliston Talk 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You want to include buses which no-one other than school kids can get on in a wikipedia article just because they exist? Not because they show any notability whatsoever, but just because they exist? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well in my mind and several other peoples' minds, they are notable. Of course there are many people in whose they won't. Like I mentioned for me types of cow aren't notable, as for you school bus routes aren't. Adam mugliston Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- @BST To quote adam I am a bus maniac, but only for routes and timetables. I'm not interested in what kind of bus it is, just where it goes. I can tell you all of the bus routes with timetables around where I live so the answer to your question would be yes he does want to add every bus route in the UK even buses which no-one other than school kids can get on because that interests him irrespective of whether the subject in notable.
- @Adam our notability guideline says if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. So are there reliable third party sources on the subject of Bus Routes in Suffolk, can I get a book from the library specifically about Bus Routes in Suffolk, Has a Newspaper written an article discussing the subject of Suffolk Bus Routes as a collective group? The answer is no - This subject does not meet our notability threshold, and should be deleted. Despite being mentored, it appears that you still fail to grasp the concept that personal opinions of what is or is not notable do not affect Wikipedia inclusion criteria where notability is based on whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart, can you please stop using quotes from mine and Rcsprinter's private talk page, as you do not know the context of the quote. That relates to my hobby, free-time, not on Wikipedia. What I don't understand about Wikipedia is why do we have to keep on deleting pages. It's not like we're gonna run out of space or something and just because a bunch of people who think children should not edit Wikipedia or that bus routes shouldn't be on Wikipedia think that the article should be delete, they delete it for the load of other people who may want to see it. What is the problem with just leaving pages, which are properly made and on which disagreement with deletion is likely, because there are people who will read it and people who don't like it? That way, I could delete every page I don't like on here (which I obviously won't do). Adam mugliston Talk 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Try
WP:FIVE.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- As my interest in cattle breeds has been raised perhaps an analogy would help. Cattle breeds are equivalent to makes and models of bus and are similarly notable. There may be a small number of farms important to the improvement of a breed that would be notable in a prose article just as there a few tourist bus routes that are considered notable. A list of all farms using a breed of cattle would not be notable or encyclopedic and the vast majority of suburban and small town bus routes are not notable.-- Charles ( talk) 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
*Adam, please be aware that with every edit you make you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Which means that as long as I properly attribute the quote, it can be used by anyone for any purpose and it is most certainly not "private" in any sense of the word. At the moment your editing and insistence in creating articles which are purely lists of bus routes exactly mirrors your hobby as stated in this quote - when I have reason to believe your two interests have diverged I will stop using this quote in relation to your editing. Generally I am an inclusionist voting keep on most AfD's I vote on; however I do vote delete on topics I feel are not helpful in the creation of a working encyclopaedia. The reason we should keep
Wikipedia:NOT is to reduce dilution of good article quality - consider would the subject be included in a formal paper encyclopaedia (regardless of paper limitations) or even as SMarshall claims formal paper Gazetteer - as I see no evidence that these would, they should not be included in this electronic one.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Folks, we're straying into a few comments on contributors rather than content here. While Stuart is technically right about the licensing position, what Adam has said on Wikipedia about his hobbies and interests is not relevant to this AfD. This AfD is about an article and the topic that the article aims to cover, not about Adam's hobbies or interests, nor even about Adam's choices of material to edit or articles to create. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Demiurge1000, whilst I appreciate that
arguments to avoid discourages
arguments to the person, I think that some comment on the editors is relevant in consideration of question "can the article be saved?" It seems reasonable for anyone who has not yet formed a clear opinion on the value of an article and who don't have access to sources to improve it themselves to ask the question of whether editors who are doing the bulk of the editing in this area have the ability and motivation to improve it in a way that outweighs the arguments for deleting the content. - Not a debate that should be had here but just saying...
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Charles - What I had meant to say, although I may not have worded it properly for which I apologise, is that as for you, bus routes aren't notable, as for me cattle breeds are not. What I am trying to explain is that notable for you will not equal notable for me or notable for any other user on Wikipedia, although all may be within WP guidelines.
- Demiurge1000, whilst I appreciate that
arguments to avoid discourages
arguments to the person, I think that some comment on the editors is relevant in consideration of question "can the article be saved?" It seems reasonable for anyone who has not yet formed a clear opinion on the value of an article and who don't have access to sources to improve it themselves to ask the question of whether editors who are doing the bulk of the editing in this area have the ability and motivation to improve it in a way that outweighs the arguments for deleting the content. - Not a debate that should be had here but just saying...
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing - I have looked through the link, thank you and I have to come to a conclusion that the red pillar, or the last one, actually supports my case. The title states that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia, as long as everything is done within reason. Using this, I think it is possible to argue that that means a list of bus routes can be notable, if there are other users who agree.
- @Stuart.Jamieson - Although my hobby and what I do on Wikipedia clash, I still do not want to put *every* bus route onto Wikipedia. I won't argue about school bus routes. If you think that that improves the notability of the page, I will be happy to delete thh school bus sections.
- Keep and Merge to an article covering bus routes for the whole of Suffolk. As has been pointed out already, the nominator has not explained how the topic of the article fails WP:NOTDIR; information of this nature could indeed be considered suitable for a gazetteer. The previous AfD already closed as No Concensus, and no stronger arguments have been made to justify simply repeating the AfD in the hope that this time deletion will be achieved. Yes it's true that the article has not been significantly improved since the last AfD, but the time period in question is very short, and no convincing reasons have been given to suggest that improvement is impossible or definitely won't happen. Another issue is that much of the discussion made favouring deletion of the article concentrates on the interests and editing behaviour of the article's creator. Such discussion is not at all relevant to whether this article should be kept, and should be disregarded. In this context, it's also concerning that of the four people arguing for deletion, one of them has been involved in canvassing inappropriately to votestack on another AfD of an article created by Adam, and one of them was responsible for posting Adam's personal details (subsequently oversighted) in a dispute related to an AfD of another article created by him. This does all seem to be getting a bit too personal at times. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lists of Bus routes fail WP:NOTDIR as suggested by the nominator because they fall into the same category as Radio Schedules and Patent filings - as types of Lists that are not to be created on wikipedia. I've also asked SMarshall and repeat the challenge to Demiurge to show a general purpose gazetteer that includes bus routes. Yes one or two specialist gazetteers do cover Bus routes and nothing else but WP:5P is that we contain elements of specialist gazetteers we are not a wholesale copy of them - elements would be the few routes and lists of routes that can be considered notable by our usual tests - none of which apply here. No one has shown that these routes individually or that this subject is notable in any meaningful way - so we should not have an article on it full stop. There are Alternative Outlets for this material notably the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia and WikiTravel so there is no need for us to host this information at this level of detail. In previous AfD's I have made suggestions to remove the lists and to encourage writing of well sourced articles on bus transport in the region (without any list) and if I believed that would happen I would consider voting for userfication but I no longer believe that would happen and is why debate on the editors creating/expanding these articles is relevant to keeping the article. On Demiurge,s statements above, I can't comment on Adam's "Outing" but the editor accused of Canvassing approached me in advance at that time looking for ways to bring a more consensus based interpretation of Policy into the debate (where SMarshall's left field interpretation was being repeated by a number of other inexperienced keep voters) whilst his attempts to achieve that were interpreted as votestacking it was not his intent and he apologised when informed that his messages were in fact being seen as Canvassing. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I, too, wish to bring a more concensus based interpretation of Policy into these debates; and I, too, think that everyone that !voted the same way as me in previous AfDs would be able to assist with that, and that everyone that !voted the opposite way to me in previous AfDs has a "left field interpretation" :-). But that doesn't mean I can go around messaging multiple of the people that !voted the same way as me about a new AfD, while messaging none of people who !voted the other way. However, I do accept the explanation that the editor concerned wasn't aware at the time that this was regarded as inappropriate canvassing. My comments on that past AfD incident here were merely intended to highlight some of the too-personal focus that has crept into many of these AfD discussions, something that's also evident in this one, with large parts of the discussion being about the article creator, not about the article or the article topic. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
13:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be your wish but it certainly isn't mine and I don't think it's Charles' either - When SMarshall made the claim about bus maps asserting the notability of the route system - he could provide no policy or noticeboard discussion that backed up that interpretation - so it is reasonable to open up the claim to further neutral discussion even if that discussion went against my personal vote on the AfD. The same is also true of the claim that Bus routes fulfil our gazetteer function despite not meeting the GNG this also needs policy or noticeboard discussion to back up the interpretation. Another reason that a personal focus has crept into this (and the other) debates is because of the responses the creator has made it Talkpages/on other noticeboards and in AfDs - Even his last post here, he again gave an argument that equated to subjects being notable because the editors creating/editing them feel them to be notable (though I do note he has since reworded this making reference to Wikipedia guideline but it wasn't in his original post.)Since his arguments are often based upon his beliefs (or in other cases his personal
ownership of articles) responding to his points is unfortunately often responding on him personally.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe we are all here to express our own opinions on the subject. My opinion/belief is what I had said previously and as I stressed a lot recently, I guarantee yours will differ. But, as we are here to commment on the article, not me, I think it is still possible to only comment on the article and its contents. If you wish to discuss my opinions/beliefs with me, feel free to do so on my talk page or by e-mail, but here, as Demiurge said, we should only comment on the contents of the article, by expressing our opinions/beliefs about it and its notability. Adam mugliston Talk 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be your wish but it certainly isn't mine and I don't think it's Charles' either - When SMarshall made the claim about bus maps asserting the notability of the route system - he could provide no policy or noticeboard discussion that backed up that interpretation - so it is reasonable to open up the claim to further neutral discussion even if that discussion went against my personal vote on the AfD. The same is also true of the claim that Bus routes fulfil our gazetteer function despite not meeting the GNG this also needs policy or noticeboard discussion to back up the interpretation. Another reason that a personal focus has crept into this (and the other) debates is because of the responses the creator has made it Talkpages/on other noticeboards and in AfDs - Even his last post here, he again gave an argument that equated to subjects being notable because the editors creating/editing them feel them to be notable (though I do note he has since reworded this making reference to Wikipedia guideline but it wasn't in his original post.)Since his arguments are often based upon his beliefs (or in other cases his personal
ownership of articles) responding to his points is unfortunately often responding on him personally.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good Lord. Well, thank you for that refreshing view, Stuart.Jamieson; this is the first time that I've been called an "inexperienced keep voter" by someone with less than two thousand edits! I'll take issue with the idea that using maps as sources for geographical articles is a "left field interpretation", as well. I believe it to be mainstream, normal practice and entirely uncontroversial.— S Marshall T/ C 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never said you were "inexperienced keep voter" I said that inexperienced keep voters were backing your position either repeating it verbatim or voting with a per SMarshall.
- experience at taking part in debate/forming consensus does not equal high edit count, some of the editors involved in the previous debates have high mainspace edit counts but low counts in other namespaces - hence my use of inexperienced.
- My own editcount is misleading, after my first edit in 2007 I misplaced my password and edited as an IP until late 2009 early 2010 when I rediscovered it. That IP was dynamic starting 149.x.x.x or something and I have no means to identify the edits let alone count them or associate them with this account.
- Maps being used a source to verify facts is routine. Claiming that something is notable simply because it appears on a map appears to be original and unique to you hence "Left field". If you can provide evidence that community consensus supports your interpretation I will gladly strike that comment - but everywhere I've looked, consensus is against that interpretation. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 08:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The type of map being used is significant.
Ordnance Survey maps (and similar) are highly accurate in their depiction of geographical features but never show bus routes; about the only bus-related information shown on them is the position of major bus stations (a symbol looking rather like this
but magenta not red,
as here). On the other hand, maps produced by the local authority with the specific intention of showing bus routes will do so in great detail but are otherwise geographically compromised, showing few streets where buses do not run; many buildings and other features may be omitted entirely,
as here - a map where the only buildings appear to be schools and railway stations. Going even further are maps
like this where there is no attempt at accurate geography - all the roads are shown as straight lines at 45° or 90° to each other, spaced in such a way as to allow all the bus stops to be represented. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The type of map being used is significant.
Ordnance Survey maps (and similar) are highly accurate in their depiction of geographical features but never show bus routes; about the only bus-related information shown on them is the position of major bus stations (a symbol looking rather like this
- Keep Lists of bus routes are customarily accepted on Wikipedia, and this one is so long, it would not easily fit onto the main page. Sebwite ( talk) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Customarily accepted" isn't a reason for keeping - in fact only 31% of these lists that have come to AfD have closed keep with 51% being deleted and the remaining 18% not reaching consensus. We currently have somewhere between 160 and 180 of these lists with a disproportionate number focusing on the counties of England (not the rest of the UK) and the East coast of the U.S.A. (Particularly counties/districts of N.Y. and N.J.) - for the rest of the world we "customarily" only list routes in major population centres and even then I would be voting to delete unless the article shows some notability through reliable secondary sources rather simply because the routes exist. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's really relevant anyway, but it isn't necessarily disproportionate for there to be more "bus routes" lists covering counties of England than other parts of the UK... there are, quite simply, a lot more counties, and a lot more bus routes, in England than in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The disproportion is between those counties and the rest of the world - not between those counties and the rest of the UK - even much larger nations and states don't have as many of these lists as England does.
Stuart.Jamieson (
talk)
11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart: Where can the details of the bus route lists that have gone to AfD be found? --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Metropolitan - our search facility is quite good; the statistics above were based on AfDs of articles with "List of Bus Routes" in them, but just using "Bus Routes" covers more bases.
a search for intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the total number of AfDs (currently 42)
a search for "result was delete" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as delete (currently 18 - 42%)
a search for "result was keep" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs closed as keep (currently 6 - 14%)
a search for "no consensus" intitle:"Bus Routes" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion returns the number of AfDs that failed to reach consensus (currently 9 - 21%)
- @Metropolitan - our search facility is quite good; the statistics above were based on AfDs of articles with "List of Bus Routes" in them, but just using "Bus Routes" covers more bases.
- I'm on the mobile just now, so can't say what the remaining 9 closed as some may have been merged or userfied. I suspect the closing admins have had to use a more complex closing statement to sum upthe debate. The previous statistics I gave for "List of Bus Routes" tallied exactly unlike this. Of course many other articles have been deleted through PROD and CSD that won't be counted here. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stuart: Where can the details of the bus route lists that have gone to AfD be found? --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
15:00, 19 May 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 Withdraw as recently created content fork of existing article.
Gjâma
- Gjâma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Irrelevant subject, 8 hits on Google books, sourced with you tube videos, partly on foreign language, without international references. Untranslatable with Google translate WhiteWriter speaks 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Vajtim. The topic has been on DYK and some parts from the Gjovalin Shkurtaj sources can be used on Vajtim.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooo, bravo, i didnt find that! Closing AfD, and merging. -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:43, 8 May 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 Deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as G3: Blatant hoax: G7: Author blanked). Mtking ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Jean moukarzel
- Jean moukarzel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No Indication that this person is notable (fails WP:GNG), no GNEWS hits. no content other than the info box and his picture. Mtking ( talk) 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Absolutely no references, even changing the search terms to Maronite Lebanese Catholic Youth, Maronite Youth in Lebanon, all sorts of combinations of this. I had considered if the article was a possible contender for WP:USERFY, but it will really need to start from scratch again. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not Delete Jean Moukarzel is one of the rising stars in Lebanon. He's a member of one of the most prestigious management consulting firm and has graduated from Europe's best business school HEC Paris. Jean will soon become a Parliament member of the Lebanese Parliament representing the Metn region. Long live Jean Moukarzel, thanks for giving so much to your native country, Lebanon
- personal attack removed - Note to closing admin - I have removed a personal attack from the same ip editor who posted the above "do not delete" post. Mtking ( talk) 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - When this article was assessed all it had was a blank page and an infobox. If a tag such as {{Under construction}} had been placed on the article, then it would not have ended up here. Article and history now shows 20 edits and a BLP page with content and no references. Article may now likely survive AfD with {{uncategorized}} and {{references}} tags. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Still no indication passes either WP:GNG or WP:V. As a aside when I fist found the article the picture was of Michel Suleiman Mtking ( talk) 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete With no references and no seeming way to get any verifiable information, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. If, as the IP user asserts, the person is about to be notable, the article can be created from scratch from sources when they do appear. He iro 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
DeleteNo notability shown and nothing found by searching -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Struck - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC))- Comment In this edit, the original author replaced the content with "Time for the joke to end". Is that enough to make it a Speedy G3/G7? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I kinda read it as such when I reverted it earlier, but figured more seasoned heads would opine on it. I was in the process of trying to find the last good version of the article when you reverted to it right after my edit. It seems to meet the requirements of a hoax article to me. Delete away. He iro 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted - including a comment at WP:ANI, that's three who agree on G3/G7, so it's boldly gone -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the hoax creator and his IP? Should anything be done about them, warning? block? Ignore and deny? Dont often deal with the likes of this myself
He
iro
09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, looks like you are on it. Over and out,
He
iro
09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I've issued a warning - I think that should suffice for now -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, looks like you are on it. Over and out,
He
iro
09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the hoax creator and his IP? Should anything be done about them, warning? block? Ignore and deny? Dont often deal with the likes of this myself
He
iro
09:02, 9 May 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 Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq ( talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Dick Crest
- Dick Crest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual does not meet the general notability guideline, there is are reliable sources establishing this subjects notability. This article seems to simply promote an unknown individual.
Thisbites (
talk)
06:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I rescind my nomination, upon further review he is of note for his role in NFL halftime shows, TV program, and due to press he has received. Thisbites ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep as nomination is rescinded. Article needs wikifying, although. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dick Crest was a significant contributor to the musical life of the San Francisco Bay Area, through his work as a music educator at the College of San Mateo and as a band leader at the popular Russian River resort of Rio Nido. Sallyrob ( talk) 18:54, 8 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Clay Sell
- Clay Sell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is a deputy secretary of energy notable enough? Most refs are quoting things he's said, not really about him. I think he's not notable enough for an article. The-Pope ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope ( talk) 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope ( talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd lean keep. Was interviewed by a San Diego newspaper, [26] and Interfax. [27] His move to Hunt Oil [28] also got coverage in Harper's. [29] And his frat and alma mater think he's famous :) [30] [31] [32] Fences& Windows 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Weak Keep- Have number of references in newspapers as seen in Google news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhi. mehta333 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Deputy Secretary is the #2 at a major government department. More often than not, it's the deputy who actually does the work. I'd argue the prominence of the position alone is sufficient, but in this case Fences and Windows also has coverage meeting WP:GNG as well. Ray Talk 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sumsum2010· T· C 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If he is important enough that the media regularly quotes things he has said then he is notable enough to have an article about him. While substantive coverage is the preffered way to establish notability, I think this should also count. Monty 845 06:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- comment: That view is probably the reverse of most people's view - I'd think that you need to have something published about the person, not just what they have to say about/on behalf of the company/department/organisation/etc that they represent. Having said that, if people think that this position is senior/important/respected enough to "automatically" convey notability, then I'm fine by that - I know little of the US government sector and understand that not everything is on google yet. The-Pope ( talk) 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - references found satisfy basic criteria for WP:People -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 9 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
After the Burial
- After the Burial ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band does not appear not have garnered any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does it seem to have met any of the other criteria of WP:BAND. Bongo matic 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very strong keep great band still rising and have 2 albums out through Sumerian. Sumerian Records have Bizzy Bone and Asking Alexandria on their roster, both these artists have achieved worldwide recognition and fame in the media and as to say for After the Burial's part, they have taken tour with several groups even bigger than those two. They are in Revolver, have a music video currently in development and are by the sorts have garnered a good fan base for fans of prog metal and/or metalcore alike. Deleting this article is out of the question. -- GunMetal Angel 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Seymour Duncan" the world famous guitar-pickup brand, is proud to have the guitarists Trent Hafdahl and Justin Lowe of After The Burial under their wings, along with many other artists like: Johnny Christ, Synyster Gates and Zacky Vengeance from Avenged Sevenfold, Bruce Kulick and Paul Stanley from Kiss, Mark Morton and Will Adler from Lamb of God, David Gilmour of Pink Floyd and last but not least Slash Hudson from Guns N' Roses and Velvet Revolver, just to mention a few.
- I see no reason in deleting this article, the band is well known worldwide for their technical metal music, very much equal to Born of Osiris, Veil of Maya and Periphery ( Sumerian Records), and is still growing. - ChristianTJ 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC +1 hour) Edit: 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC + 1 hour)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Guitar pickup endorsements don't constitute coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note, an article lacking sources does not mean the article is not notable, it just means no one has yet taken time to look through and establish information with the sources included to the article, Wikipedia is a work in progress after all. --
GunMetal Angel
05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reply I agree. But I don't see any sources and all indications are that this is a band that is still in the up and coming rather than arrived stage of their career. Noi prejudice to recreation when they do get the coverage but I just don;t see it now. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Weak keep. With two albums on Sumerian they should meet the inclusion criteria, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage in reliable sources. There is an Allmusic bio and a review, so while there would ideally be more sources than that, there is at least something on which to base the article.-- Michig ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Note also the Billboard chart placings.-- Michig ( talk) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sumsum2010· T· C 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A great band, known worldwide, has 3 released albums, and here's more sources to keep the page up: Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives - After the Burial and last.fm-After the Burial.--( Snkmad ( talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC))
- Unfortunately neither Encyclopaedia Metallum nor last.fm are reliable sources.-- Michig ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 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. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Family Forest
- Family Forest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Notability ( WP:GNG, perh. WP:CORPDEPTH), self-publicity ( WP:SPIP), neutrality ( WP:NPOV) and perhaps conflict of interest ( WP:COI). [AfD following removal of PROD, reason - "take to AFD please"] While Google Books turns up 8000 hits, when you remove the ones for which the owner is author, it drops to 1800, mostly irrelevant. Adding genealogy as keyword drops it to 88, and I didn't see any there that actually gave it coverage, as opposed to just using the trademark name. No hits in Google News. An orphan for over 2 years. Of the 11 references cited, all web URLs: 2 are redirecting to an irrelevant page, the original no longer being available; 4 are self-published or press releases; 3 (redundant) point to a page about George Bush being related to Hugh Hefner, and don't name the product/project/whatever it is; one is a review of a product on a non-notable blog; and one is in a reliable independent source, but it is an article about Sarah Palin being related to Alec Baldwin, only mentions Family Forest in passing, and consists almost entirely of quotes from the owner, so it debatably fails WP:SPIP. None of them give the Family Forest significant reliable independent coverage. The page was created and most of the material added by a single user, User:Ancestralmktg, whose activity has been limited almost exclusively to this one article. The whole thing just looks like an attempt at marketing publicity via Wikipedia. Agricolae ( talk) 06:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 ( talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with editing to remove unverified material and promotional tone. Contrary to nominator's summary, at least some of the references cited do appear to be substantial coverage from reliable sources [40] [41]. It's true that they mention the name of the company/project only once in the article, but the whole reference is about information derived from the project and quoting its founder/director. I believe this is notable; perhaps it could be renamed/redirected to the founder Bruce Harrison, who may be more notable than his company. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sum total that has found in reliable sources: "Bruce and Kristine Harrison founded the Family Forest Project in 1995, and since have mapped the ancestral histories of thousands of political leaders, celebrities and historical figures, as well as everyday people." The other supposed reference doesn't mention Family Forest, but instead "a group called Millisecond Publishing which puts out a line of ancestral history CDs from Waimea, Hawaii. . . . Harrison said his ancestry research program now has enough data to map generation-by-generation ancestral pathways to the ancestors of up to 2 billion people." OK, let's commit a
WP:SYN and conclude that this is really referring to Family Forest even though it doesn't say so. Even if I were to grant you that the whole articles are about 'the project', two whole articles over a 15 year period is not substantial coverage. (My sister's curio shop has gotten reported in the newspaper more frequently than that.) But I won't grant that. I don't accept that the articles are about the project, they are not. They are also not about Harrison - what I listed above is all they say about Harrison, which does no better at satisfying
WP:BIO notability. (And the quotes are just "Harrison says . . . " and "Harrison claimed . . . " which is no better than a press release in terms of fact-checking: they are admitting that they are taking his word for it.) Those two articles are about the findings, two entirely distinct findings. He sent out a press releases on a slow news day that said Politico P being related to Actor B, and later that Porn Publisher H was a distant relative of Politicos B and K, and someone said, "that's cute" and wrote a story about the relationships. The articles mention the project only to give context and called him up for some quotes, but there is no way you can call these two articles substantial coverage and have that term retain any meaning. (It is no different than when CNN reports on a scientific finding, and mention that the work was done by Joe Scientist in the Lab for Interesting Experimentation, where they have been studying the topic for several years. That story is about the finding, not about the scientist and not about the lab group, and neither of the latter two gain substantial notability from two such mentions in 15 years.) From
WP:CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." In those cites, that is all we get.
Agricolae (
talk)
17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it is the company or the person (and it looks to me like the person is more notable), they have generated a significant amount of press, and that is supposed to be the criterion here. Whether the stories were inspired by a press release or not is irrelevant; the stories were written by independent reliable sources. Whether their calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. "
WP:Verifiability, not truth". When your sister's curio shop gets written up at
MSNBC,
CBS News,
USA Today, and similar national sources, feel free to write an article about her. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, significant coverage, in depth is supposed to be the criterion. Significant. In Depth. The company has been named in passing in one article. The product in another. The man gets quoted in both, but the same can be said of the guy who has a tornado hit his house. Surely getting your name mentioned by a national news source twice in 15 years can't be how low the significance bar has dropped, can it? Again, the stories were no more about the project or about the man than a report about a scientific discovery (of the type found on CNN or BBC every week) is about the researcher or the lab - they always interview the graduate student who is the primary author of the study and that doesn't make the graduate student notable. Such coverage is insufficient to pass the WP:BIO bar, and that is all this guy got. As to the project, everything about the project in those two articles cannot possibly produce more than a stub, and as we have already seen, that lacks the depth required by WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not questioning the accuracy of this particular bit of esoterica. I just don't see how 'mentioned once or twice, briefly, to provide context for a story about something else' can be considered significant coverage in depth of the type required for notability for the company, the product or the man. The only thing that got notable coverage here was Genealogical relationship between Alec Baldwin and Sarah Palin, and Genealogical relationship between Hugh Heffner and Whoever, and we really don't need a Wikipedia article on a genealogical kinship. Agricolae ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it is the company or the person (and it looks to me like the person is more notable), they have generated a significant amount of press, and that is supposed to be the criterion here. Whether the stories were inspired by a press release or not is irrelevant; the stories were written by independent reliable sources. Whether their calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. "
WP:Verifiability, not truth". When your sister's curio shop gets written up at
MSNBC,
CBS News,
USA Today, and similar national sources, feel free to write an article about her. --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just more genealogy hobbyists wasting our time. Srnec ( talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not many "genealogy hobbyists" make the national news! --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- They seem to, with the same type of story, every election cycle. That and the "the candidate with the 'best' royal descent always wins" nonsense that gets reported every election. Just like the latest guy who claims to have Bigfoot's head in his freezer, or claims to have a perpetual motion machine, and we have a page on perpetual motion machines, but not on each guy making the claim even though his name showed up in the newspaper. Agricolae ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not many "genealogy hobbyists" make the national news! --
MelanieN (
talk)
23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - insufficient notability to meet WP:ORG. References are principally who is related to who; some references return a 404. Blog entries cited as references. As noted above, WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied by any references or search results. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:17, 8 May 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 Closed by nominator as Withdrawn.. Mtking ( talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2011 Imbaba Church Attacks
- 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not a news service (see wikinews), no indication of lasting noteworthiness, the coverage is all of a
WP:ROUTINE type.
Mtking (
talk) 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC) - I still firmly believe that this is not what WP is about, there is no indication that this is going to be of lasting significance, however this is going to be
WP:SNOW so I will withdraw
Mtking (
talk)
22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep (Strongly) This is not a news coverage, and I have no personal gain in creating the article. This is a very relevant event when it comes to Egyptian history, and will be long remembered. Also, the incident has been already covered by all major news agencies in the world. Please let me know how i can help improve the article to meet the standards of Wikipedia encyclopedia. -- Fire Green Horse ( talk) 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Violent conflct between Muslims and Christians in Egypt that results in many deaths and destruction of churches is of a notability far beyond routine news coverage, especially given the broader context of widespread turmoil in the Arab world. These incidents have already received coverage in reliable sources and this article can be expected to develop and improve over time. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - subject of article has notability beyond news coverage with regard to inter-religious relations. Agree, article will acquire further notability when developed from this broader perspective. Article needs attention with regard to WP:NPOV -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Snow keep This is an important, notable incident. Patently worthy of an article. I.Casaubon ( talk) 13:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Snow Keep notable well-sourced topic. There is no reason to nominate an article for deletion only because you are unfortable with the fact that Islamic extremists are accused of vandalism. -- Reference Desker ( talk) 13:51, 8 May 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 keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yunus Centre
- Yunus Centre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in reliable sources Artem Karimov ( talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As the personal office of a
Nobel Peace Prize laureate (
Muhammad Yunus) and one of two think-tanks related to
Social business, this should clearly be included in Wikipedia. Yunus Centre helped to set up all Social Business with major multinationals such as
Danone,
Veolia,
Intel,
Adidas or
BASF. Just have a look at their homepage or at one of the
44.000 Google hits. Or
see their 14,000 fans on Facebook --
Talebian (
talk)
06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Google hits or Facebook fans do not matter.
Reliable sources do.
Artem Karimov (
talk)
11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So which sources would then be reliable for a think tank in a developing country? Honestly speaking, you seem to lack understanding of these things. Did you ever think about the possibility of having to review each case individually instead of referring to some guidelines like an apparatchik? --
Talebian (
talk)
06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now that's a speculation. Можешь называть меня аппаратчиком, but WP:V and WP:RS apply the same for everyone and everything. Your rhethoric will not help the subject gain notability. Artem Karimov ( talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- So which sources would then be reliable for a think tank in a developing country? Honestly speaking, you seem to lack understanding of these things. Did you ever think about the possibility of having to review each case individually instead of referring to some guidelines like an apparatchik? --
Talebian (
talk)
06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Google hits or Facebook fans do not matter.
Reliable sources do.
Artem Karimov (
talk)
11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As the personal office of a
Nobel Peace Prize laureate (
Muhammad Yunus) and one of two think-tanks related to
Social business, this should clearly be included in Wikipedia. Yunus Centre helped to set up all Social Business with major multinationals such as
Danone,
Veolia,
Intel,
Adidas or
BASF. Just have a look at their homepage or at one of the
44.000 Google hits. Or
see their 14,000 fans on Facebook --
Talebian (
talk)
06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: That Mr. Yunus is notable no one would deny. That his personal think tank is notable is wholly unproven; of course the organization's website and Facebook page do not qualify as reliable sources. Rather than mere Google hits, if one is to do a search for links, I'd try Google News ... which only returns three hits about Muhammad Yunus himself, and which mention the center only as casual references. Ravenswing 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Once more, keep in mind that this is a think tank in a developing country - that's also why Google News is totally irrelevant. The Yunus Centre acts as the implementation think-do tank for all social businesses related to Grameen (as mentioned above: Danone, Intel etc.), but these companies will always mention the name of Prof. Yunus instead of the Yunus Centre. See
the new social business with Uniqlo here. Moreover, the Yunus Centre is responsible for the implementation of
Social business classes. See the reference at the
Asian Institute of Technology
here or, to mention an American example,
California State University Channel Islands
here. --
Talebian (
talk)
07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mere reference to the subject is not enough. There must be at least some coverage in reliable sources. There is none hence Yunus centre is not notable. Artem Karimov ( talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There is nothing in WP:V or WP:ORG which waives the policies' requirements of sourcing for organizations based in "developing" countries. WP:V's language is clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Talebian's energies would be better utilized uncovering reliable, independent, third-party sources (from a city which is the home, as to that, of four English-language newspapers of national circulation) which would validate this article rather than in exhortations to ignore Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or in violations of WP:CIVIL as happened above. Ravenswing 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep article about this notable organization and expand with information about the growing Yunus Centre operations in Bangkok, Glasgow and Abu Dhabi, described in
reliable sources, such as
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
- Now that is something. As soon as these RS are integrated into the article, this nomination can be delisted. Artem Karimov ( talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - as per reliable sources given above by unsigned contribution of Cullen328 . Yunnus himself is a well known microfinancer, the references listed above are independent of the subject and give coverage of the work of the Yunnus Centre. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:38, 8 May 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.