Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Psych Central (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
It seems to me this article had
already been deleted before. It has since been recreated, heavily edited by a
single user which has been blocked in the meantime. Notability and objectivity of the article are doubtful, self-promotion is obvious.
Midas02 (
talk)
23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
00:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions.
NorthAmerica
1000
03:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.
NorthAmerica
1000
03:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As to whether or not the article has been previously deleted, this can be determined by looking at the previous AfD, which shows that the article was speedy-deleted for copyvio. This can be verified in the deletion log,
link. I looked at the Time (
link) article and skimmed the article and the references, and I didn't see the self-promotion problem. Whether founded in 1991 or 1997, it has been around for an Internet eternity and gets attention from various sources over time. Nomination doesn't argue that the topic is not notable. The only issue seems to be G5 speedy deletion. I looked at the history of the primary content contributor, and it is a confusing history in which there is no record available to support the block log, and in particular the SPI archive has nothing relevant. The template on the User page was applied by another editor also implicated as an associated sock. Is the seemingly random use of the word "suicide" self-referential? If the G5 speedy delete argument is applicable, the references and categories should be harvested so that the article can be easily re-created.
Unscintillating (
talk)
16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: I don't agree with the nom's assertions. As far as the objectivity of the article's claims, this isn't merely a heavily cited article, it's cited to the point of absurdity. As far as the article being promotional, I'm looking at a bunch of statements of fact, not of puffed-up claims, and the only two cheerleading statements are cited. Beyond that, an article containing a cited criticism of the subject can't really be claimed to be unrelentingly promotional. Insinuating that the creator of the article was a SPA is absurd; he made 1,117 edits to Wikipedia before his block, only 47 of which was to this article.
[1]. As far as its notability? Well, quite aside from that
Time magazine article naming it one of the 50 best websites on the whole Internet (along with similar kudos from such varied and reliable sources such as the
Washington Post, the
New York Times, the
Star-Ledger, the
Irish Times and the
Los Angeles Times), there are 41 different citations, most of them to notable and independent print sources. Did the nom take the slightest stab at
WP:BEFORE, as deletion policy requires, and actually check on some of them? This looks more like an
IDON'TLIKEIT nomination than anything else;
Ravenswing
17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There were many problems surrounding the early stages of this article. I whittled away a large part of it. I disliked the article, but that dislike came from the ordeal that it occasioned to get it where it is now. As much as I felt that way, I couldn't come up with sufficient reason to justify outright deletion, because despite the earlier abundance of citations of useless sources, there's still sufficient good documentation out there demonstrating the site's notability. I can't see that that's changed. As far as the original deletion discussion, that became moot before it was over, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. The speedy deletion was for copyright reasons, and so provides no basis for deleting now.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep A top 50 internet site is notable. --
do
ncr
am
17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
WP:NPASR. (
Non-administrator closure)
NorthAmerica
1000
12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
The Best of Ali Haider (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unsourced and not notable album.
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
20:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per
WP:SOCKHELP.
NorthAmerica
1000
12:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:BLPDELETE
j⚛e decker
talk
01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Anthony Curlo (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Curlo does not appear to be
Notable either via the provided sources or my searches. While there is recognition that one of his companies is #872 for fastest growing in the US, this should not lend Curlo Notability. Most of the sources listed or I've found are Press Releases, reprinted press releases or other first-party created content (submitted an article to a trade org, business listing, etc.). He does not seem to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Perhaps later in life, he should have an article on Wikipedia. But, for now this seemingly
autobiographical
promotional article does not show this is the time.
Stesmo (
talk)
17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Evaluation of references: #1 a local news blurb, not in depth #2 based on a press release #3 a simply directory listing, no info about the company #8 reprinted press release #9 blog post on social business site, in which company is one of 50 #11 article in which company is one of 5000, each gets short listing #13 blog, although somewhat journalistic; article is not in depth. Conclusion: not notable.
LaMona (
talk)
02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion was considered at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 7, with the result being that it was relisted on AfD for an additional two and 1/2 weeks. As there is an absence of consensus to delete, I recommend continued discussion on the talk page if any party wishes to consider a redirect. (non-admin closure) Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Siam–Burma Death Railway (film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable film, the subject of the film is notable but not this particular documentary
BOVINEBOY
2008
15:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Searches of the net find not only no independent RS, but also no record this film was officially released in theaters anywhere. Fails
WP:NF. Also note that the name of the user who created this article is the same as that of the cinematographer of the film.
Michitaro (
talk)
01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Listed as:(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Please let me know what i need to do to correct this page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rajsankar (
talk •
contribs)
08:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Secret
account
17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Audy Ciriaco (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Run of the mill minor league player. Fails GNG
Yankees10
03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep
Weak Delete Currently a free agent and is ostensibly a non-notable minor leaguer. Did find these though:
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7] EDIT: Changed vote to Weak Delete. EDIT again: After further reconsideration, changing vote to weak keep. His service time at Triple-A (parts of four years plus two full years) just barely puts him over the top, when the aforementioned sources are also taken into consideration.
Alex (
talk)
04:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Spanneraol (
talk)
18:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.
Alex (
talk)
20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Maybe you might want to hold off on voting then until you determine if that's a good reason for keeping or not.--
Yankees10
08:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Very well. Right now, I'll say it is a reason to keep. I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
Mellowed Fillmore (
talk)
13:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
Alex (
talk)
22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §
FreeRangeFrog
croak
20:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Gereltsogt (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No sources provided, no indication of notability. Also, since only the given names are mentioned, there is no way to actually identify anyone. There may easily be dozens of "noted" khoomii singers in Mongolia going by those names.
Latebird (
talk)
20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - This does make it hard to find the person in question, mostly because surnames aren't considered important in Mongolia. See
Mongolian name#modern.
JTdale
Talk
20:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The article is far from establishing any notability (which might or might not exist), and, as Latebird points out, it doesn't even manage to refer to any concretely identifiable individual.
G Purevdorj (
talk)
17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. The nominator and some of the previous comments are making rather too much of the fact that we have only a given name and no surname for the subject. Mongolia is a country with a relatively small population and a wide enough variety of given names that surnames are still not automatically used for identification - and
Mongolian name rather suggests that posessors of all but the most common given names (of which Gereltsogt does not seem to be one) number no more than a few thousand each. By the time we have narrowed matters down further by taking into account the rest of the information in the article, I have little doubt that the article and both of these apparently
reliable
sources are referring to the same individual. Having said that, neither of the sources I have given is exactly substantial, and while I suspect that the subject could fairly easily be proved notable if a search were made for sources in Mongolian - we probably have nobody reading this who is in a position to do this.
PWilkinson (
talk)
13:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- If it was that simple, then one of us searching for the names and relevant keywords in Mongolian spelling would most likely have been able to identify the people mentioned in the article. A search for Гэрэлцогт хөөмийч turns up two texts, mentioning two distinct khöömii singers named Gereltsogt. Your first source talks about someone who "appears on recordings", and the second one about a private individual (a
yak breeder). So we're looking at sources about three or four different people. Which one do you think the article is about?
- For illustration, let's transfer the article text into a more familiar cultural context:
- Jack is a noted practitioner of Country singing in Tennessee. His brother, John, is also a renowned country singer. Jack is married to Jill.
- Tennessee has about twice the population of Mongolia, but the popularity of the artforms and the pervasiveness of the names are roughly similar, so I'm sure you still get the idea. --
Latebird (
talk)
21:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel. (
non-admin closure)
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
The Last of us (film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't exactly meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but the article has no sources, is most likely non-notable, and is possibly a hoax (namely because of that "made by naughty dog" part).
Biblio
worm
19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Please note that
The Last of Us (film) (correctly capitalized) has existed as a redirect to
The Last of Us#Film adaptation since 7 March 2014.--
Arxiloxos (
talk)
21:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Bobby W. Miller (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Longterm unsourced article by a
COI editor that fails the notability and verifiability criteria for
WP:BLP,
WP:BIO and
WP:GNG. There appears to be no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: the DFC medal is not notable in itself because of its somewhat common nature --
18238 of them have been awarded. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. His accomplishments as a soldier, writer, singer, politician, etc. fail to cross the notability bar. "5-star music CDs" means three and four people rated his two CDs highly in amazon.com.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
10:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per nom. Biography with nothing that shows the subject passes
WP:RS. --
Jersey92 (
talk)
14:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Checked his books. At least one is vanity-published. Some publishers I couldn't locate info on. Only one book was found in one library, which means they have had little or no readership. The one reference isn't significant.
LaMona (
talk)
02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
United States Senate election in Alabama, 1992, subject was an unsuccessful candidate for a national legislative seat, as
verified
by the
New York Times,
and the
Associated Press. Per
WP:POLOUTCOMES, unsuccessful candidates for a position that is normally notable per
WP:POLITICIAN, are redirected to the election which they received the most coverage for, unless the candidate is notable outside of politics.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
04:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
RightCowLeftCoast:, thanks for those two sources, but the name "Bobby W. Miller" does not appear in them and therefore this page cannot be redirected. If the relevant primary information is added to
United States Senate election in Alabama, 1992, then I see is no problem with creating redirects for
Bob Miller (1992 Alabama primary candidate) and
Margaret Stewart (1992 Alabama primary candidate) (or some such disambiguation). Note: Stewart might actually be notable enough for her own page
[11]. But unless the name Bobby W. Miller is referenced by sources on the target page, then a redirect from this page would be improper. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
19:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Subject of this article was referred to as
Bob Miller, however it can be that they used the non-common name to avoid conflict with the disambiguation page. The subject of this article still meets
WP:POLOUTCOMES, and such a redirect is the proper thing to do.
- Another references:
Daily Kos.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
02:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- It would be a violation of
WP:BLP verifiability and
no original research to create a redirect of this page. You have only demonstrated that the name Bob Miller meets
WP:POLOUTCOMES. You have not produced a source for Bobby W. Miller. Without a reliable source for this specific name, a redirect of this page would be original research and fail our
WP:BLP policy. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
18:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. (
non-admin closure) czar
♔
07:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
List of virtual schools (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This list doesn't serve any of the purposes of lists given at
WP:LISTPURP. It's definitely not a useful source of information. Since the vast majority of entries don't have articles it doesn't serve a navigational purpose. And since the vast majority of entries shouldn't have articles, it doesn't serve an expansion purpose either. The "sources" are practically all primary sources, ie the schools' websites, and many of them are broken, too.
Primefac (
talk)
19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- EDIT - I should mention that this rationale (which I completely agree with) was taken from the original PROD of the article by
Huon, and I didn't feel like re-typing it all. Yes, I am lazy. No, this should not invalidate the AfD.
Primefac (
talk)
19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Education-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There will be a large number of virtual schools and colleges that would be clearly notable if they were conventional educational institutions, but where there is difficulty in obtaining sufficient information and sourcing to justify a stand--alone article. A list like this can have the purpose of providing a place for this material: the world is not divided neatly into notable | non-notable, and there can be things worth including in an encyclopedia, but not at article length. Eventually, many of these will be expandable. alternatively, if there are any notable schools of this type the list will serrve a navigational purpose, evben if limited to them.
DGG (
talk )
05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I can't word it much better than DGG. Agree entirely with that argument.
JTdale
Talk
20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I disagree that it does not serve a useful purpose for expansion or navigation. I just added a fairly major Canadian University with an article to this list. Problems with broken links and lack of secondary sources can be solved and should not be a reason to delete an article.
Meters (
talk)
00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - but only now that it has been fixed. I can absolutely understand why
Primefac would nominate this for deletion based on the state it was in. What a mess! It was primarily a promotional list of non-notable orgs of little value (unless you were promoting your org). I've gone through and fixed the list by removing 200+ non-notable and duplicate entries.
Stesmo (
talk)
18:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
j⚛e decker
talk
08:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Romilly, Interstellar film character (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No citations, not notable, poorly written.
Popcornduff (
talk)
12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk to me
13:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk to me
13:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a character not notable outside of the film. It may be possible for Cooper to have his own article; there would be some redundancy, but the different scope would allow a focus on that character. The same goes for CASE/TARS; it seems like there is specific coverage about them in regard to their design and real-world potential and comparison to other robots of science fiction. I just do not see that kind of targeted discussion for Romilly.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
13:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Here are some link with discussions about Romilly's epic ordeal:
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/2m2w12/how_would_romilly_see_the_water_planet_turning/
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKAYVjbW0FQ
-
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/lets-talk-about-romilly-interstellar.454286722/
-
http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/sound-off-christopher-nolans-interstellar-what-did-you-think/
- "The last few notes: David Gyasi as "Romilly" the astrophysicist is one of my favorite characters, especially what he goes through. I enjoy his performance the most"
-
https://www.tumblr.com/search/interstellar+spoilers+%5C%5C%5C%5C+romilly — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Miscelanegan (
talk •
contribs) 10:29, November 17, 2014
- The FirstShowing.net reference is not bad, but the rest of the links are not reliable sources, which is needed per the
general notability guidelines.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)
19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
j⚛e decker
talk
08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
WMIX Software (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no reliable secondary sources, no indication of notability. All references, except the Alexa page rank are primary sources. Page created by an editor with a serious COI who contested the proposed deletion without explanation. Other products from this company are currently being discussed in a number of AfDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goverlan Remote Control Software,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PJ Technologies and
WP:Articles for deletion/Goverlan VNC Viewer.
Lemnaminor (
talk)
09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I was the one who placed the proposed deletion tag on this promotional article, which was sourced only to Alexa for page rank and press releases for everything else. Without third party sourcing, this cannot meet the notability guidelines. -
MrOllie (
talk)
13:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Stifle (
talk)
11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Skyler White (disambiguation) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Only two entries. PROD was denied. The solution is to simply put {{
for}} on the main article. There is no need for this page. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
08:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep with three entries, or
- Delete if we discard the basketball player as non-notable, and put {{
for}} on the primary article, exactly as suggested per nom.
Lwarrenwiki (
talk)
16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, no need to remove an navigational article that might be benificial to some users. It does not hurt content and provides an alternative navigation mechanism to the direct links to other articles in the content pages. Agreed that this should be the main redirect of
Skyler White as suggest by the person above me. --
Reinoutr (
talk)
14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and change the hatnote on
Skyler White to link to the writer. There is no need for the disambiguation because the basketball player is not notable (and has been redirected to the team article).
Tavix |
Talk
03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
Satellizer
(´ ・ ω ・ `)
12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No indication of notability.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
10:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (
G·
N·
B·
S·
RS·
Talk)
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete. Here's the deal. It has no hits or notability in English-language
video game reliable sources, and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. However,
the jawp article has four sources from 1996. This said, I can't figure out what they are for the life of me. If they are articles in magazines that someone can get, what do they cover? The jawp has no footnotes so I don't know if it's an ad or a full article or something else. If they're reviews, I could see this sticking around but until then... please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar
♔
16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
J04n(
talk page)
18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Alain Tytgadt (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
False information about a non-public figure. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Orangeblue blueorange (
talk •
contribs) 18:47, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Not notable, only one citation that doesn't even have the information that's in the article.
Pgold009 (
talk)
16:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: This discussion was created without a template and never transcluded to a daily log. Addition to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 6 is its first proper listing. The creation of this AfD is the above editor's only activity under that account.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Finngall
talk
16:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Rcsprinter123
(yarn) @
15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Bernard d'Ascoli (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unsourced BLP. Doubtful notability as the nearly 8k Google hits boil down to only 214 unique hits. beside that, the article has been removed three times already
for promotion and copyvio
The Banner
talk
12:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment ... and nearly 20 million Google hits for
Barack Obama boil down to only 269 "unique hits", as you are interpreting the term. Past a certain point, long before it has identified all duplicates, Google generally stops looking unless you refine your search. Having said that, sources (beyond his web page and Debrett's entry) definitely are needed - with a third place in the
Leeds International Piano Competition (even if back in 1981), I have little doubt that d'Ascoli is notable (and Obama too, for different reasons) but sifting out substantial reliable reviews or other sources from passing mentions of future appearances does tend to be trickier for concert pianists than for Presidents of the United States, and I can only hope that someone else has more time to do this than I do at the moment.
PWilkinson (
talk)
19:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I can find many articles announcing his performances, and some reviews following them. The article needs references, but with a fair amount of time commitment they can be added. So I say keep but leave a banner about references. Question, though: does there need to be a reference for each city that he has played in? That means digging into local papers, and I'm not sure how much it adds to the article.
LaMona (
talk)
23:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I should mention that I did add a few references, mainly to the competition he won and a review of a London performance.
LaMona (
talk)
23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The concert review adds, to my opinion, absolutely nothing. Okay, we have two sources now, but I can not say that these convince me of his notability.
The Banner
talk
00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Concert reviews will be the main resources for living classical musicians. The review "circuit" for musicians is like the review "circuit" for restaurants - it's the medium through which their work becomes known. Except for some humongous stars, like Pavarotti, you will not find non-review articles about them. In fact, there's little use writing about a musician who tours except when that musician arrives in your area and people have a chance to hear him. It is possible that you are trying to apply criteria from another topic area, but in this environment reviews are key.
LaMona (
talk)
16:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Rcsprinter123
(proclaim) @
15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Chaudhary Group (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Food industry company with dubious corporate notability as per lack of sources. Of the several sources presented most relate to its product Wai Wai, which interestingly does not have a page. If not deleted, an alternative could be to transform it to a Wai Wai article and the little information about the company may be added to the article of its president. Please participate at the discussion.
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The
Forbes article on
Binod Chaudhary (
here) describes Chaudhary Group as including "a controlling stake in Nepal's Nabil Bank, a fast growing foods business best known for instant noodle brand Wai Wai and a string of hotels in Asia and more recently, in Africa where in a joint venture with Uganda's Mukwano group he's building hotels in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Last year, CG diversified into telecom when it bought out ST Telecom, a rural telecom operator." That sounds notable to me. Worth remembering that an English-language Google search is a poor indicator of notability for a Nepalese corporation.
The nominator has since been blocked as the sockpuppet of a permanently-banned editor and is thus unlikely to expand on his deletion rationale.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
05:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk)
07:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
American Academy of Pediatrics. --
RoySmith
(talk)
23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Bicycle Safety Camp (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Zero references, and I'm not sure the fact that
Jim Pirri is in it is a valid assertion of notability, the rest of the cast is red linked. I think a mention at Jim's article would be sufficient.
Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (
talk)
05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
j⚛e decker
talk
06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I would be okay with merging relevant information into
American Academy of Pediatrics.
Peterborough Street (
talk)
20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds good to me...
Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (
talk)
13:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Rcsprinter123
(natter) @
15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Libre Clothing (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
apparent advertising
DGG (
talk )
06:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I don't see anything problematic with the article. There are many sources cited, covering a period of several years (passing GNG) and the tone doesn't seem terribly promotional.
Mabalu (
talk)
17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep I agree with DGG that it seems promotional. Not in the vein of "this is the greatest company/product ever!" but because it reads as product description, more than information about the company. However, I don't think it reaches the level of blatant advertising, and is more in need of re-writing than deletion.
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I dunno. I think you kind of need to know what the products are in order to understand what the company is about. These aren't just ordinary clothes, but garments that serve a specific medical purpose, and have specific requirements, so some description is required.
Mabalu (
talk)
00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- No arguments there. Perhaps the reorganizing the article might help. As it is, there's all this product information in the lede, followed by a short history section. What if we made the lede much shorter, followed by the history section, and then a product section. Thens we should remove such words as "comfortable", unless they have been described as such in an independent review. The source where that claim comes from appears to parrot a press release.
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
14:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. §
FreeRangeFrog
croak
00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
List of widows and widowers (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Just because someone's spouse has died doesn't mean it has to be tracked into one article. None of this is even sourced.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
06:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This will be a forever incomplete list, as I'd probably say that the amount of widows and widowers with articles on Wikipedia are staggering- probably in the thousands at the very least. Not only would that make for a difficult page to create, but the article would take forever to load. This isn't even touching the issue that the page so far seems to focus on American and European people only and looks to be focusing on fairly recent people as well. I don't know that this would even make for a good category for the same reason, as we'd have to start slicing it down to "American widows" and so on, and even then there are issues. What if you have an American woman who married a Russian man? Would she be an American widow? A Russian widow? (Probably American, but still- people would debate this.) It's just indiscriminate, like Snuggums said.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
06:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I mean, we don't have categories like "Married American actors", after all. We do have
Category:Married couples, but that seems to be for articles about people who are notable for working in a pair. That brings up the issue of what would happen if we had a category for widow/ers and had a page where it's about the couple. I understand what they're trying to do here and if there was an easier way to go about doing it I'd support it, but I just don't see where this is really feasible.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- delete A list of every notable person whose spouse predeceased them is wildly indiscriminate.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -
WP:INDISCRIMINATE says all we need to know for this AfD. Would we want a list of married persons? Unmarried persons? Divorced persons? Remarried persons? No, no, no, no and, uh, no.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, with a caveat. As currently constituted the list makes no sense. In fairness, though, it should be noted that the creator of the list had a more specific purpose in mind: as initially drafted, the idea was to make a list of "list of widows and widowers whose widowhood contributed to their notability", and among the first entries were people like
Maria Elena Holly and
Mary Bono Mack whose notability was (arguably) due to their representing the legacy of a famous spouse.
[20] This was changed a couple of years later to the present unmanageable criterion.
[21] But even as originally defined, I have doubts the list could be well-managed. How you decide if someone is "notable for being a widow(er)"? Our usual answer would be to require each entry to have a reliable source making that specific statement about the subject. But beyond a few obvious cases like Mrs. Holly , I don't know that we are likely to find such clear statements. Even someone like
Billie Jean Horton, best known for her energetic efforts on behalf of the legacy of her two famous husbands, also had a career of her own. This is even more of an issue for political widow(er)s: Mary Bono Mack, for example, was certainly known first as Sonny's wife, but then (like many other political spouses) she was repeatedly elected in her own right and spent 14 years in Congress, it's not obvious that she belongs on this list, although a more specific
List of politicians who succeeded their late spouse in office might work (preferably someone can come up with a less awkward title). If someone wants to make a case for restoring the original criteria, I'd be willing to listen, but I'm skeptical. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Any notable person who dies after his/her spouse can potentially be included on this list, so it violates
WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete indiscriminate list.
Mellowed Fillmore (
talk)
03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:SNOW.
Bearian (
talk)
20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
j⚛e decker
talk
08:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Coolhouse Productions (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
1 ref and its not about the company.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Well... it is, sort of. It's about a game that the company created, so that does show some notability for them as they can gain notability via the products that they create and release. However I do want to stress that one source is not enough to show notability, so the one source doesn't really accomplish much.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Could not find sources on Google News except for one article in a foreign language which did not seem likely to amount to much.
II | (
t -
c)
05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
lavender|(formerly
HMSSolent)|
lambast
07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
lavender|(formerly
HMSSolent)|
lambast
07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (
G·
N·
B·
S·
RS·
Talk)
• Gene93k (
talk)
13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica
1000
03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
j⚛e decker
talk
08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Zoom Communications (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Only 2 refs, and their about the company's event not the company itself.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
13:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica
1000
03:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
05:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
The 69 Eyes discography.
Stifle (
talk)
11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Bump 'n' Grind (The 69 Eyes album) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Quite clearly non-notable.
Laun
chba
ller
18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:Music Google found no sources outside of this aside from it being on sale at Amazon and lyrics sites. The fact that it was released by a major band does not count as "an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."--
Church
Talk
18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
Jinkinson
talk to me
19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - references in Google Books (such as Le Rock de A a Z dictionnaire illustre 1984 p.318) refer to
Bump 'n' Grind (Jackson Heights album), a classic album recently reissued in Japan, not to this album. But then this is a Finnish band and a debut album by a notable Finnish band is going to be more difficult to dig up sources than a 2014 album. This is 1992 and we are already biased enough to
WP:RECENT to not be deleting articles simply because 1992 is pre-Internet. The Italian Heavy Metal book in the article sources only lists this debut album while giving full coverage to two later better selling albums, but debut articles are still interesting and we wouldn't be deleting this one, we'd only be merging to a The 69 Eyes discography article anyway. What's the point?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- A quick look at it.wp fi.wp sv.wp Italiano Suomi Svenska articles don't reveal more sources, but do suggest that this is not just an en.wp topic.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
00:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
04:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Suriel1981 do you know how to merge a cover jpg into a band article? What about the rest of
Category:The 69 Eyes albums?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The cover photo is a non-free image - it will have to be deleted if there is no article for it to illustrate. I don't know what is likely to happen to the rest of the articles in that category.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
User:AdventurousSquirrel I wonder are Finnish newspaper arts pages from 1992 online anywhere?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I appreciate the argument I think you're trying to make, and I agree that you have a worthwhile goal in mind, but the supposition that RSs covering this album in nontrivial detail exist in printed format is entirely hypothetical at this stage, right?
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk)
09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. COI or not, there is consensus that the subject does not meet GNG. As a few people did mention, the subject's business might be a viable topic, so then this title could possibly be recreated as a redirect to that §
FreeRangeFrog
croak
00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Jason Minter (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
It is just a few articles about his struggle to keep his mother's killers in jail. There is little significant coverage.
Adam in MO
Talk
03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Possibly, the restaurant he owns is notable. On the other matter, he is a person who suffered an unspeakable personal tragedy as a child, and deserves our individual compassion. But that horrific crime he witnessed, and his entirely understandable response, do not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia biography.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it
05:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Fast Keep this topic is about Jason minter as a person. His cafe is notable
because of him not other way around. The crime scene is not one time event. It is continuously brought up so it has become notable revolving around Jason Minter. Jason Minter is also producer of
The Sopranos. Producer of a show like that is also notable person not inheriting notability, notable as a person. He also appeared in one episode. See his imdb page
[22] he has also worked on
Men in Black movie,
The Tic Code and other shows! Some one working on many productions, have a cafe that is notable because of him (see reference) and have personal event notability is notable person on 3 counts. Google search is full of newspaper reports of data of these 3 counts and
21 google news results,
43 book results. So person is notable. One more thing.
The Sopranos episode
D-Girl (The Sopranos) had
redlink of this person. I created this topic from there. So the user who put red link also think this person is notable so he can have own topic. This can be consensus. Adamfinmo do not delete anything from topic till this debate is complete. Reference you remove was about show and cafe. More references relate Jason to cafe and show. Everything has reference in biography of living person. So do not remove. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- He wasn't a producer on the show, and notability arguments based on policy like
WP:DIRECTOR are stronger than a redlink. IMDB isn't an RS (especially for a BLP).
Widefox;
talk
22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Each claim has reliable source not imdb. IMDB is in external link and it was added by AuthorAuthor. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Those google search hits aren't even all about him.
Widefox;
talk
18:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Most of them are about him. These are reliable sources in this topic about Jason, his work, his cafe
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The cafe would be a different article (redlinked already). Notability is not
WP:INHERITED for him based on the cafe, or the other actors in the episode (I've removed them, and both those sources fail verification). (see below about BLP1E for his notability based on the event).
Widefox;
talk
15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Law-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
*Keep Subject is quoted often by reliable sources and has been the subject of multiple articles as well as by This American Life. Article needs work but that does not make the subject less notable for Wikipedia. Meets WP:GNG.
AuthorAuthor (
talk)
16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks, article has improved, but he doesn't appear to have a major role passing
WP:DIRECTOR.
Widefox;
talk
22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete fails
WP:DIRECTOR:
WP:TOOSOON he was one of several associate producers. He was not the producer as previously stated here - which I've corrected. I don't think he's notable enough for an article being an associate producer (he wasn't the exec producer but just one of the 10-15 others), and only for 21 of 86 episodes along with all the other associate producers on other episodes. His role in the one episode was a Bellman, not a main part (not on first billed list). Article fails
WP:V - his title was wrong (and exaggerated his role), we use a primary for his birth, the interview with him is a primary. The restaurant may be notable but not him (yet). Article seems a
WP:COATRACK - an almost notable BLP that is used to hang the restaurant and views. If we look at
WP:BLP1E for the tragedy, that fails too.
Widefox;
talk
21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Note to closing admin: There's overwhelming behavioural evidence that there's a massive undisclosed paid editor sockfarm, some linked to Fiverr (see
WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez and ANI), with the MO that socks popup on AfDs with Keeps that are waffly / not policy based arguments. Some of the editors have disclosed being paid from Fiverr, others not.
Widefox;
talk
22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I was unaware what I had walked into, Widefox. Based on points made by you and other editors, I am swayed to change to Delete.
AuthorAuthor (
talk)
00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- CommentUser widefox is following my activity on wikipedia without evidence. He has failed to prove anything and now he is here to tag my edit where ever possible. This is harassment because he thinks I am related to subject it can not still change that subject is notable and what AuthorAuthor said before his prejudice is correct. This subject is notable. If Widefox has concern about me he should report me to admin and not waste every one's time here. The wikipedia user who reported me "Rahat" has withdrawn his report at conflict of interest notice board because he also agrees with me. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
09:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- He was not the "producer", but an "associate producer" - the undo
[38] repeats the claim which is not supported by the sources. (disruptive editing issues commented here
TheSawTooth)
Widefox;
talk
11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I have made correction of associate. You had done other tagging I will not restore that because you are harassing. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on edits (and notability), not editors here, thank you.
Widefox;
talk
15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I am going to speak of AuthorAuthor's comment before Widefox put prejudice in his head that this topic is coming in reliable sources again and again so it is ok with
WP:GNG. Birth date is ok about primary but I think AuthorAuthor added birth. I used reliable sources. He is an associate producer and reliable sources are talking about him but not about all other associate producer. Trying to discredit me will not discredit guideline and when reliable source is present you can edit the article if there is concern but deleting it is against policy because it is notable. So I move to suggest to the admin that he should see reliable sources in this page before deleting it. --
TheSawTooth (
talk)
12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The issues with some sources failing verification and the article being promotional I've addressed on the talk page.
Widefox;
talk
01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete-- we do not usually emphasize criminal matters to this extent, and the associate producer role is not notable at all; however, I think it possible that his cafe is notable, and if it has been covered outside NYC there might be grounds for an article on it.
DGG (
talk )
22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. §
FreeRangeFrog
croak
00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Es Downey (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I don't think every person who ever appeared in any professional sports match is, by that fact alone, notable. There's nothing to distinguish this one. I'm not marking it for speedy deletion because the guideline specifically for Australian football is pretty low.
Djcheburashka (
talk)
03:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
Delete, does not pass
WP:NOT.
Shashanksinghvi334 (
talk)
03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per the long and well established consensus that playing in the highest level of a sport is notable.
WT:NSPORTS is the place to argue against it if you don't like it. And if you don't pass NOT (any particular part of NOT, or just the vibe of it?), then is that a double negative meaning it IS suitable for inclusion?
The-Pope (
talk)
04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I'm commenting here to repeat that there is no such consensus regarding
WT:NSPORTS and notability. In fact, the pages specifically say that no consensus has been reached. They also say that the criteria that someone played in an Australian football game does not mean that the page must be kept as notable.
Djcheburashka (
talk)
02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Dylanfromthenorth (
talk)
04:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
Dylanfromthenorth (
talk)
04:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Percy Taylor (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not notable. This fits a minimum guideline on WP:Notability-sports because he played in the Victorian Football League, but there's no other reason why he'd be notable, and I don't think every single person who appeared in any professional sporting event is, by that fact, notable.
Djcheburashka (
talk)
02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk to me
03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk to me
03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
WT:NSPORTS says there is not a consensus that appearance in a single competitive match justifies notability. If this person was a particularly notable player, then the page should say that with
WP:RS. If the page is so-modified I will self-revert my deletion proposal.
Djcheburashka (
talk)
-
WP:NAFL does not say that anyone who played in Australian football is notable. It says that someone who played may be notable. Someone in the last few weeks seems to have gone in and tried to create bare-bones entries for, apparently, dozens, if not every, player in the Australian football league, ever, almost all of those articles cited only to the Encyclopedia of Australian Football (or whatever its called). Is that really what we want?
Djcheburashka (
talk)
05:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- That would be me, and the number is in the vicinity of about 2000. We have thousands of articles on tiny towns and cities, is that what we want? The idea of an encyclopedia is to contain encyclopedic knowledge, and you aren't going to be interested in every article. That doesn't reduce its' notability or relevance. There are numerous more references for these players if you want to go digging through scanned newspapers.
Terlob (
talk)
07:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- And we still have another
4000 or so to go. And on a lot of these stubs, myself, Jevansen and others have already added more (referenced) info, whether it be more personal (family connections), more football achievements or details of their pre/post football life. Once the article exists, adding the info is easy. Creating the article is hard. And you are completely misreading the NSPORT guideline, it says that such a player is likely to be notable enough for an article, and is really designed to avoid wasting our time on this board defending articles, on these fully referenced/verified generally non-BLP stub articles.
The-Pope (
talk)
11:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
non-admin closure)
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
00:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Merna Mora (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
What makes this notable?
Djcheburashka (
talk)
02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep What makes it notable is the two references now in the article, plus significant coverage of this 130,000 acre
sheep station in many books shown in a Google Books search. Instead of deleting this article (always the last resort), it should be expanded and improved.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it
06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep Australian stations are the social and historical equivalent of
unincorporated areas in the USA. By US example there are 1,719 unincorporated communities in Kentucky. Every one of these has a WP article - most articles are smaller and have fewer citations than has
Merna Mora. The Merna Mora article is a recently created stub, but it is adequately referenced. The subject has a history going back to the 1890s and has a significant position geographically and within the modern outback enviro-tourism industry. A Google search confirms its social currency. The fact that the proponent for deletion is not familiar with the subject is not a reason for deletion on a question of notability. The fact that the proponent obviously nominated this for deletion with no further research to confirm lack of notability is more of a worry. If the proponent is serious about this, then there are 1,057 articles on unincorporated communities in Texas, or 2,660 articles on unincorporated communities in Virginia, many of them one-liners, that should receive attention before worrying about the notability of Australian stations.
John beta (
talk)
06:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep As per argument above.
Hughesdarren (
talk)
08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
09:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Middle orthodoxy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Long term stub with merge proposal, no sources and not particularly notable as something distinct from neo-Calvinism
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk to me
03:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Are you arguing for a complete delete of the article with no redirect for the term at all? The "form of neo-Calvinist theology" claim is unreferenced, and there is NO MENTION of "Middle orthodoxy" or of Berkouwer in the
Neo-Calvinism article. You cannot redirect Middle orthodoxy to an article that does not mention the subject of the redirect! However, the
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer article DOES mention Middle orthodoxy.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
15:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. I am. There is nothing to establish notability of this term such that an article or entry is justified. If the subject is notable, that's one thing... however even within the Berkouwer article, there are no references associated. If it is notable, then lets get some sources in the Berkouwer article, and talk about a redirect at that point.
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I agree 100% that an article is not justified - but if the term exists someone might search Wikipedia for it. Rather than finding nothing, surely it is better for the searcher to be redirected to
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (an article which mentions the phrase, and which can be used as a start point for other articles like
Neo-Calvinism) rather than finding nothing? You yourself have said the term/concept exists and has at least some connection to Berkouwer.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
14:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- A google search for the term turns up little or no references... even outside of Wikipedia. I don't think that a name space for this term is justified. My vote for delete stands.
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.