 |
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 keep. as meets WP:SIGCOV, I'm closing this early as it was only nominated a month ago.... ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Unidan ( | 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 internet forum super user. Byates5637 ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Not only is this the 5th AfD in the past few months, there is nothing new in the nominator's rationale that is any different than the other AfDs. Without explaining how the article is about a "non-notable" subject, the sources in the article refute that claim, especially without any elaboration on how Fox News and Vice supposedly do not show notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep meets the WP:SIGCOV standard, and has passed multiple prior afd debates, establishing community consensus... Roberticus talk 08:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- National Integrated College ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Normally, schools are deemed automatically notable; but this one has remained unsourced for over three years now. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The proper remedy for an unsourced article is to add sources, not to nominate it for deletion. Did you conduct a search for such sources, as required by WP:BEFORE? According to that page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." - 71.112.198.23 ( talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – Educational institutions are notable -- Hackerboyas ( Talk) 05:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is this policy? Can you point me to it? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The second bullet point at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is the relevant one. AllyD ( talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Highbeam (subscription reqd) turns up mention in two articles from Kathmandu Post, one about an ex-student [1], one about the institution's participation in a wider event [2]. Neither is worth adding to the article, but they do provide verification; no reason for this not to follow the normal outcome for such articles. AllyD ( talk) 06:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Highbeam has just two mentions – one only indirectly as the result of a student, and the other about a fair for Nepali secondary schools. Neither mentions the school in the opening three paragraphs visible without subscription. Google search turns up social media, automatic-inclusion lists, self-published stuff like job openings, and indirect mentions in résumés, etc. I can't find anything that could be used to add any useful content to the article or cite as a source for anything other than maybe its rough address.
WP:NSCHOOL is confusing (as to the meaning of "this guideline"), but seems to mean it must pass either
WP:NGO or
WP:GNG. I say it passes neither. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that consensus is that there must be evidence that it simply exists and operates, which seems to be true. I don't know what purpose an article like this serves, but the precedent seems clear. Changing my vote (with objection). —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit 2) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "most ... outcomes" and also that it is only an essay and when it conflicts with policy or guidelines, to respect the latter. WP:ORGSIG seems to directly contradict it, with "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists".
In the 13 years its been open, it's been mentioned just twice (and only indirectly and as a member of a larger group of schools) that we can find. In the 3 years its been tagged as requiring more sources, nobody has found any, nor found any information to expand it beyond a one-line stub. There is, of course, nothing keeping it from being created again if things change. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as a verified secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this college educates up to and including Bachelor degree level that puts it at a higher status than, for example, US high schools that are generally considered notable. It is hardly surprising that not many sources can be found on the Internet in English for a school in Nepal! To avoid systemic bias local sources in the Nepali language should be examined. When, as here,we have a likely notable subject we don't delete rather we seek improvement. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. I looked at the school's website to get its name in Nepali (or Newari) and found their website to be entirely in English (even the masthead and logo), which is somewhat unusual, and indicates to me that their primary language of instruction is English. I would therefore expect coverage in English sources.
Still, I searched for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत" which is what Google Translate came up with for "National Integrated" in Nepali. "College" did not translate, though it showed an alternate of कलेज, similar to the Hindi कॉलेज. Bing Translate doesn't have Nepali, but "राष्ट्रीय एकीकृत कॉलेज" in Hindi. Searches of various combinations of these yielded pages that, when translated back to English, were unrelated to the school (though did usually contain "national integrated").
Perhaps someone can comment on the correct name of the school in Nepali? Or Newari? There appears to be significant internet presence of Nepali media, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to find coverage. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Though it is college of Nepal, it uses its English name. Many of the colleges use English names such as: Liverpool International College, Prime College, Barsha College and so on. Finding sources regarding the schools and colleges of Nepal are much harder as there are less websites (noted to be reliable on wikipedia). As the above user found source of HSEB affiliation, it credibly indicates notability. Hackerboyas ( Talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- As you have asked its Nepali translation, it would be राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज, the word college is just written in Devanagari script and is a agantuk word (copied from other languages than Sanskrit). Hackerboyas ( Talk) 03:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. I looked at the school's website to get its name in Nepali (or Newari) and found their website to be entirely in English (even the masthead and logo), which is somewhat unusual, and indicates to me that their primary language of instruction is English. I would therefore expect coverage in English sources.
- Thanks. So it is as I searched it, both with and without the "loan word" for college. I still didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps someone who reads Nepali can verify (i.e. search for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज" and see if you find anything that qualifies as an
WP:RS).
As far as HSEB affiliation, it seems likely that, just like other places in the world, being a member of such an organization is a requirement, not an option. How many similar schools are not members? Between the issues with the encoding of the HSEB spreadsheets and the bad links on their site(s), I had to give up, and was unable to even verify their affiliation. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. So it is as I searched it, both with and without the "loan word" for college. I still didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps someone who reads Nepali can verify (i.e. search for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज" and see if you find anything that qualifies as an
WP:RS).
- Check this out: Check the PDF Affiliated HSS 2069/70
- You can find in 3192, college code: 7622 -- निक उ.मा.वी which is short form written in Nepali language — NIC. This proves it is affiliated to HSEB. Cheers! Hackerboyas ( Talk) 02:18, 27 September 2014 (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, with no prejudice against further discussion regarding merge or redirect. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reality distortion field ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The topic is unique to Steve Jobs and the majority of the text is already on the page devoted to Steve Jobs. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We need a policy related nomination for deletion. I cannot fathom the rationale here. It is a neologism, for sure, yet it seems to be in reasonably widespread and cited use. The article does need better references, yes, but it seems capable of being better referenced. Fiddle Faddle 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- comment - the argument is that this is not a notable topic in and of itself; it's merely an epithet used primarily about Jobs, and very secondarily about other people in and out of Apple; but has no notability independent of Jobs. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- redirect to Steve Jobs, the content that is not already in that article is 1) not reliably sourced or 2) about "Reality distortion field" only via
WP:OR. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- another option that would be more work is rename and expand into something along the lines of Public perception of Steve Jobs-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) If most of the content is already on the Steve Jobs page, then Merge is a better option.-- Auric talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep seems reasonable as a standalone topic. And it meets the GNG handily.
Protonk (
talk)
00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- How does it meet WP:NEO? there are uses of, but not commentary about-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Since it also has a sourced attribution to Clinton, merging or redirecting with Jobs is not appropriate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- the phrase when applied to Clinton is via a blog, not a reliable source and for clinton it has a completely different meaning - for Jobs its a positive meaning reflecting his charisma in talking people into his dreams; when applied to Clinton it is a pejorative insinuating that everything surrounding him is a field of lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Steve Jobs. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Steve Jobs is already at 10,000 words-- some content has to go to subarticles. WP:NOTPAPER. Darmokand ( talk) 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep or merge and redirect, there is really no valid rationale for a deletion here, at best a merge proposal could be in order, but the article sounds as a legitimate spinout. Cavarrone 13:39, 26 September 2014 (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 and salt Speedy deleted as an attack page. Salted due to the face that there have now been 3 creations of this article that had serious BLP violations. If someone can make a BLP compliant version in draft space then that can be considered. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Benn Zarin McCord ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Had this a sa prod until I just saw how off this is-attack page? a hoax? Considering this guy was born in 2000-none of this makes sense. Wgolf ( talk) 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. Article was deleted by INeverCry and CactusWriter per G3 in april and January 2013 respectively. Here is the deletion log. Wikicology ( talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-Yeah I agree-it also seems like a borderline attack page even. Once I noticed the birth year and the years active it seemed impossible. Wgolf ( talk) 23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as is a complete hoax. – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2014 (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. Coverage is clearly on the thin side, but this discussion hinges on that one award. Without agreement on that matter, I cannot find consensus to delete. Drmies ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- April O'Neil (pornographic actress) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AVN award (twitter queen) not significant award and XBIZ award (girl/girl actress) scene related. No independent biographical detailed sourced to reliable sources for this person. was one of 16 porn actresses to appear in a documentary and is not mentioned by name in the review except being listed as one of those interviewed. As an interview the film is a primary source and does not therefore count.
What all this leaves us is a BLP without any decent sourcing and a subject who does not meet the GNG and/or PORNBIO... Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The Girl/Girl Performer of the Year win is not scene-related, and the
source proves this. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
22:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- That "source" proves nothing of the kind. It is simply a list of the awards, with no content whatever explaining/describing the criteria by which award recipients are chosen.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- A list of winners from the official website proves nothing? That's like saying including a mention of someone winning an Emmy sourced from
emmys.com proves nothing. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're deliberately misquoting me, Erpert, and that's disruptive and dishonest. Just stop it. I said it proved nothing regarding the claim you cited it for, and you haven't disputed it. Tendentiously trying to muddy the waters rather than reasonably discussing the issues is grossly inappropriate behaviour.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Erpert provided a list of the 2014 XBIZ Award winners as evidence that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category. You stated that the list proved nothing and that we should disregard it. I'm not sure why I should have to explain this when it is so obvious, but if O'Neil would have received that award for a particular sex scene, which she didn't, the film would be mentioned in the list along with her co-star(s) and the production company. We know this because all of the scene-related categories on that list mention the film, all of the participants in the scene, and the production company. O'Neil is listed under the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" category all by herself. That list does prove that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category, although I'm not even sure we should be debating this. I mean, what could possibly make you think that a category with the phrase "Performer of the Year" in it's name is scene-related?
Rebecca1990 (
talk)
22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Granted, HW didn't call the win scene-related (it was actually Spartaz who did that), but he did !vote "delete" lower in this discussion by claiming that the award is a "token award for a few of [XBIZ's] clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories". You have used this kind of argument in several AfDs before, HW; the problem is, you have yet to actually prove that that is the case. Do you or someone you know work for XBIZ? Is there a page on xbiz.com detailing how and why categories are created? Basically, no matter how many times you state that opinion (and no matter how many other people might agree with you), if you can't provide proof of that claim, all it is is, well, just that: an unsourced opinion, which doesn't really hold much weight against sources that the other participants in the discussion provide. (SN: Disagreeing with you is disruptive and dishonest? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Erpert provided a list of the 2014 XBIZ Award winners as evidence that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category. You stated that the list proved nothing and that we should disregard it. I'm not sure why I should have to explain this when it is so obvious, but if O'Neil would have received that award for a particular sex scene, which she didn't, the film would be mentioned in the list along with her co-star(s) and the production company. We know this because all of the scene-related categories on that list mention the film, all of the participants in the scene, and the production company. O'Neil is listed under the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" category all by herself. That list does prove that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category, although I'm not even sure we should be debating this. I mean, what could possibly make you think that a category with the phrase "Performer of the Year" in it's name is scene-related?
Rebecca1990 (
talk)
22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're deliberately misquoting me, Erpert, and that's disruptive and dishonest. Just stop it. I said it proved nothing regarding the claim you cited it for, and you haven't disputed it. Tendentiously trying to muddy the waters rather than reasonably discussing the issues is grossly inappropriate behaviour.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- A list of winners from the official website proves nothing? That's like saying including a mention of someone winning an Emmy sourced from
emmys.com proves nothing. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- That "source" proves nothing of the kind. It is simply a list of the awards, with no content whatever explaining/describing the criteria by which award recipients are chosen.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO. Has two well-known and significant industry awards. Her AVN Award for "Twitter Queen" is indeed significant. It's an AVN Award, the "Oscars of porn". And it is not a scene-related or ensemble category, which are the only categories excluded by PORNBIO. She was also selected as the winner of that category through fan voting. What better evidence than that is there that she also passes the second criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER which states "Has a large fan base"? And her XBIZ Award for "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not scene related. She was given that award for her entire body of work throughout 2013, not for a particular sex scene. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca, please stop making deliberately false statements in your attempts to influence deletion debates. You know perfectly well that consensus in the lengthy and exhausting debates over PORNBIO was that both the award category and the awarding organization were taken into account in determining whether a particular award met the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and that scene-ensemble/related categories were not the only exclusions. You pushed your view at length in discussions regarding "MILF" category awards, and it was rejected; as
User:Morbidthoughts, who is hardly one of the anti-porn editors you complain about often enough, stated in one of those discussions, there are "insignificant token award[s]", even from AVN, that fail the PORNBIO test. And, by the way, what is your source for the claim that the "Girl-Girl Performer" award is not scene-related? It certainly can't be given for her "entire body of work", because a quick check of IAFD listings shows "girl-girl" scenes are a pretty small part of it.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm "making deliberately false statements"? I'm simply stating the fact that PORNBIO does not exclude any other categories besides scene related and ensemble ones. That is not a false statement, it's the truth. And it's going to take a better argument than WP:I just don't like it to exclude any other ones. Several adult industry A-listers have already been deleted under the current, unfair PORNBIO guideline, so why do you insist on trying to make it even stricter? And then you act surprised when people wonder if you're anti-porn. The fact is that numerous articles on notable porn stars have been deleted this year, and it was you who started most of those AfD's and PROD's. I would really like to know why articles on non notable porn stars who have become anti-porn activists, such as Nadia Styles and Holly Ryder, never get deleted, but articles on notable pro-porn porn stars do. And you pointed out that IAFD lists very few girl/girl scenes for O'Neil. Here's the thing: IAFD is a database of adult films that have been released on DVD or VHS (back in the day). IAFD does not keep track of internet only porn scenes. Recently, IAFD has started to add internet only scenes from Brazzers and Kink.com (highlighted in yellow in performer filmography lists), but they haven't finished doing that yet and they continue to focus primarily on expanding their database with DVD titles. Perhaps O'Neil appeared in several more girl/girl scenes in 2013 which aren't listed on IAFD because they were internet only. And even if she did do less girl/girl scenes in 2013 than all the other Girl/Girl Performer of the Year nominees did, why does that matter? All this does is demonstrate that these adult industry awards are about quality, not quantity. You said that O'Neil did not attend the ceremony to accept her award. I don't know if this is true or not, but what does that have to do with the awards significance? In fact, this just proves that your claim that XBIZ is a "PR business" whose awards and nominations are "purchased" by their "clients", is false. Do you really think that someone would pay to win award and then not show up to accept it? Rebecca1990 ( talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca, please stop making deliberately false statements in your attempts to influence deletion debates. You know perfectly well that consensus in the lengthy and exhausting debates over PORNBIO was that both the award category and the awarding organization were taken into account in determining whether a particular award met the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and that scene-ensemble/related categories were not the only exclusions. You pushed your view at length in discussions regarding "MILF" category awards, and it was rejected; as
User:Morbidthoughts, who is hardly one of the anti-porn editors you complain about often enough, stated in one of those discussions, there are "insignificant token award[s]", even from AVN, that fail the PORNBIO test. And, by the way, what is your source for the claim that the "Girl-Girl Performer" award is not scene-related? It certainly can't be given for her "entire body of work", because a quick check of IAFD listings shows "girl-girl" scenes are a pretty small part of it.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer win does meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO. However other winners under niche categories (e.g. Bridgette B - Unsung Siren) have been deleted as not notable. Completely fails GNG. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you bring up Unsung awards because those aren't the ones we are discussing here, but I just wanted to point out that there is an equal amount of Keep vs. Delete votes in Bridgette B's AfD. Bridgette B is currently the only AVN, XRCO, or FAME award recipient of an underrated/unsung award without a WP article. The category may seem controversial, but they is no consensus to exclude it from PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 00:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There appears to be no dispute that the subject fails the GNG by a country mile. The "Twitter Queen" award, like all the AVN Fan Awards, fails the well-known/significant component of PORNBIO; the awards are (allegedly) determined by a website poll, which allows you to vote not just multiple times but daily, as well as allowing anyone who can access the voting site via dynamic IP addressing to vote an effectively unlimited number of times. The results of such a poll can hardly be said to be significant, the outcome is easy to manipulate, and such a survey is generally regarded as worthless. The "Girl-Girl Performer Award" is neither well-known nor significant; XBIZ created it just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories. (And, according to IAFD. O'Neal performed in only four such scenes in 2013, making one wonder just what the award criteria are.) Another point against significance: she reportedly didn't even bother to attend the awards ceremony. The bottom line is (or should be) this: she by all accounts fails the GNG, and, if she passes PORNBIO, it's a narrow and technical pass at best. We often enough delete mainstream performers who technically pass NACTOR (for example, performers with multiple recurring but minor roles on soap operas. There's no basis for special, favorable treatment for porn performers.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "XBIZ created [the category] just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories." Two questions:
- How do you know that's why it was created?
- Why does it matter if it was created this year? (And if you can't respond civilly or without using bold print, don't respond at all.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep.
Subtropical-man
talk
(en-2) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)- I agree that it should be kept, but stating why would really help. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. One other thing that should be mentioned though, is that in spite of all the porn bios that have been brought to AfD, I have yet to see one deleted on an actor who not only won a notable porn award, but the award win was even mentioned in the delete rationale. It didn't work with Capri Anderson ( [3]), it didn't work with Leilani Leeane ( [4]), and I doubt it's going to work here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - Passes GNG & PORNBIO,
Also I echo Erpert's concerns - Is there any award on these notable ? .... At this rate there aint gonna be any porno model articles left here.– Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)- What did you ask? Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
05:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ah was away with the fairies! – Davey2010 • (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- What did you ask? Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
05:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Found more evidence of her notability; her popularity is noted by at least two mainstream media outlets (Complex & LA Weekly). I have added them to the article. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Erpert and sources found by Rebecca1990.-- cyclopia speak! 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Lior ( talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep This is a tough one. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe the Xbiz award is a significant industry award, and not a scene or assembly award. Thus, it complies with the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Furthermore, Ms. O'Neil has garnered some coverage in non-industry publications, indicating she has some notability.-- danntm T C 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Finnegas ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Found more mainstream coverage in Rolling Stone and Complex. I have added the sources to the article. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 17:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per PORNBIO and GNG. Not just the award, the subject got reliable mainstream coverage ( Complex Magazine, Rolling Stone and particularly LA Weekly) and was portrayed on a very notable documentary film alongside some of the most notable adult performers of the 2000s, something which sounds a strong indicator of notability. Unconvincing arguments for deletion. Cavarrone 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I find Erpert's argument persuasive. - 71.112.198.23 ( talk) 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Award-winner and coverage in reliable sources. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason to regard her XBIZ award as not meeting the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. The only case against her seems to be that it is in a new category, but the other substantively similar XBIZ award categories are regarded as meeting the standard, and it would be silly to delete articles every time they change or rename the categories only to have someone rewrite them the following year when the award is no longer new. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Princeflorishlimited ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability, written like an advertisement. Llightex ( talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Tagged for A7/G11 Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:40, 20 September 2014 (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 keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Connected Baby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. ( talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project.
Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (
talk)
22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep #1 due to the above. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia ( WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
- additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
- 1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
- 2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
- 3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
- If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mads Nielsen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. I don't see him been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary reliable sources . Wikicology ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. As the player is on loan at a non-FPL team this season, WP:CRYSTAL would seem particularly relevant here. Fenix down ( talk) 08:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA ( talk) 15:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fully pro means fully pro. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- 2014 Indian Super League fixtures ( | 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 separate page for league fixtures is first of all, never done, and second of all, does not provide anything encyclopedic. It is literally a list of fixtures and results. There is already a standard way to list fixtures and results as seen here. You can also list fixtures and results on the season pages for each team so this is not a needed page at all. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 17:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - not required. Giant Snowman 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - per arguments above, already dealt with in main season article. Fenix down ( talk) 08:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator and comments above. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Per above. Kante4 ( talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mike D'Amato (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Some local coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I won't cosider an assistant legislator notable enough to meet WP:POL. All I can see is a scanty reliable sources which does not satisfy the criteria. Wikicology ( talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly consider Milwaukee to be a large enough city that its city councillors could be considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles if you could write a genuinely substantive article that was sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — but it is not in the narrow range of cities for which city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here isn't even approaching the outer suburbs of the volume necessary to pass GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat. Nothing more to add. Bearian ( talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability for a politician as explained well by Bearcat above. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Shadazzle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost a year has passed since the previous no-consensus AfD, but the article has not improved, so the previous rationale still holds: "Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article (besides their own website) are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:WEB, WP:FILM, and WP:GNG, hence: Delete." Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, nice discussion in sources about this comedy. — Cirt ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, Excluding reviews, I see four secondary sources here, one of which is from the world's largest broadcaster. I also think it's worth mentioning that, although some of the sources are local, they span several different localities. Definitely passes WP:GNG. — Fugabutacus 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The argument about "the world's largest broadcaster" was also brought forward at the previous AfD. I don't think that Radio Sheffield fits that description, it's just a small local part of the BBC. All coverage is minor and very local. To paraphrase: definitely misses GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I suppose that's a fair point. However, I would stress that GNG makes absolutely no mention of locality. It is just a guideline, of course, and it's down to the community to decide, but if you go through each point of GNG one-by-one, this article checks them all off without a doubt. — Fugabutacus 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is visible, if we don't consider electronic media a reliable source, we have to delete hundreds of such articles. Justice007 ( talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify what you mean with "electronic media" here? I don't know whether any hard figures are available about this, but my personal guess would be that at least 80% of all reliable sources used on WP are "electronic media"... The question here is not whether the sources are electronic or not, but whether they are of sufficient importance and depth to establish notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well
Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster" is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.
Justice007 (
talk)
06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that, I was confused because radio is not usually taken as an "electronic" source. The question here is whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well
Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster" is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.
Justice007 (
talk)
06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources found online WP:RS. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Would you mind expanding on what online RS meet GNG? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The article has undergone some major surgery, gaining and losing large chunks of data - in particular the episode guide and the information about the soundtrack. While that does not directly affect notability, it does seem that the article now contains less information than it once did. If the article is kept, shouldn't that information be added back in? Other series (TV mainly in the US) have lists of characters, lists of episodes, etc. LaMona ( talk) 00:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the articles on the Wikipedia all the time can be expanded and improved citing reliable sources, every passage of the article needs source, if not, can be challenged by any editor, it is more better content with source than unsourced. Justice007 ( talk) 07:03, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rakesh Khanna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Business person's resume. I'm not sure I see notability/requirement of why this person needs an encyclopedia article. I've not been active on Wikipedia for a while, though, so a bit rusty on notability criteria. — Gaff ταλκ 07:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- His biography in the section of the company he works for should be ample coverage. Outside of working for the company, not sure what is notabile: /info/en/?search=Syntel#Rakesh_Khanna — Gaff ταλκ 07:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The following was left opn my talk page. Posting here for clarity and benefit of the involved editor/creator — Gaff ταλκ 22:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
| Dear Gaff, |
|---|
| Rakesh is a notable personality in the Indian IT industry. He has contributed a lot for the industry and holds a key position at Syntel. Besides students from his alma mater, key industry personalities and media persons find him influential.
Please be assured that this is not a business page. Also, I had consulted Jim F Bleak [5], a fellow wiki editor before publishing the page. I would appreciate if you could share more pointers on how to make this page more person-oriented and lower the "business" tone of it. Regards, Vishal Yajnik 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalyajnik ( talk • contribs) |
Also: Need help to clear flag on Rakesh Khanna
Dear Gaff,
I have made the required edits to Rakesh Khanna's page. I have also added few new sections and diluted the language a bit.
Can you please help me clear the "flag"/"notifications" for this page.
Regards, Vishal Yajnik 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalyajnik (talk • contribs) --— Gaff ταλκ 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Chief operating officer of a major company. I think he scrapes through. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:31, 22 September 2014 (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. CSD G4 (no new non-primary sources), and SNOW deletion. Salting. Please request WP:DRV to seek recreation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Jeremy Jahns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography that doesn't establish notability. Cites an affiliated source, a bunch of the subject's YouTube videos and a stats page.
A quick web search doesn't turn up anything more: just blogs, wikis, and more YouTube videos. Article was deleted before for pretty much the same reason. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:A7. Since this self-promo article was recreated, I suggest salting to prevent recreation. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Citing YouTube isn't ideal neither. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all. There is no evidence of notability, almost all of the sources come from Jahns' personal YouTube channel. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there to show that he's notable. I can see where he's popular on YouTube, but popularity does not mean that someone is notable. ( WP:ITSPOPULAR) It may make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. For example, Cryaotic (a LPer known for his association with PewDiePie) has over a million subscribers but hasn't really gained enough coverage to merit his own article. Heck, SkyDoesMinecraft has over 10 million followers and no Wikipedia article for the same reason and that's the 9th most popular channel on YouTube. This is actually a pretty common problem with YT personalities: you can be popular but still never actually gain any coverage about you. I can't really see where any of the concerns from the previous AfD have been met, so this could potentially be speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 22 September 2014 (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. but stubed for rewriting based on non-promotional tone and reliable sources Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hands On Science Outreach, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly promotional article with notability issues unresolved for over six years. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:CORP. 'HOSO' fails to meet the depth of coverage/notability requirements. Also, the article is clearly written in a promotional tone, reads like an advertisement basically. The related article Project NEXUS should probably also go for the same reasons. Valiant Patriot ( talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or weakly consider keep&cleanup because there might be something in there of use to somebody researching how to develop informal/hands on science education. (I'm more forgiving to allow a quasi-notable educational non-profit slide on notability technicality, than say a self-promoting business tycoon). I don't entirely agree with the arguments above, that it should be deleted because it has a promotional tone. Tone of an article is better fixed through editing, than deletion. --— Gaff ταλκ 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. While I agree the article is in deplorable condition, and likely written by connected individuals, there are several excellent sources, among them this
1995 Baltimore Sun article and extensive coverage in several books:
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11]. Number 3 is actually written by the program creator, and #6 is a mere directory listing, but the others easily meet the standard for significant coverage in independent reliable sources (in many of these cases academic sources).
BusterD (
talk)
00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If a delete outcome is preferred by this process, I'd be happy to develop this page after userfication to my userspace. BusterD ( talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I would vote to delete the current article, but I think including BusterD's sources would be enough to save this article. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep given BusterD's sources, but would BusterD be will to do a competent rewrite on the article? Should it be stubified for the time being? -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm on a work-related wikibreak right now, and won't be able to contribute meaningfully until just after October 10. However, I'd be happy if the result of a keep outcome here was to stubify the pagespace and allow someone (possibly myself) to rebuild it from scratch using reliable sources. I believe there's a bit of useful information in page history as well. I'm not a connected individual, but I have a fondness for and long familiarity with discovery science techniques and science-based museums. I should add that I'm in agreement with User:Valiant Patriot that Project NEXUS has a very similar COI problem. Rather than delete that page however, I urge editors to allow me to look over the extensive related sourcing attached to that bloated pagespace for possible page rescue. BusterD ( talk) 00:36, 30 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mac Lawton ( | 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 non notable music director. Nothing wrong with be a indie one, but it seems this one is rather unotable. Wgolf ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notabiliy found. -- Michig ( talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- ABC of Emergency Radiology ( | 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 book, not discussed in reliable sources, not a bestseller, no book awards. Binksternet ( talk) 04:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I think you were missing a few things so I added them. Probably good this was relisted. St★lwart 111 12:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep appears to be a formative text but needs work; I'm open to changing my opinion to Weak Delete BlueSalix ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I added another source, a book review from the Critical Care Medicine journal. This along with the BMJ reliable source in the external links section, shows that the book has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, in enough depth that a reasonable short article can be written from the sources. The article is but a stub, but is well-formed and referenced. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I see nothing that makes this book notable. Two of the references are to sites that sell the book. The last reference is a book review, but that journal has a review section and reviews a couple of books per issue - this one is not unusual in any way that I can see. The second external reference is not about the book, at least not the part that I can read. It is about a trauma technique (named somewhat differently from the book), to whit: "The primary survey comprises a rapid evaluation of the patient, resuscitation, and institution of life preserving treatment. This process is called the ABCDE of trauma." LaMona ( talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pavel Naumenko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Most sources given are passing mentions or do not mention him at all. The Banner talk 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not think he is notable per WP:PROF, but he seems to be the general director of Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company, see ru:Харьковский авиационный завод, the main subsidiary of Antonov and the biggest aircraft producer of Ukraine. Not sure whether this is sufficient for notability though.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. His position would seem to make him pretty notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:32, 22 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- A-May Eain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song that has been tagged for a few years-can't find any thing about it. Maybe should be a redirect to the singer? Wgolf ( talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per book sources added. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Clearing (EP) ( | 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 EP with very little info that could probably be redirected to the band's page. Wgolf ( talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- AudioSoft ( | 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 business doesn't seem to be Notable as AudioSoft, Ultra Electronics AudioSoft or Ultra Electronics Network Analytics. Stesmo ( talk) 22:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: An article which was created and expanded by several WP:SPA accounts - describing what the firm did but not demonstrating notability. I can find very little coverage of it in its lifespan, other than reporting when it was taken over. It is now a business unit of Ultra Electronics so unlikely to gather more coverage under the former name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Dubmood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional fluff piece. The sources listed provide trial mentions of the subject in passing, if at all. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 16:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources cited within the article are a combination of expired links, do not qualify as a reliable source, or do not make direct reference to the subject. I cannot locate non-trivial coverage of this subject in reliable third party sources. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:21, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Solent Thrashers ( | 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'll firstly establish that the previous AfD nomination for this page included it as part of a bulk nomination, and the Keep decision was made solely because each page merited individual attention.
Having given this page individual attention, and quite aside from the extremely non-encyclopedic tone and content it consists of (almost none of which is referenced), various reasons for deletion occur to me:
- As detailed in the previous AfD nomination, it does not meet any specific notability guidelines for sports organisations laid out in WP:NSPORTS - it has had no nationally or internationally notable members/employees and has participated in no nationally or internationally notable events or activities.
- WP:AUD - according to Wikipedian standards "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" and at least one "national, or international source" is necessary - having searched google, google news, google scholar and google books I cannot find any national or international interest or sources, only local media and media of limited interest.
-
WP:ORGDEPTH - even though there are these local news references and references on specialist, enthusiast websites, almost all of this coverage is Trivial according to Wikipedia's standards - specifically:
- sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
- inclusion in lists of similar organizations
- the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
- routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
- brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
- routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
- quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
- passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. WalkingOnTheB ( talk) 13:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- D
- Delete. The reasons given above are pretty iron-clad - I've done all the searching for media coverage I can and have had the same findings - local-press, trivial, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrontDeskMust ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as above. have googled: no national/interational notability, no non-trivial coverage. also (and incidentally) its written like a personal website and has had years to address issues. MarlovianPlough ( talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete --- All points raised so far (which, as far as I can, I've corroborated) would individually be enough reason to delete, but taken as a group they're overwhelming. Personofi ( talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable amateur "American football" club team based in southern England. User:WalkingOnTheB nails this in his AfD nomination above, so there's no need for me to rehash the "delete" reasons in great detail, except to say that the subject fails to satisfy the specific notability guideline for teams and organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, both for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (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. The nomination has been withdrawn with no contrary !votes. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Holy Ghost (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)
Deproded without explanation, non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Production:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per meeting WP:NF (see addendum below). Article needs a lot of work, but that issue seems addressable and not one calling for deletion. Judson University speaks toward kickstarter campaign. Minor mention at Charisma News. Longer article in Revival Lifestyle. Brief writeup in Hallels. Longer article in Christian News Service. Much longer article in Charlotte Observer and a decent one at Christian Review. Podcast review at Christian Film Central. These found with a very quick look. This will never be Star Wars but not all films need to be. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: Apparently this film's production and marketing is also spoken of in Variety, Washington Post, Gospel Herald, Breitbart, World Religion News, International Business Times, Christian Post and others. Nominator, how about a withdrawal? It can then be tagged for improvements. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per the sourcing found. The Variety piece is especially extensive. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and Withdraw. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:33, 20 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- InformaCast ( | 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 assertion of notability, and no references supporting such an assertion. ubiquity ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Please research notability WP:BEFORE nominating. ~ KvnG 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per sources found by KvnG - Passes GNG. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep
IncubateTopic satisfies WP:GNG and is "worthy of notice" (WP:N). The article was created without WP:V sourcing. The fact that the time of the deletion nomination is within 26 minutes of article creation, that the nomination mis-ascribes content problems to WP:N, and that the nomination does not show evidence of the steps to be taken WP:BEFORE nominating, doesn't change the fact that readers cannot verify the article content. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changing to keep, as an editor added references to the article. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:39, 20 September 2014 (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. postdlf ( talk) 04:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of Miss Grand countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like fancruft based on related sources. As the source given does not contain the info present here, also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only stuff I've found are all FB/Twitter related. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Part of the problem here is structural. The list is focused on geography when it should be focused on people - a beauty pageant is not really about what country the contestants come from. Which countries that have sent contestants to a beauty pageant is not a notable topic for a list. Beauty pageants are about the individual contestants, who happen to come from various countries. I would suggest the information presented in this list would be better presented in something like " List of winners of the Miss Grand contest". That would be a much more justifiable sub-article as far as notability goes. The countries could be included as a column of that list. Thus I think this list should be deleted, but a similar list - one with a different focus and structure created to replace it. Blueboar ( talk) 13:31, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dana KCM ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google brought up social media and sites unrelated to subject. Google News had only 2 results, both having nothing to do with the subject. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:37, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- East Side (Phoenix) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely original research.Google brings up real-estate websites triggered by the mention of a major city. What's more, notability is not inherited by being a part of a notable place. Unsourced since October 2006! Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:36, 20 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation in the discussion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dads and Daughters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While I found many sites talking about the stereotype mentioned in the article, I failed to find RS confirming the notability of the lobby group. The two given sources were reliable, but I don't think they alone are enough. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a short-lived organization that accomplished one relatively small thing (getting an ad pulled). Then it died. LaMona ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cyprus Amateur Radio Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. Google Search brings up their social media and aggregate websites that make passing mentions of the subject. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Page to Stage Festival ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:N. Local first time event, media coverage limited to local newspaper. Article creator has WP:COI as founder of event. (note: there is an unrelated event with this name run by Kennedy Center) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 16:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tom Vitoin ( | 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 fictional comic strip character with no links coming in or out and nothing of how he might be important. Wgolf ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:34, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- SoundsUP records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on an independent record label with no independent references. Signed some notable artists and thereby avoided an A7 speedy deletion, but there's no indication of notability otherwise. -- Finngall talk 17:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know soundsUP is going to publish Poets of the fall on vinyl. Does it make sense to keep the small article in wiki? • vakhlov 13:17, 9 September 2014 (MSK)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:34, 20 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Daniel Adair ( | 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 article gives the appearance that it was self-published for promotional purposes. furthermore The article is a biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The article needs a rewrite, but apparently he's actually in Nickelback, and was in 3 Doors Down? As much as this all pains me, there are sources that merit consideration. [17] [18] And he didn't end up with a slew of other language wikipedia articles out of nowhere.-- Milowent • has spoken 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Adair meets notability criteria #6, specifically he "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensemble". Regardless of anyone's opinion on their music, 3 Doors Down and Nickelback are definitely notable bands and Adair received independent coverage for his work in both of them. The article needs better sourcing, not deletion. A quick Google search demonstrates that there are plenty of reliable sources to be had with which to improve the article.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Meets wp:band. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:29, 21 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Robert Strauss (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 16:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Its a resume more than a blp.-- Milowent • has spoken 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Insofar as I can tell most of this stuff is verifiable, and there clearly a public subject interest here, as article links musician to various other public figures. [1] [2] [3] [4]-- Funkypubs ( talk) 2:58, 18 September 2014 (GMT)
- I would hope his personal website is interested in him! Any regular newspaper coverage, like a major or regional newspaper?-- Milowent • has Milowent ( talk 2:58, 20 September 2014 (GMT)] 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- yes many articles all over the web, this is a well know music producer, and I'm a big fan - thus my efforts to make this information accessible new references added for consideration <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektIFgBRxu0, www.ukvibe.org/interviews/robert-strauss-2014, http://endz2endz.com/tag/robert-strauss/, http://endz2endz.com/exclusive-interview-with-uk-soul-band-personal-life/, http://personallifetheband.com/post/61043248672/nice-feature-article-on-personal-life-in-august</ref>
Funkypubs • spoken 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete verification, but not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails MUSIC Just shows how far one can go on blogs, personal webpages and youtube citations. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:46, 29 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. Jprg1966 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. I would treat this as a secondary school and consider it automatically notable on that basis. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eastmain: ... but it's not a secondary school. It's an enrichment program - just a private business. Except for the book you added, the sources are primary and appear to be advertizements. I can't actually see what's in the book but it looks like the subject was mentioned on only one page: [19]. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Divine Worshipper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pulp fiction book that doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for books. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable third-party publications, in particular. Author is prolific but doesn't appear to be notable, and the book isn't used for course ware. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:29, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ilya V Osipov ( | 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 person. An entrepreneur who has had some success, but no significant coverage has arisen from it. Listed sources do not mention Osipov, but merely link to the companies or websites mentioned. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Osipov made the project absorbed by the Russian division of Hearst Corporation. Transaction entered into TOP10 mergers and acquisitions Internet projects in Russia 2012-2013. Links to Osipov as the founder of the projects is on the site of the project, unfortunately some of the links in Russian. So as there are articles in major publications such as The-Village Iexeru ( talk) 05:20, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Steven Parsonage ( | 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 junior rower, not competing successfully at senior level yet. Fram ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (vent) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Coverage is mainly reporting of results and junior accomplishments are not usually considered sufficient for notability. He may become a notable senior rower, but this article was created too early. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:28, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Xhevat Kelmendi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-sentence article based on unreliable sources. Λeternus (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Please do not confuse with an actor of the same name. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I think from this translated link that he appears to be a singer with his own television show in its fifth season. But I would like to find a list of his records somewhere, and I haven't been able to do so, not even at the National Library of Kosovo. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Clarence W. Hinck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Mentioned within local aviation discussion, but not enough to meet WP:GNG and no mention of anything which would meet WP:Notability (people). Boleyn ( talk) 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 3. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 06:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete nothing in the article show anything of note that would pass the general notability requirements. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage except for the single book cited in the article. Brief mentions in passing in other peoples biographies such as Larry Daudt's in Warbirds of America, Inc: 1989, and Phoebe Omlie's in Walking on Air: The Aerial Adventures of Phoebe Omlie. Even the 50th anniversary publication of the Minnesota American Legion only gave him three sentences. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Dale Huffman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at 2005 AfD. Huffman is successful at his job, and within local area, but does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 06:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Local paper columnists aren't notable. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No significant independent coverage, only the newspaper for which he writes. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:03, 29 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Take (Welsh band) ( | 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 band with 2 albums that have no pages and it seems they are not that notable as well. Wgolf ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:26, 20 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adaptive Server Enterprise ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
GNG failing advert Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Disagree This system seems notable enough to me. There is
this book,
this video made by another company, and the google results show other connections with other companies. −
Pintoch (
talk)
10:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: A database product line preceding and then alongside the branch of Microsoft SQL Server, which I think gives enough importance to justify an article here. Several book refs added. AllyD ( talk) 16:26, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Absolute Peach Podcast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible advert. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Acme Mills ( | 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, fails WP:NCORP Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adam Hunter (Comedian) ( | 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 per WP:ENTERTAINER BMIComp 16:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- As written, this article is sourced only to IMDb and his own high school's webpage (neither of which is an acceptable reliable source for a Wikipedia article about a comedian or actor.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly sourced version making a proper claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) can be written, but this version is a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - I'm somewhat lenient when it comes to IMDb but 99& of the article is sourced via IMDb which isn't great, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. good luck finding a consensus here. I couldn't... Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nowhere near notable enough. This location has only been used as a minor background, and that only in a very small number of stories Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Brief, incidental mentions don't constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. For this (or any fictional location, or real one for that matter) to merit its own article, the location itself needs to be the specific focus of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 21:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I have substantially expanded this article since it was nominated for AfD; it now contains many references to "significant coverage in reliable sources". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge. Take away the extraneous plot details about the characters, and there's maybe 2-3 sentences you can say about the school. It is a searchable term, but I have no idea of a good target article immediately (maybe List of Doctor Who items) -- MASEM ( t) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect/Merge (if there is any material rescuable) - I just don't see the required substantial coverage of the subject as described by the General Notability Guideline. Certainly not in the reviews. Harmes mentions it in discussion of the show reusing its heritage, but the text does not go into depth on the school. (I recognize what follows here is an OtherStuff-based comment but by comparison one could probably assemble a greater number of passing mentions over the years to put forward a case for writing an article on the Brigadier's office, or the Doctor's laboratory, during the Unit years.) GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The quoted bit is just his conclusion, after two paragraphs discussing the way that schools were generally portrayed at the time in British children's television and children's fiction in general. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Is the location where an iconic TV series began. Almost all of the 25th anniversary series takes place in or around it and it is a reoccurring location in the last two series as the current companion teaches there and the article can continue to grow due to this. MarnetteD| Talk 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Not everything that appears in two Doctor Who stories needs an article. If it was an important location then you may have a point, but as I said it is just a background location. Literally all we learn in the episode is Susan goes there, and Ian and Barbara teach there - this is not remotely worthy of being mentioned in a separate article. The school is then not seen for 25 years, and then not seen again for another 25. This is not a crucial location like the TARDIS, this is a minor location easily replaceable with another minor location with absolutely nothing beyond fancruft (seriously, where the heck are we getting the motto from? That's not in Unearthly Child) and speculation. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: actually, it's four stories in three periods over the course of 51 years (and more in the coming weeks). I think that the discussion by Kim Newman indicates why this location is more than fancruft. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- what - the sheer speculation over what type of school it is?
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The point isn't whether it's a comprehensive or a secondary modern; the point is that it's not what Newman calls a "fantasy fee-paying school" like Greyfriars or Chiselbury. Newman talks about how Doctor Who sets itself apart from the fictional public-school tradition which still lives on in Hogwarts. If it comes across as "sheer speculation over what type of school it is", perhaps I should rework the relevant text. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eleventh Doctor: There is more on the alleged motto at Talk:Coal Hill School#School arms. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Josiah Rowe: - wait, your comparing this to Hogwarts? Seriously?! There is literally no comparison. Nothing in any of the stories that we have seen gives any detail at all about the nature of the school. What has been revealed amounts to 4 sentences. 1) Susan went there, 2) Ian and Barbara taught there, 3) It was used as a base by the Daleks once, 4) Clara and Danny teach there. How on Earth you can pretend that this is like Hogwarts is beyond me.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eleventh Doctor: No, I wasn't comparing Coal Hill to Hogwarts. Kim Newman, in the reliable source I found, contrasted Coal Hill with Hogwarts. I'll post the full quotation on the article's talk page, so you can see what I'm talking about. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The full quotation is now at Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation. The only reason I mentioned Hogwarts is because Newman did, in a source which I think meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect/Merge It merely serves as a setting. There's no "history" or "mythology" involved (as opposed to Gallifrey or Camelot or Fortress of Solitude). Can be self-contained in the episodes that it appears in (sometimes replaced with Barnes Common-- The Daleks#In print). DonQuixote ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: it has just been confirmed by reliable sources that the forthcoming episode " The Caretaker" will also be set at the school, so it is likely that there will be more coverage in reliable sources after that episode airs (scheduled for Sept. 27). This might be worth considering in closing. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 18:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Request for Comment I haven't gone through every link as of yet, but is there at least one secondary citation in which this fictional location is the primary topic of an article (i.e. instead of being mentioned as part of a review of an episode or as a reference to Doctor Who's history)? I'm willing to consider the argument that fictional locations on their own have some notability, be it Pemberley or the Baxter Building but I'd like to see some clear evidence of "significant coverage" that's not in a gray area. - Markeer 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Markeer: The best cases for the "significant coverage" criterion, IMO, are the books by Newman and Tat Wood. YMMV on whether Newman's comparison of the setting to other children's television settings of the period and the traditions of the school story is sufficient to constitute "significant coverage". The Tat Wood article is admittedly more "fannish", but it's certainly detailed; it's a four-page sidebar about the school, based on the evidence shown on-screen and the British educational system of the period. The online links, however, are largely passing references. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and thank you Josiah Rowe for clarifying my question above. The overall question of whether fictional settings should have their own articles would probably be an interesting one, but as I linked above at the moment there are numerous precedents for articles of that type so the only question would be whether this specific article passes notability. Based on Josiah Rowe's comment, at least one citation is for a lengthy sidebar article specifically on this subject and there is a second book that deals with the location itself in at least some detail. Combined with the numerous trivial references in secondary articles about the episodes this location appears in, that seems (to me at least) to pass the guidelines for notability. But for emphasis: This seems to BARELY pass those guidelines. Additional sources would be of great value to this article, particularly of any secondary source that treats this location as its primary topic. - Markeer 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or "numerous precedents" =
WP:OtherStuffExists?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean
WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion. Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles. I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-
Markeer
18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to
Wuthering Heights while
Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to
the Shire where it has a few paragraphs,
Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to
Beowulf.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this. In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school. For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself. The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless. If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's worth remembering that the question is not whether we think that there is enough information in a primary source (in this case, the TV episodes) to merit "significant coverage" in secondary sources, but whether such significant coverage in secondary sources exists. In this case, I think it does. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this. In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school. For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself. The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless. If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to
Wuthering Heights while
Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to
the Shire where it has a few paragraphs,
Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to
Beowulf.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean
WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion. Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles. I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-
Markeer
18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or "numerous precedents" =
WP:OtherStuffExists?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Significant recurring location. Artw ( talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge into "An Unearthly Child" (or a more relavent article if you can find one.) -- User J Dalek 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Into which episode? Because next week's episode is due to be set there. And it's a recurring location that's shown up over the course of decades. Neonchameleon ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above. – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Recurring location which gets reasonable coverage as such in the extensive Dr Who literature. Passes WP:GNG and our editing policy applies. Andrew ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- That editing policy says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Deletion could be considered 'removal'. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - currently scrapes past the sufficient coverage guides and is about to be the central setting of next week's episode as well as having been a recurring location over more than 50 years. Deleting right now would be silly. Neonchameleon ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "a recurring location over more than 50 years" - hardly. It's featured in only 4 stories, and in two of those it was there for less than a minute. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- And then there's books, comics etc... Though that may begin to get ridiculous. Artw ( talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A recurring location which is significant enough in the series history (and continues to be used regularly in the current season). The article definitely needs to be improved upon, but it shouldn't be deleted. kuwabaratheman ( talk) 15:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect a background feature in a popular programme that fails to have significant coverage. (Does the apartment window in The Honeymooners which Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) uses almost every episode to call Ed, and through which Ed crawls in numerous episodes rate an article stub? Or Ralph's bowling league? Both are mentioned in reviews.) These two or at most three sentence about Coal Hill Sch. belong, if they belong in the encyclopedia at all, in an appropriate article and not as a standalone. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - with the latest episode now past, I still don't see anything either in the article or in the sources that warrants it's own article. The sources are all incidental coverage in relation to reaction to the episode, not about the school. In regard to the number I started earlier being short, I will apologise for missing some appearances out, but the earlier point that the location is only a background to other events stands. The last episode could have been in deffry vale school - and it wouldn't have made that more notable either. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it couldn't have been — as the Radio Times reviewer noted, the episode linked the presence of the villain to the Doctor's repeated visits to Coal Hill, so the Doctor is "rectifying a problem he's caused". That wouldn't have worked with any other school (or any other location, really, except perhaps 76 Totter's Lane). You may not have noticed how the location was relevant, but fortunately a reliable source did. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge ala Peladon or Andoria entries. eheinr007 — Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question: @ Eheinr007: Peladon redirects to List of Doctor Who planets#P. Andoria redirects to List of Star Trek planets (A–B)#Andoria. Coal Hill School is not a planet; is there a redirect target you feel would be appropriate? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Just because this setting recurs several times in the fiction does not make it notable. WP:GNG is not met: we have numerous references to the School, but where's the out-of-universe discussion of the School? WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The citations given provide significant coverage of the stories concerned, not of the School. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Bondegezou: What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at
Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply
WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage":
WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works.
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV does not require chapters or articles. In any case, once we have any amount of well-documented material, we're no longer talking about outright deletion as merger is preferable. This is made fairly clear at WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew ( talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage":
WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works.
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply
WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Bondegezou: What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at
Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect/merge There's little reason to have this purely in-plot minor element of the show on a separate page to include its completely in universe plot only details.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 05:14, 2 October 2014 (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. We do not have so many opinions, but I do not see any sense in one more relisting.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- John T. Binkley ( | 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 sure of the notability of this artist as the article lacks sources and I present it to discussion as I have not been able to find anything more than the tiny refs already here. Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Forgot to say that it seems to be an autobiography. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of valid sourcing. If the article is to be "kept" then it needs to be rewritten entirely from scratch to meet the sourcing and encyclopedic tone requirements. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:06, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to EPOS Game Studios. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Olof Gustafsson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 3. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Will change my mind if reliable sources are offered. -- Λeternus (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to EPOS Game Studios, his studio. This is the third nomination of yours in a row, and the third that I'm recommending redirection. It's worth attempting to find a worthy redirect target before taking the page to AfD. You can usually BOLDly redirect such pages without needing much discussion. Now, Gustafsson has many mentions in a WP:VG/RS search, but they are primarily credits and press releases in conjunction with his aforementioned company and their upcoming game. Certainly that makes him at least a search target and a worthy term redirect. He, as a topic, though, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to EPOS Game Studios, per Czar. I could only find mentions, but that EPOS is his studio is verifiable. A redirect preserves that bit of verifiable information while not running afoul of BLP requirements. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:06, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Amala Rose Kurian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress with just one role so far. Falls under too soon I believe as it seems to be a child star. Wgolf ( talk) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Week Keep • The article meets general notability guidelines but it appears to be the case of too soon. CutestPenguin Hangout 14:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:01, 20 September 2014 (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. After discounting the opinions by accounts who are not established editors (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahar27), there is a clear consensus that this is a non-notable subject and that the article is written in a promotional manner. As provided for in WP:NACD, this closure undoes a previous, mistaken "keep" closure by a non-administrator, as discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30. Sandstein 09:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Randall Bell ( | 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 article is really fishy, I don't know how it survived the first AfD. Basically it is the epitome of what we call WP:SOAPBOX. The biography does not indicate any notability, especially from a science/research standpoint. What adds insult to injury is the fact that its "main creators"—namely Bcar92 ( talk · contribs), Dianearmitage ( talk · contribs), Youknow009 ( talk · contribs), and Sahar27 ( talk · contribs)—also spammed (yes, I mean it!) a lot of other articles (as evident here or here) which itself might call for a sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow, this article needs to be removed. bender235 ( talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable. Should have been deleted before this Op47 ( talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks the significant and independent coverage required by GNG. I tried to check the links but many of them don't work, don't mention him, or are not independent. Certainly appears to fail WP:PROF. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This article is cited by independent sources and is not promotional; also importantly, Dr. Bell has made tremendous contributions in his career Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? If so, what
peer-reviewed article has he published? Or, more importantly, which other peer-reviewed literature cites Bell's works? --
bender235 (
talk)
01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepHe has published many peer-reviewed articles, 11 of which appear on the WP page. Here is a link on Google Scholar which proves that 23 other articles have cited his book, "Real Estate Damages: An Analysis of Detrimental Conditions." Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- I really don't think publications like The Appraisal Journal or Bloomberg's Environmental Due Diligence Guide meet Wikipedia's criteria on peer-reviewed sources. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? If so, what
peer-reviewed article has he published? Or, more importantly, which other peer-reviewed literature cites Bell's works? --
bender235 (
talk)
01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - wouldn't seem to pass our inclusion criteria. We need more than mere citations - we need significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is both promotional and dishonest, giving the subject credit for things and citing the subject's own work as verification for that credit. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. St★lwart 111 07:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Please provide specific examples of each of your contentions. There are two references to his own work: "Strategy 360" and his PhD thesis, "Post-traumatic Behaviors: The Socioeconomic Reasoning of Homeowners Who Voluntarily Remained in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." "Strategy 360" is only referenced once for basic information about Bell's occupation; and his PhD thesis is a peer-reviewed paper, which can be cited and in any event, is cited only to demonstrate the contributions the paper has made. Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- Delete This article has "promotion" written all over it. For example, the way that some fairly insubstantial newspaper articles are cited half a dozen times when the article actually says virtually nothing about the fact being cited. (Just because a news article has the word "Katrina" in a single sentence doesn't mean that you put Katrina in the WP article and add a separate cite.) Also, citing two books as being Bell's "influences" is really not kosher, and looks like a way to pad the references. In addition, one of them seems to be an overview of theories by other economists rather than the presentation of the author's own theories, so it isn't clear how this is an "influence" by a known economist. ("Presents fifteen classic economics readings by such scholars as Armen A. Alchian, George A. Akerlof, David J. Teece, Oliver E. Williamson, Michael E. Porter, R. H. Coase, and Harold Demsetz. Analyzes the implications of their findings for the fields of organization theory, development, and behavior.") The number of edits that have been done to this page is rather astounding, although nearly all have been done by a small number of accounts. The bottom line, however, is that in spite of this effort, nothing here rises to the level of notability. LaMona ( talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepEach of those articles cites his work. Please re-read them or request a PDF version if that is easier. Also, the citations to the books for Bell's are meant to provide context for the authority of the authors/economists. Bell's Wikipedia page only provides factual information about his credentials, experience, and work so this can keep going on and on, and the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. The bottom line is that this is a person who has made tremendous contributions with his research, publications, and case-work; his career is interesting enough to be featured in the media; and his unique experience developed through his consultations on some of the world's most serious disasters helps to impart extremely useful insights. For all these reasons, Bell is a good candidate for a Wikipedia page; the point of Wikipedia is to provide a free public good. Sahar27 ( talk) 09:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- Keep These delete recommendations are factually wrong. I have checked and everything is factual and well-cited. Bell has obtained high notoriety professionally, academically and with the mass media. Bell literally wrote the book on the topic of Real Estate Damages (which is cited) and this book is published by the Appraisal Institute in Chicago. Bender235 asks about what peer-reviewed articles (which is not even a Wikipedia requirement for an article) yet he/she apparently did not read the Wikipedia article on Bell, which cites 11 peer-reviewed articles. There is a ton of independent and substantial notoriety of Bell, I just saw an article on the front page of the LA Times and he was on ABC with Diane Sawyer a few months ago. Obviously this is notable work. Bcar92 ( talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There has been very significant coverage of his career for many years, including both the media and peer-reviewed articles. He has written the following peer-reviewed articles in The Appraisal Journal, which is the most notable peer-reviewed publication for real estate appraisers:
The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate, Project Delay Economics, The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values, Contaminated Waterways, Medical Office Building Appraisal, and The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies.
I have seen this guy on CNN more than once, and ABC's 20/20. Are you kidding me? Aprais411 ( talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The notion that a PhD … whose career has been profiled everywhere from the Wall Street Journal, to People Magazine … and recently on the front-page of the LA Times … and should be deleted is ridicules. Clearly this opponent has motives that have nothing to do with Dr. Bell’s contributions to his profession. Dr. Bell has written 12 articles in peer-reviewed journals, several books and is cited widely in the media. If this article is deleted, then 80% of the articles in Wikipedia should be deleted.
The allegations made are false and misleading. This is not promotional whatsoever and every statement is referenced. Bender235 seems to think that only Wikipedia articles should include people who have published in peer-reviewed articles. This is wrong on two levels. First on its face this position is ridicules. Second, Bender 235 is factually wrong. I went to Dr. Bell’s website and he has written 12 articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. So clearly Bender 235 is just a wantabe or competitor of Dr. Bells who has some kind of grudge, but he can’t back up his claims. — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures Mictach ( talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Mictach comment added by Mictach ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Mictach ( talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- A note, out of curiosity: isn't it amazing how this AfD caught the attention of not one but two newly registered accounts? Just for general information, AfD's are not a vote. Even half a dozen people showing up here and repeating the same arguments doesn't make them any stronger. (FYI: I opened a sockpuppet investigation to look into this issue). -- bender235 ( talk) 17:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm shocked! Not. None of them seem to realise that hysterical, accusatory, non-policy arguments will simply be discarded. But of course that feels more productive than actually making a legitimate argument. St★lwart 111 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepJust look at the facts. Bender235 ( talk · contribs) starts his argument that Bell has no articles in peer-reviewed journals. It is pointed out that Bell actually has 11. Then Bender235 ( talk · contribs) says nobody has cited Bell's work, but again he is factually wrong and Bells work has been shown to be widely cited with a simple google search. Bender235 ( talk · contribs) then makes the wild accusation that the Appraisal Journal is not peer reviewed. Again he is factually wrong - again just google it Then notions of "not honest" are tossed out without a single attempt to back it up. Sahar27 ( talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
- Comment - Stalwart et. al. has failed to make a singlet fact-based argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should be backed up by facts. Putting aside the sarcasm and meanness, there is no legitimate basis for deletion. Every single assertion has been shown to be false and misleading when the facts are actually looked at. Bells academic and professional contributions are widely cited by the literature ... and if profiles from everyone from the Wall Street Journal to People Magazine (and everyone in between) does not demonstrate notoriety, I don't know what does. Stop with the cheep, sarcastic pot-shots and stick with facts. Sahar27 ( talk) 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- You have to laugh, or you'd end up crying at the bizarre, sock-puppetry-riddled, seen-it-all-before attempts to shoe-horn a couple of local news articles and some of the subject's own work into "notability". Again, we need sources about the subject, not written by the subject (those constituting most of the existing references list). One local pop news item (not demonstrating notability beyond a couple of suburbs) is disingenuously cited a staggering 21 times! Your actions here are actually doing more harm that good - suggesting (if not confirming) that this was all an attempt to promote the subject from the start rather than the effort of a few new account holders to contribute genuine content. St★lwart 111 07:35, 29 September 2014 (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. (As noted below it does need ALOT of improvements - Anyway I have no objections to this being renominated in November or so if no improvements have been made.) ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Markus Kaarlonen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, completely lacking sources of any kind. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The subject meets criteria #6 and #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. I have also added several sources in the article. -- Λeternus (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with Λeternus, keep for the moment at least. Certainly could be improved significantly. Consider cross references with other occupations. PotassiBot ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— PotassiBot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and is indef blocked Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:55, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Problems with concussions in high school athletes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is written like an essay, but has given citations. Would require a lot of work to clean up to encyclopedia standards. Osarius - Want a chat? 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Blow it up and start over. Too notable of a topic to just destroy. It may need a rename too, though. Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: In case of a rename, I would propose Concussions in high school sports to mirror Concussions in American football and Concussions in sports. I do agree that the topic is notable, but the article can either be deleted without prejudice to re-creation, or kept and heavily rewritten. -- Gccwang ( talk) 08:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but move to Concussions in high school sports as suggested. It needs clean-up, but not expert attention, and is not so bad as to invoke WP:TNT. Bearian ( talk) 21:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per comments and caveats above -- article needs a better title and complete re-working for a coherent narrative. This is a notable topic in contact sports per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG (a lot of ink has been spilled in the United States on this topic in the last decade), and Wikipedia should have a well-written and well-sourced summary article on the subject. If someone wants to take a rewrite on as a personal project post-AfD, I would be happy to volunteer some of by editing time in that effort. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete; we already have articles such as Concussions in sport and Sports-related traumatic brain injury, and Concussions in American football. Is there any reason we need an article specifically focused on high school athletics? How distinct is the issue of brain injuries to high school students as compared to similar injury to pre-high school youths, college athletes, pro athletes, or other adults who play sports? Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Jweiss11: JW, I think there are different issues among high school, college, and professional contact sports, starting with long-term degenerative brain effects more prevalent among long-time American pro football players. The 14 to 18-year-olds are more prone to immediate death and permanent disability -- I think the number I saw earlier today was 50+ high school football players have died during a game or as a result of a game in the last decade. That's not what the pros are experiencing; they are bigger and stronger, and better able to sustain the physical stresses (at least in the short run). I can't remember the last pro football player who died as a result of game-related injuries. Certainly the injury statistics are going to be different across the three age groups. As these articles are presently structured, there is obviously significant subject matter overlap, but that should not stop a small group of interested editors from re-balancing the subject matter of them to more specifically target the high school, college and professional athlete age demographics. Personally, I think that would be worthwhile. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:54, 20 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- IPR-Helpdesk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article erroneously PRODded (apologies, I missed a PROD from April 2008). Nevertheless, the PROD reason that I gave still stands: "No indication of notability, just a helpdesk website. One of a gazillion things funded by the EU. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB." Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added further references, notably from the OECD, the UNECE, the British Council, the University of Münster, innovations-reports, and the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science. The project appears to be notable and historically significant because it "offers an example of what governments can do to help compensate for a lack of technology transfer competence among [public research organisations (PROs)]" and it has "played a key role in building a culture of innovation in EU countries" (from the 2005 OECD report). The project has also been there for a long time, i.e. 16 years ( WP:NOTTEMP). -- Edcolins ( talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I appreciate the hard work that Edcolins has put into this. However, the references are either not independent of the EU/Helpdesk itself, or they are in-passing mentions, not in-depth descriptions (there are a few book references that I don't have access to, but judging from their titles, I'd be surprised if they were any different. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Both the OECD and UNECE refs are independent of the project itself (and of the EU Commission, which funds it) and provide in-depth descriptions, with more than 2000 characters in each of the two refs. The 800-character description in the British Council publication and the roughly 1200 characters in the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science also appear independent from the project and support notability. To me, there is significant coverage. Further, the article now describes the project's historical significance/impact, and therefore both WP:GNG and WP:WEB are met. (The project is not merely a web site anyway.) -- Edcolins ( talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG. The fact that the European Union funds many things is not a reason to delete any of them. James500 ( talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody says that EU funding is a reason to delete anything. It just means that being funded by the EU is nothing special (just like being funded by the Federal Government in the US) and is in itself not an indication of notability. It would slo be nice if you could indicate how this meets GNG (i.e., what coverage you consider to be in depth and independent). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Edcolins has already given you an adequate explanation, and there is no reason why I should provide a webliography of what I found in GBooks and elsewhere. Frankly, compliance with your request would be a waste of time that I don't have. Why don't you go through all the sources on the web one at a time, starting with the books etc in GBooks, of which there are well over a hundred, and tell me what you think is wrong with them.
James500 (
talk)
16:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer, friendly as always, to my question (posted before Edcolins posted his answer). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- *Keep as it seems to meet the general notability guidelines, unless there is another basis for deletion. It also seems to pass the indiscriminate collection of information test. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (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 redirect to Daxter (video game). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jamey Scott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, in this case a music composer, which lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 19:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Daxter (video game). So I had to dig in the Internet Archive but I found two interviews: [20] and [21]. He has a lot of credits but no coverage about him as a composer in a WP:VG/RS search. I'd entertain redirection to a related topic, and his only mention in any of the games listed in his article is Daxter (video game), which is a fine target. He's common enough that a redirect makes sense, but there is simply not enough coverage to substantiate a full article: the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect per Czar. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Amazin' Blue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks sufficient significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. All coverage is either hyper-local, not independent (related to the school), or is not significant enough. While there is some coverage in a cappella focused sites, it is either an insignificant level or so routine that it does not confer any notability, such as from a site that reviews all released collegiate a cappella work. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - No references whatsoever. Many hyper-local sources. PotassiBot ( talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:52, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Von Haulshoven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person which lacks sources of any kind and apparently lacks those sources for good reason. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - after three different searches, I could find no reliable and independent sources about this subject under his stage name. All the sources that I found are MySpace/social media or Wiki-mirrors. Bearian ( talk) 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No references; couldn't find any. Perhaps more suited to Dutch WP. Note that he also appears as Eppie E. Hulshof in searches, but again they are music sites that don't give any significant information about him. LaMona ( talk) 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above and Lacks independent sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (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 redirect to Network (film). Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Union Broadcasting System ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An entirely original research description of a fictional news network. Zero sources, essentially 100% plot summary. Daniel (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:NOR BMIComp 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Network (film), the film surrounding this fictional element. Merge whatever information that can be sourced, as this fictional element is not unsourcable. [22] [23] It can be written of and sourced there. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Network (film). How did this get through its first AfD? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:39, 30 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Leo van der Goot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In a prod a few months back I stated "This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements." I stand by this - the article has not been improved since. Deprodded by creator. There are no sources to support WP:GNG; this is just a person doing his regular job which includes appearing on TV. Not all writers, journalists or tv personalities are notable. And no, having been involved with covering Eurovision is not a criteria for notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Article does not establish notability of subject. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only references are his name in a list of Eurovision commentators (not sure I'd be proud of that one!) and an article that he was injured in a plane crash in the US. Not notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2014 (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 redirect to Colour Coding. j⚛e decker talk 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Proof (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)
A album that looks like it could go be redirected into the band's page. Wgolf ( talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to band page. Kierzek ( talk) 01:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:42, 20 September 2014 (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. redirect at editorial doscretion Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Genevha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been tagged since 2008. They have only done one album, though the members do seem to be the only reason why it is notable. Though I think it could easily be merged into either of them as a page, this was a borderline afd for me to be honest. Wgolf ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this duo meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. I'm amenable to a redirect if a suitable target can be agreed upon. Gongshow talk 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Orfeh. What content there is on this band is already in the articles on both the members. Orfeh seems to be the more notable, so a redirect there seems reasonable. -- Michig ( talk) 07:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:39, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to Murray City Council. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Greg Anderson (Kentucky politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Google News and Gogle Books showed up nothing. Boleyn ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Not finding anything on Highbeam either. Being on a town council falls short of WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD ( talk) 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cities in the 10-20K population range do not confer notability on their city councillors under WP:NPOL, "youngest officeholder in a particular jurisdiction" isn't a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia (and the claim isn't actually sourced here, either — and even if it was true when the article was created in 2008, what evidence do we have that it still is?), and the quality of sourcing here isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since wp:notability is not conferred, saying that "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Murray, Kentucky is a college town. As per the article, it has a micropolitan population of 37,000. There is also a transient student population of 11,000 at Murray State University. So Murray is a bit more influential than is shown by the statistics cited above. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- A city usually has to have a population in the millions before Wikipedia accepts its city councillors as "inherently notable" (anything below that, you've got to powersource them over the WP:GNG bar.) So its influence vis-à-vis the population statistics is irrelevant, because even 37K micropolitan + 11K extra university students still falls very far short of the mark. Bearcat ( talk) 06:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect
DeleteThe local NPR radio station, [24] reports that the age issue created controversy at the city council meetings. The LinkedIn resume, link, shows that the term of office was two years, ending December 2010. [25] shows statewide television coverage on 17 November 2008, which would be shortly after the November elections. KET has an extensive television broadcast network throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Something missing here for WP:N is coverage "over a period of time". I see no analysis of the WP:ATD in the nomination. Statewide coverage after a city council election in Murray would be something wp:prominent for Murray City Council. When we/someone writes Murray City Council, this topic should be re-created as a redirect and the edit history restored using WP:REFUND. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC) - Comment I've created a very basic stub for Murray City Council. Boleyn ( talk) 07:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Murray City Council per WP:CHEAP. Thank you, Boleyn, for being WP:BOLD. Bearian ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2014 (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. The question of the article's name may be decided by means of a requested move (or by a bold move if it's thought to be noncontroversial). Deor ( talk) 11:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Akash Aar Mati ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. A google search reveals nothing notable about the movie that could be added KJ Discuss? 14:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:INDAFD: Aminul Haque
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleteper failing WP:NF. Apparently this is a 1959 film and is now only mentioned in articles of its cast and production as they themselves pass away. I did find a mention in a 2005 artricle in Daily Star in an article about its music director Subal Das passing away, and a book mention shares translation as Sky and Earth. It would seem this article is more about its lead Aminul Haque and is sourced entirely from two articles about Haque's death. Perhaps the author might wish to write about that actor. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)- Keep as suitable stub verifiable now as the FIRST Bangladeshi film. Even if never a bigger article, this first is a notable accomplishment. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This film appears to have historical importance being the first film made in Dhaka based film industry. Prior to that, the Bengali film industry was primarily based on Kolkata; but with creation of division of two Bengal the industry began to split. Right now, I do not have sources and probably I can't dig up any either, as it is near to impossible to find any source from 60's media on internet. To bolster the notability someone has to come up with some more print media sources (definitely there is none on internet now). We can thus allow some time for editors to come up with sources for it, keeping a notability tag on the article; especially since we have a lot of movie entries with lesser historic importance. – nafSadh did say 21:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Akash Ar Mati per Nafsadh, it was the first Bangladeshi film, Fateh Lohani was the director and Sumita Devi starred in it. See also G-books result for "Akash Ar Mati". -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NFILMS. -- Zayeem (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of current female college gymnasts ( | 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 is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. There are far too many redlinks. Also, given that college gymnasts graduate every year maintaining this list is going to be a nightmare. If a gymnast is notable they could be mentioned on their college page instead of in a list like this Gbawden ( talk) 13:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Swpb talk 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to list of college women's gymnasts in the United States (to drop the unacceptable "current" criteria, to match the category, and to clarify that this is, in fact, just American gymnasts), purge the redlinks if we're confident they will never merit articles, and expand to include any other articles we have that are missing because they weren't "current". I count 53 articles in the category structure, so definitely enough for a list, and maintaining one list will help balance the subcategorization by school that prevents readers from browsing all at once. postdlf ( talk) 16:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Almost impossible to maintain a constantanly expanding list like this and merely being a college gymnast isn't itself notable. Wikipedia is not meant for keeping all sports records and information.
204.126.132.231 (
talk)
19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's ordinary practice for us to limit such lists to notable people. There's no maintenance problem if we drop the "current" criteria. postdlf ( talk) 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been pondering what to do with this list for several days. I follow college gymnastics, and I want to be supportive, but I can't rationalize keeping this generic list. It's a question of whether this topic is more appropriate for a "list" or something else. Would we sanction a generic "List of American college football players" or "List of American college men's basketball players"? No, because there is nothing particularly notable about college football players as a class, and there are literally thousands of such persons and the list would be unmanageably large. The only difference here is that there are fewer notable college gymnasts -- there is nothing particularly special about this particular group. This class is much better treated as a category, which is how we treat all other generic classes of college athletes. If someone wants to start a "List of college gymnastics All-Americans" or a "List of NCAA gymnastics champions," I will support that in a heart beat and contribute.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
08:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please read my response to the last comment. postdlf ( talk) 13:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postdlf, my issue with this is not the notability of its individual members; as you mention, that can be readily cured by deleting the red links. My issue is that there is nothing exceptional about the generic list topic, in the same way we would not create a generic list of college football players. I would have no problem with a list of All-American college women's gymnasts. FYI, in order to be "notable" for Wikipedia purposes, I would bet most of these athletes are All-Americans (or top performers from pre-college national and international competitions), which would make a quick conversion of the list to a more interesting topic relatively easy. Very few gymnasts are going to be notable based solely on the media coverage they received for their college sports careers. "American college gymnasts" is a basic category, not a good list topic. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- "My issue is that there is nothing exceptional about the generic list topic..." That's not a thing. Most of our lists of people are not about "exceptional" characteristics, and we simply limit them to notable examples because obviously most people who would literally qualify for such lists would not be notable. There is nothing exceptional about being from Idaho, being Irish American, having epilepsy, or dying in 2014. No one is notable because of those things. Not to mention lists of alumni by university; certainly merely attending a school is less "exceptional" than having played a sport for that school. So there's no basis for this heightened standard you're trying to apply (why did you think otherwise?). The main purpose of such lists is to index articles, but they also give information relevant to the notable topics of the place, school, etc. by listing the notable people associated with those things. See WP:LISTPURP. And you're also contradicting WP:NOTDUP without giving a reason as to why it shouldn't apply here. postdlf ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Post, you're either missing my point or ignoring it. I have readily conceded your point about the notability of individual list members; in fact, I would not have it any other way. Lists where half or more of the listed items are red links either need to be deleted or restructured. Back to my point: as a general proposition, we (as in the various sports WikiProjects) have not compiled generic lists of college athletes (e.g., "List of college football players"). By sport, we have lists of college All-Americans, college hall of fame members, recipients of particular college awards, athletes who were members of particular teams, members of college teams who played in the pros, etc. We do not have generic lists of college athletes where the sole distinguishing characteristic is the sport they played; for that, we have consistently used categories. My !vote is an !vote to continue that well established precedent. As we both know, satisfying NLIST, GNG, and/or LISTPURP is not a guarantee of inclusion. Members of the community may exercise their judgement and common sense with regard to other standards and other precedents, and that's what I choose to do here. Frankly, I think it's a sensible approach, notwithstanding the existence of other generic lists of limited utility like "List of Irish-Americans (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- You made the claim that a list based on something that isn't "exceptional" should be deleted. I pointed out that this is completely contrary to practice and guidelines. "OTHERSTUFF" is not a further response to that. Nor can a Wikiproject ignore guidelines that apply project-wide. You're always free to simply not work on such lists, but you have no basis for deleting them if someone else starts them. If you want to make a WP:TNT argument here, fine, but the problem is you seem to be arguing that as a matter of principle we shouldn't have any list complementary to Category:College women's gymnasts in the United States contrary to WP:CLN, and there's been no valid or relevant argument for that yet. postdlf ( talk) 23:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst I would like to agree with Postdlf for a rename, this list has more redlinks than bluelinks. Many of the blue links are of questionable notability, sourced from primary links, or just a single reference. I think when this list is cut down to those notable on wikipedia we will be left with a handful of people. Martin451 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a topic for a category, not a list. p b p 00:38, 28 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jimmyjane ( | 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 company, has been tagged with WP:NOTE since '09 with no significant improvements since then. Primefac ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. — Swpb talk 15:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per significent improvements made. – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as already having 6 valid third party references showing notability. some are in the "external links", but thats just a formatting issue. They have gotten coverage, as a company and for their products. there is no indication that they are NOT notable. there is no set time frame for WP:NOTE that i am aware of. and, i just found 2 refs, one, a full article on the company at Atlantic Monthly magazine. which i found on page 3 of a google search for the company. Did anyone actually read the refs here or attempt a search?(user:mercurywoodrose) 50.193.19.66 ( talk) 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment i just removed the Note tag, but then realized that might not look good while at AFD. so, to be clear, nominator was correct, tagged as possibly not notable since 2009 with little or no improvement. if i had found this article just prior to this afd, i probably would have removed that Note tag anyway, after a brief search. if someone restores that tag for the sake of this afd, i will NOT revert.(merc) 50.193.19.66 ( talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment you are allowed to improve an article when it is in AfD, including removing tags such as NOTE or UNREFERENCED if relevant. If the AfD results in the article significantly improving then people may change their votes. Primefac ( talk) 21:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The Atlantic and GQ articles alone are enough to establish notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep MelanieN's argument is sufficient and accurate. -- j⚛e decker talk 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, nice source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 02:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: After further analysis, was easily able to find more secondary sources and discussion in appropriate references at Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- so I reiterate my sentiment that the page should be kept and improved upon with editors discussing the appropriate way to move forward on the article's talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 27 September 2014 (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 Nomination Withdrawn. The nomination has been withdrawn. The talk of redirection as suggested by a couple can be discussed on the talk page ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Brides in the Bath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG GiraffeBoy ( talk) 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to George_Joseph_Smith#Popular_culture. I couldn't really find anything to show that this film ultimately passes notability guidelines. There are a few hints that there may be coverage, so I think a redirect with the history intact would be a good idea here in case it ever surfaces. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable TV drama. We have articles on thousands of them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes... but they have sources.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- As a TV show, it is its own source. A source does not have to be something on the internet - any media will do. And lack of sources is not, in any case, a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes... but they have sources.
Redirect as suggested by Tokyogirl79. I looked for sources and found nothing suitable for establishing notability. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)- Keep per sources found which could allow imrovements and per nominator's withdrawal. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect seems the simplest idea - it is a good film, but reliable sources/ media coverage appear to be non-existent Alligators1974 01:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (Nominator)
- Title:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Production:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Brazil:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Sweden:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- @ Necrothesp: I did some searching and found it spoken of here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. A couple might even be considered SIGCOV, but almost all speak toward this film in relationship to the murders. Unless sourced and greatly expanded, I still think it best that this stub be redirected to the parent topic. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Clean UpI'm leaning towards granting it a reprieve, pending an overhaul. Is there any general consensus about tv movies and notability on wikipeida? GiraffeBoy ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep Big star names in the original production (Kemp & Griffiths) and it's a drama that is still being broadcast on major channels 10 years later. It was shown again just earlier this year. 82.132.245.90 ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- And it's on dvd which is a rariety for tv movies [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 September 2014 (Nominator)
- keep I originally listed this for AFD but the discussion has convinced me it should stay - it has more media coverage and available sources than I realised. GiraffeBoy ( talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Observation: some signed and some unsigned, GiraffeBoy and Alligators1974 are the same person. His comment above may be taken as a nominator's withdrawal per sources found and offered. Let's get this one fixed up. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw the nomination GiraffeBoy
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep My nomination was an error - there are far more available sources and media coverage than I realised and the film has been recently released on DVD. GiraffeBoy ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lele Pons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Okay just had it as a prod but decided to change it as she does not seem notable at all (and interesting that this links to a sock puppet report) Wgolf ( talk) 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N, no evidence of notability.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, although I agree the previous version of the article failed many of Wikipedia's guidelines, still, hopefully these problems are fixed, references added. So, why should we keep this article? It's this crazy new medium -- Vine -- with its six-second loops, well guess what, Pons is a star in this new medium which is even beginning to have its own awards so it won't be long before Vine celebrities are up on the dias, teary-eyed, holding goldish statue-junk and boring the rest of the world senseless. Pons is leading the pack in terms of Vine 'plays' and there are sufficient references suggesting notability such as here and Streamy award nominee here and rave review here and nominated for award and in-depth source here and here and in-depth source here that I think we can keep her article here in Wikipedia PROVIDED OF COURSE that she does not prank any Wikipedians, like it would be personally upsetting if she pranked our lord-chief-all-high-master of the WORLD OF TRUE FACTS Jimmy Wales. And, of course, if she's 17, probably she's applying to colleges, and I hope she considers the greatest college in the world.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, there seems to be sufficient mention in media. Sjö ( talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG, but I personally would keep the page as a monument of the craziness of today's world, for future generations. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 12:44, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Croatia national American football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell the team does not actually exist as of September 2014. A Google search of local media only yields two results - one from January 2014 saying a decision was made to create the team (cited in our article), and another one from February 2014 saying a training camp for players intended to feature in the national team was cancelled due to low interest. Looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Timbouctou ( talk) 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou ( talk) 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is certainly missing. I googled this in Croatian and found only a 2012 Nacional article [29] saying the organization is planning to form such a team. Given the tempo, we need to give them some more time to achieve real-world notability, rather than appear to be promoting them. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too soon. In the meantime, there are almost no reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GregorB ( talk) 22:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable "American football" national team of Croatia, which has never played a game, and it's unclear whether it will ever play a game. Putting aside issues of notability per WP:ORG, this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia does not speculate about things which have not yet come to pass. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Magic gopher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverified article for a little flash application; the internet reveals no significant discussion of the topic in multiple sources. Or even insignificant discussion in one source. Drmies ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There's insignificant discussion in 10,000 sources http://www.google.com/search?q="magic+gopher, including commercial educational resources ( [30]) NE Ent 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Extensive online mentions, some less horrid than others. I've added two that analyse it and link to alternate versions of the same game or trick. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing reasonable appears in any of my searches, and if it were notable something reasonable would pop up. Explicitly checked magazines, news, etc. Mentions online don't assert notability. Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or Rename to ???. The particular flash game isn't a notable thing. The concept outlined in most of the article, simple arithmetical "mind-reading" parlour tricks, is a notable thing.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]. If there isn't an article already, there should be one. This just looks like an article about a simple magic trick that is backwards-ly named after a single instance where the trick was performed. The practice of using multiples of nine to entertainingly "mind-read" has been around for centuries, this flash game didn't invent the idea.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I put 2 of those in the article, if I'm remembering the URLs correctly. I wondered whether this particular number property or trick has a name; if so I agree, a move to that name would be the best outcome. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to something, yes, though I'm not sure what. Calling this article "magic gopher" would be like calling the article for Seven Bridges of Königsberg "extra reading of chapter 7 of my discrete mathematics textbook" (or whatever, just giving an example). The specific app itself isn't notable as far as I can tell. Ansh 666 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is about a non-notable app. I would not be opposed to a merge/rename, but someone needs to identify a clear target. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. These are some interesting comments. Thank you all. Drmies ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. We do have an article on the general subject, Recreational mathematics, but it doesn't look like a good fit for a specific instance. Can anyone see anything in the greater Category:Recreational mathematics that would be a merge candidate? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or recast as Multiples of nine, which is the name of the trick that the sources are about. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete. Nowhere near enough for notability and none has been provided here: google hits don't establish it. We already have a page on divisibility rules, and this is a piece of trivial mental arithmetic based on the rule for nine. There are numerous tricks like these, based on divisibility, properties of numbers, etc.. I don't see that this is particularly notable or interesting.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No in-depth and reliable sources on this app (as opposed to the simple and well-known mathematics behind it) that would show notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 09:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - software (app) article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS references. Refs provided are a brief mention in a blog, and a page about the math concept that does not discuss the app at all. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this app. Dialectric ( talk) 11:08, 27 September 2014 (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. If we ignore comments from sockpuppets and block-evading IP editors, the only argument for "keep" comes from In ictu oculi, but, as others have pointed out, the coverage that In ictu oculi mentions is not substantial, in-depth coverage. The mere fact that she is briefly mentioned in books about someone else does not demonstrate notability, "she's a backing singer/muse to someone who is not a nobody" is off the point, as notability is not inherited, and the fact that she "has released records under her own name" is not enough, as so have thousands of people who come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Some editors arguing for "delete", on the other hand, have advanced good reasons in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Dina Rae (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Rae (singer) Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article clearly does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO for a Wikipedia article. Fevrret ( talk) 02:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at all. Her only claim of significance is through her association with Eminem and their early collaborations. It was already deleted at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Dina Rae and the subject has done nothing of significance since then at all. There is no independent coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any notability. Not to mention the creator/top contributor is a personal friend of the subject. Thank you Fevrret for nominating this, I was going to wait for the RM to close so there would be no technical issues, but this discussion might just need to be moved once the article is. I firmly believed this should have been G4ed, but a regular user that had no access to the deleted version at all declined it. STATic message me! 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Deleted once before, when the page was Dina Rae; the previous AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The orginal article was unrelialbe all it said she was an American R&B singer and she did a few tracks with Eminem, Obie Trice and Jin; I would like to point out @ STATicVapor:, I know of her from Facebook and that she sent me a signed copy of The Dina Rae Show and Snippets of Powerhouse With a Pen and I interviewed her for a Media Studies coursework for a paper and I thought she'd be aight with it and she was but it hardly makes us "Hey Dina, Mum's cooking a Sunday Roast, hop on a plane to the UK and we'll dish you up a plate" OK I follow her on Twitter and she returned the favour, but I'd like to point out she has done a lot more since the original article was written, She was featured on Phokuz's "Today" song (2013), Bigg Hunnitt$' "Real Weigh" (2013), "Welcome to LA" and "Fan Mail" by King Lil' G (2013) as well as more recently Kreed-N-Deed's "Reaching for the Stars" (2014) and is working on her debut album, if we got rid of her article, we'd have to get rid of both Sylvia Striplin (who's article tags her as could be alive and doesn't say that she's done anything since the '80's other than her song "You Can't Turn Me Away" has been sampled by Junior M.A.F.I.A., Erykah Badu and was featured on GTA Vice City Stories and we'd have to delete Jentina's article as well; only released three singles and an album exclusively to Italy and has given up ebing a rapper so I don't think we should delete Dina Rae's page as she's still working even if it's behind the scenes now Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 18:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and for God's sake. Please upload a picture of her 93.186.23.96 ( talk) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- You gave no guideline backing reason for keeping, your vote holds much less weight that way. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - User:STATicVapor when you say "There is no independent coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any notability" are you including David Stubbs Eminem: The Stories Behind Every Song 2006 1560259469 p.195 "Eminem has demonstrated immense professional fidelity to Dina Rae, to whom he invariably turns when needing a female vocal. Some might argue that this is because few women could stand Eminem's misogynistic company, but it's ..." Or Vibe November 2002 p.94 "And the seedy-sounding girl on "Superman" and "Drug Ballad" isn't a ho-she's a charming woman called Dina Rae ..." I don't understand why these sources and the other dozen Google Book hits shouldn't be counted as independent coverage in reliable sources. Admittedly she's mainly a backing singer/muse. But she's a backing singer/muse to someone who is not a nobody and has released records under her own name also. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I note also that the AFD is brought by a new and inexperienced editor and that there are wikis for Dina Rae in 8 other languages.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those are articles about Eminem, please note the words significant and independent coverage in reliable sources that is needed. She is not the topic or even subtopic of these Books, it is trivial coverage. You need to see WP:INHERITED. Notability is not inherited from Eminem or their songs, she must have individual notability. Her personal work has never received any kind of coverage. It should be clearly noted, that none of her recent work away from Eminem has been covered in reliable sources, trivial or not. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I note also that the AFD is brought by a new and inexperienced editor and that there are wikis for Dina Rae in 8 other languages.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What's wrong with the article? I'll tell you; Eminem hasn't used her since D12's "Bitch" song and the only woman he turns to now is Rihanna also if Motown hadn't messed around with Dina, And?, Can't Even C It and possibly other tracks ("In Ya Dreams", is a personal favourite and fans of Dina know that song and I think it could've been a single but Motown might have thought it was a bit "ghetto, ho-ish and too explicit" for them as they were used to their songs to be like "I Heard it From the Grapevine" but if she was as bigger star as the star she's worked with from The Slim Shady LP we'd have more information, it's not like she's some girl from LA who thought she could sing but sounds like a cat being strangled and he ditched her 'cause he knew he would be a one hit wonder and their careers were over, no he went from unknown emcee to the King of Rap and he kinda helped boost her career, she went from Eminem/D12 to Proof, to Obie Trice, to Ms. Korona, Jin to even being a DJ in LA, she is what you'd call a celebrity but she's not an A list celebrity so keep the page 217.39.34.5 ( talk) 16:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$, please only comment under your account. Logging out to vote in AfD discussions is sockpuppetry. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Er I was logged in on my account; what you chatting about and please stop adding comments it's a bit boring you're backed up into a corner and your just acting like you've got a bee in your bonnet Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I would also like to add the remix of And? - Dina Rae featuring Erick Sermon was featured on Kiss: Hot Joints 2 CD 2, track 14 released in 2004 and still selling on Amazon.co.uk [1] so there, that might help Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- And I would like to add this, STATicVapor I do believe you're taking it out on this page 'cause I commented on your behaviour towards Wikipedia, so I do think you're acting uncivil Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and salt fails WP:MUSICBIO, and notability is not WP:INHERITED. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. An effort has obviously been made to make the article appear well-referenced, but none of them amount to in-depth coverage of the subject in independent secondary sources, so notability is not demonstrated. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Just need optimizations, but the article itself is right. Maybe we need to tag as {{notability}}, but no reason to delete it. [35] previously AfD Discussion makes me point out a weak keep. Bdboyc ( talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, as Bdboyc pointed out, and what don't help she ain't as famous to find out information about her, who knows might she might release a album, a autobiography or something and we could get info on her but keep it 5.81.224.153 ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak delete notability claim is not really convincing. The Banner talk 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Yes the article needs a LOT of work done to it and needs a LOT of RELIABLE sources; but I don't think we should get rid of the article we need reliable information and a grammar check on it too. 93.186.31.82 ( talk) 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: This was missing from the daily AfD lists. I've reattached to the daily list of 7 September, somewhat arbitrarily. I'll let an other admin make the call as to whether to close or relist this. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 08:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisting comment — There's a lot of socking/meating going on above. Ignoring those, the result is becoming clearer, but additional policy and guideline-based arguments are appreciated. Mainly relisting because this somehow dropped off the AfD log (as noted by Joe Decker). -- slakr\ talk / 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Shitfaced Clowns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article based on unreliable sources, thus failing WP:NOTE. Λeternus (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Can you detail what sources aren't reliable? Surely, links to Scene.org Awards and Assembly.org archives are reliable source for information on who got their nominations and what placed where in their competitions, no?
Kusmabite (
talk)
09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about their reliability.
Scene.org and
Assembly (demo party) articles don't stand well with reliable sources either. Other sources in the article are clearly not reliable. Please see
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the primairy sources of the demoscene aren't 'standing well with reliable sources' it becomes impossible to state any demoscene-related group, production or party as notable. Subcultures tend to have little to no exposure, that is their defining nature. If the demoscene is notable, where do you draw the line concerning the groups that make up this culture? It seems winning the most prestigious price isn't relevant, and actively participating isn't relevant neither. Without the people who produces these demos, there is nothing left but an empty placeholder.
Numtek (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Demoscene is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources. But this does not mean that every demogroup is notable just because it has been related with it, because
notability is not inherited. Similarly, just because rock music is notable, that doesn't mean every rock band is notable just by performing this kind of music. There has to be reliable sources which directly cover Shitfaced Clowns in order to establish their notability in Wikipedia. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are way more rockbands than demogroups. This scene is a loose knotted group of individuals who generaly aren't very much notable as a person. They accomplish a lot more as a group, and gather at demoparties. I get your argument and I read your link, but if you start deleting all dempogroups that aren't covered by multiple notable sources you'll find out only two/three remain. That sums up to about 10 people. As a reference, Revision attracts more than 1000 people. I know not all 1000 of them are notable. But deleting each and every group till just 10 people remain sounds a bit drastic as well, agreed ? Obviously you are more experienced than I concerning editing Wikipedia, so I'll leave the judgement on this to you. I just hope that my view as an active demoscener since 1996 gave you a bit more insight in this subculture. Numtek ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Demoscene is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources. But this does not mean that every demogroup is notable just because it has been related with it, because
notability is not inherited. Similarly, just because rock music is notable, that doesn't mean every rock band is notable just by performing this kind of music. There has to be reliable sources which directly cover Shitfaced Clowns in order to establish their notability in Wikipedia. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the primairy sources of the demoscene aren't 'standing well with reliable sources' it becomes impossible to state any demoscene-related group, production or party as notable. Subcultures tend to have little to no exposure, that is their defining nature. If the demoscene is notable, where do you draw the line concerning the groups that make up this culture? It seems winning the most prestigious price isn't relevant, and actively participating isn't relevant neither. Without the people who produces these demos, there is nothing left but an empty placeholder.
Numtek (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about their reliability.
Scene.org and
Assembly (demo party) articles don't stand well with reliable sources either. Other sources in the article are clearly not reliable. Please see
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just in Pouët.net's database, there's 11511 known demogroups (yeah, sure, there are some duplicates, but not a whole lot). The amount of demogroups on Wikipedia is *way* less. I think you're greatly underestimating the size of this subculture. The amount of groups on Wikipedia are somewhat relevant. And in this particular case, I've even linked to a video from French national television covering the group. How is that not reliable? I can't link directly to the TV-channel's archives, because those are behind a paywall. Kusmabite ( talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand how the quality of Scene.org's and Assembly's wikipedia-articles relates to the reliability of said websites when it comes to being sources of information on their own events and awards. Kusmabite ( talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Their demo Newton never did this, BITCH got nominated for "Best effects" the Scene.org Awards in 2005. [36] // Liftarn ( talk)
-
Verifiability, not truth. --
Λeternus
(talk)
10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here you go: https://www.scene.org/awards.php?year=2005 Numtek ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Besides what they achieved being a reason alone, deleting them would mean this list needs an update again: /info/en/?search=User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek ( talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. We keep articles based on their significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) This article has none. As for its importance, no one's saying it isn't—we just don't have any more coverage than a single link to substantiate a full article without falling back on original and uncited research (which WP does not host). There are better wikis for this information, just not Wikipedia. Now perhaps it's worth a mention on a related demoscene page, cited to a reliable niche source as important for the period, but "Shitfaced Clowns" as a topic of an article will only continue to collect unsourced or unverifiable information until someone can show that there is a stack of reliable sources waiting to be used. No suitable redirect targets. czar ♔ 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - No reliable sources in article. No independent sources found. ~ KvnG 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. The concept is notable, but that doesn't mean all participating groups are notable. St★lwart 111 07:00, 24 September 2014 (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mitch 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)
Does not seem to be a player of any major significance. Bueller 007 ( talk) 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Taylor led NCAA Division I basketball in a positive statistical category as the nation's most prolific three-point shooter in 1994–95. He also is one of only 15 players in Division I history to record 12 or more three-point field goals in a single game and is listed in the official NCAA men's basketball media guide for it. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment – I call into question the deletion rationale: there are no policies or guidelines cited and it smells of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As the article's creator and primary contributor, I was also not made aware of the AfD (fortunately I had it on my watchlist).
Jrcla2 (
talk)
12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". This is a player who never made it past college ball and who has no unique major records; just a couple of piddling ones. (Second place in one and tied for sixth place in another.) It's like arguing that someone who places fifth in two different amateur spelling bees should get a Wikipedia entry.
Bueller 007 (
talk)
12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting comparison, but no, it's not like that. He was the national leader in one of the statistical categories in the top level of amateur competition basketball in the United States. And being "tied for sixth" for the 3FGM in one game article is being disingenuous to what the article's threshold is, which is having made 12 in a single game, something like 0.0000000001% of any Division I college basketball players have ever done. In fact, it's so rare that the NCAA media guide lists them, as mentioned before.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "0.0000000001%"? That's a fascinating and entirely made-up number. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting comparison, but no, it's not like that. He was the national leader in one of the statistical categories in the top level of amateur competition basketball in the United States. And being "tied for sixth" for the 3FGM in one game article is being disingenuous to what the article's threshold is, which is having made 12 in a single game, something like 0.0000000001% of any Division I college basketball players have ever done. In fact, it's so rare that the NCAA media guide lists them, as mentioned before.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". This is a player who never made it past college ball and who has no unique major records; just a couple of piddling ones. (Second place in one and tied for sixth place in another.) It's like arguing that someone who places fifth in two different amateur spelling bees should get a Wikipedia entry.
Bueller 007 (
talk)
12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 ( talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As SNG WP:NCOLLATH is not met, is there evidence that WP:GNG is satisfied?— Bagumba ( talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A close call, but I think there's enough significant coverage in the Baton Rouge and New Orleans newspapers from 1994 to 1996 to pass WP:GNG. I've added a couple of the sources to the article. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fiend (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)
The article contains little more than a short summary, cast listing, and the running time. No claim of significance.
Eman235/
talk
04:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly redirect to its director and writer, Don Dohler. Its a low-budget film starring nobody most people have heard of and without any critical notice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Found this in about 5 seconds. Yes, the article is terrible right now, but through editing and finding sources it can be improved. I've removed the copyvio in the meantime, too... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- A review by somebody named Trashfilmguru doesn't do it for me. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Video:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Germany:(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)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(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, NorthAmerica 1000 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Heck with it, I'm Withdrawing this AfD. Eman235/ talk 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per multiple releases over 24 years in English and non-English countries, as well as being released on DVD as part of Don Dohler retrospectives, and being reviewed and analysed in comparison to other Dohler works. IE: in DVD Talk for instance. Opinion, Clarityfiend? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:20, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tom Blood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:BIO, in that no sources exist to establish notability for this person. Tried looking for sources to help expand and save this article, but I am unsuccessful. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Only source links to his web page. Doesn't seem to be notable politically and certainly doesn't meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I just want to point out that his book on Mrs. Albright was reviewed i.e. by [37] ( Jerusalem Post, accessible via HighBeam Research) [38] ( Kirkus Reviews) and [39] ( Publishers Weekly). See also G-books results for metions about the book. His other literary works are less frequently reviewed. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can certainly see the potential for him to be notable under WP:AUTHOR, if the sourcing were substantively improved to cite coverage of his writing, but nothing here gets him over WP:NPOL and nobody ever qualifies for an article on here on the basis of exclusively primary sourcing to their own website. No prejudice against recreation in the future if his career as a writer can be properly sourced, but this version as written is a delete if the sourcing isn't beefed up. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete My god, you need to actually read the reviews, not just cite them. First, Kirkus attempts to review every book published in English and likely to be available to libraries. Their review reads: "A slapdash effort, lacking in critical perspective and reading like a background report for an Albright for President campaign. Blood, a lobbyist and trustee of the Democratic National Committee, is so gushing about his subject that he may have unwittingly created a new phenomenon: damning with great praise." [40] Library Journal also pans it. Publishers weekly reviews about 7K books a year, all offered by the publishers themselves. I don't know what that review says, but generally they are very short (200 words) and are aimed to sell the book. This person is not notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete lack of significant independent coverage. Fails NOTEBLP fails AUTHOR. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- C. Courtney Joyner ( | 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 author has seen local interest but there are no reliable sources describing his career or his books. The author has not won awards or otherwise become notable.The books have not been bestsellers nor have they won awards. Binksternet ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I was actually fully expecting to find zero sources for this guy, but I did find some stuff out there. He's had more than a few of his audio commentaries get special notice and as a scriptwriter he's been singled out for notice in reviews as well. It's not the strongest sourcing out there, but it shows that his work is notable enough for him to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep, multiple references and publications on this person. Major contributor to the western and horror genres. I could go on and on. Somewhat puzzling as to why this gets a deletion nomination. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC))
- Note: I've struck this comment, as this is a sockpuppet of Electromechanic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment At Tokyogirl79's request leaving this open. I've deleted others by this sock which hadn't had significant edits by anyone else but this one obviously has. Dougweller ( talk) 07:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak/Delete I am not an expert of this subject, but, this person does at least to seem notable. Notable enough for a personal bio/article? I don't think so, but I think some information could be added to a few projects he seems to have been involved in. Orasis ( talk) 08:04, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- China Bank Savings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement. has solely primary sources. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge very selectively to Chinabank#Subsidiaries and Affiliates, probably down to only the bare facts in the infobox. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep The article does cite third party sources; will only require some rewriting and removal of promotional phrases. Articles on subsidiaries or affiliate companies offer added traffic to Wikipedia so I am usually against merging. :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Of note is that 3PB was moved to Paper Buildings, from where it was nominated for deletion herein, and this AfD discussion was titled "3PB". NorthAmerica 1000 13:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- 3PB ( | 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 set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales defines "chambers" primarily in terms of "a place", I don't think that WP:ORG is applicable, since you are also dealing with the notability of a building. I think it is fairly obvious that "3 Paper Buildings" is an address. A copy of the definition is here. James500 ( talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the context of this article and all the others about sets of chambers, "chambers" are akin to a law firm (even though they are technically not as barristers are self-employed etc) and the articles are written as such, about the chambers fields of expertise etc, so, irrespective of what the CC says, for Wikipedia purposes WP:ORG does apply. We could write articles about all the interesting buildings in the Inns and indeed some exist already ( Temple Church), but they wouldn't need all the guff about the barristers who practice there.-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that they are akin to a "law firm" which I assume means a partnership of solicitors. According to the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services (1979), there had, since 1902, been a rule of conduct prohibiting any practice in the least degree resembling partnership between barristers, though this did not apply in respect of work overseas. Common purse arrangements are not allowed. They do share the services of a clerk (with whom they have an individual relationship) and the expenses of the chambers. They do not share clients, work or profits. In particular, members of the same set can represent both parties in the same case, something that solicitors in partnership are not allowed to do. This information could be out of date by now, but if this set goes back to the nineteenth century, that may not be an issue. James500 ( talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Read my comment more carefully: technically there are not, but in the context Wikikpedia and the way these articles are written, they are. (I know the technicalities, I am a barrister myself, albeit not in private practice).-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am wondering whether we could do something with this. There are quite a few results for "3 Paper Buildings" in GBooks. It seems the building was, for example, formerly the headquarters of MI5: [41]. It seems John Galsworthy had chambers there, and it is where he wrote "Dick Denver's Idea": [42]. And so forth. Perhaps the article could be moved and rewritten. Or perhaps we could do a selective merge of the various chambers into articles on streets. James500 ( talk) 13:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Paper Buildings is red linked at the moment. Perhaps this article could be moved there and broadened out to include the entire street. There is for example a detailed article
here. The Common Bail Office was at 14 Paper Buildings:
[43]. And so forth.
James500 (
talk)
17:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. The article requires further expansion, but should completely immune from deletion in its present form.
James500 (
talk)
20:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Paper Buildings obviously satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I also advise the adoption of a similar solution to the other articles that have been nominated for deletion. The streets are probably notable, and the addresses are plausible redirects. One finds them in lots of sources going back hundreds of years.
James500 (
talk)
21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- 3PB is now a redirect to Paper Buildings. It was originally a redirect to ABC News Radio. James500 ( talk) 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We have a good alternative to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. The abbreviation 3PB doesn't seem to have much competition - the Northrop N-3PB is the closest and still loses out in Google ranking. Andrew ( talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- André Conde ( | 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 music producer from what I can tell is not that notable. Wgolf ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Person in question was unable to meet WP:GNG and therefore pointless to contrast and compare with WP:MUSIC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis ( talk • contribs)
- Delete - not notable. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:25, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chomutov Wind Farm ( | 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 evidence that this wind farm was ever built. No evidence of significant coverage. C 679 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with the nominator. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence that this project, whether planned or built, is or would be notable. AllyD ( talk) 07:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete if we can't even verify it exists, there is no case for notability. LibStar ( talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (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. In addition to the roughly 2–1 split in favor of deletion here, the concerns expressed with respect to BLP, indiscriminateness, and subjectivity do not appear to have been persuasively addressed by the advocates of keeping (even in the light of the move to a different article name). Deor ( talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of controversial celebrity baby names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
'Controversial', 'strange', 'weird', etc. are all subjective, if not biased qualifications and cannot be allowed on an encyclopedia( WP:NPOV). According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a fansite- hence listing all baby names from A to Z is beyond our scope. In addition, this list is currently a mess with the creator having abandoned it and other editors taking it over without a clue about the article's scope. There is no agreement on what the article will cover that has not been attempted in other deleted propsals. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This just looks like a random list of celebrities who gave their children unusual names. In addition, not only are the names not controversial, but none of the sources even label any of the names as controversial. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Should I say "self-explanatory" too? No, I will actually explain my position by reference to policy: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". And not only does the nomination not bother to explain itself, it seems quite clear that no consideration has been given to WP:BEFORE. The naming of babies is quite a big deal in the real world and so the topic clearly passes WP:LISTN as there are numerous examples of relevant coverage including:
- I have rarely seen such copious support for a list and the sources seem to agree on the selections:- Moon Unit, Fifi Trixibelle, &c. The only point at issue seems to be the word controversial. This seems a reasonable choice but, if we don't care for it, we can replace it with some alternative, such as exotic or notorious, without having to delete the page; we would just move it to the new title. Andrew ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the policy fully? The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. The boldface is given for a reason. Hence speedy keep does not apply. But it was my mistake for not clearly pointing out that this article is Tabloid journalism, and not fit for Wikipedia. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I read it - I read all policies that I cite quite carefully. The fact that another editor has posted a contrary !vote is no obstacle to mine because the idea is that we provide our separate inputs. The outcome depends upon what the closer makes of the overall consensus. It may be that editors change their !vote after seeing the arguments and evidence. It may be that !votes are discounted for some reason. Our positions are not fixed and so my proposal that the matter should be dismissed peremptorily stands. As for the link to tabloid journalism; you provide no evidence or policy to support this as a valid reason to delete. The first source I provided in the list above is to The Independent which is a high-quality newspaper, not the yellow press. And the other sources are all books. And here's another source: Encyclopedia of Motherhood, which provides a list of such names in its entry on Celebrity Motherhood: "Apple, Elijah Blue, Kal-El, Moon Unit...". This source is an encyclopedia and so the encyclopedic nature of the information is established. Andrew ( talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since someone other than me recommended(through their !vote) that the page be deleted, clearly speedy keep is void. The whole idea of a controversial baby name is biased, so Wikipedia saying in its own voice that these names are controversial is unacceptable. We can discuss somewhere about societal attitudes towards baby names and celebrities flouting them, but listing out self-judged 'controversial' names as a separate article is the height of triviality.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the word controversial to demonstrate the ease with which ordinary editing can address such qualms. The selection of names is not self-judged as these examples all seem well-established in the extensive literature such as the sources listed above. I have started citing these to avoid any doubt on this point too. Again this is ordinary editing and it is our editing policy to improve new articles in this way, not to delete them. Andrew ( talk) 22:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now we have changed the article to 'List of celebrity baby names'- what is the scope of this list? Every celebrity baby name from A to Z? Not only does that change the whole point of this article, even the new article fails under
WP:NOT.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The page is a new one created by a new editor and so is still shaking down. It might help if we had the editor here, participating in the discussion, but perhaps he has now been scared off by this unfriendly proposal. Myself, I have studied numerous sources now and so have a good feel for the topic. There is extensive coverage of celebrity baby names because new parents are especially influenced by them when naming their children. That's why Liam, for example, is now one of the top choices - because of the influence of celebrity Liams like Gallagher and Neeson. In the copious baby name literature, you find three sorts of celebrity name lists. One is what the celebrities are called themselves. Another is what the celebrities are calling their children in general. And the third are lists of celebrity baby names which are considered to be especially bizarre or weird. The idea here seems to be to compile a list of the oddball names and this seems quite easy to do because the sources generally agree on what they are. Andrew ( talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note that we already have extensive coverage of baby names on pages like category:Given names and List of most popular given names and there are countless pages for particular aspects and details such as the Icelandic Naming Committee and Germanic personal names in Galicia. The page we have here seems comparatively straightforward. Andrew ( talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- But the author only meant controversial names, while you have changed the nature of the article itself (without hearing his opinion on it, I might add). If we really cover all celebrity baby names from all over the world, the list should run into the thousands. Can you prove that this is not in violation of
WP:NOT? We may have to include ancient celebrities if we want to avoid
WP:Recentism. While most celebrities are
WP:Notable for Wikipedia, their babies are not per se, leave alone their names.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is your proposal and so you're the one with a case to make. Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, if you think WP:NOT applies then you need to explain how and why. What I'm seeing there is WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Given this, the size of the list is not currently a problem nor is it likely to be. Andrew ( talk) 10:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It is also not a fansite. If this article's purpose is to record fancy baby names, there are other wikis out there for it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no reason to make such a list.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- A speedy keep in this case is inappropriate for a lot of reasons. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It is also not a fansite. If this article's purpose is to record fancy baby names, there are other wikis out there for it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no reason to make such a list.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- But the author only meant controversial names, while you have changed the nature of the article itself (without hearing his opinion on it, I might add). If we really cover all celebrity baby names from all over the world, the list should run into the thousands. Can you prove that this is not in violation of
WP:NOT? We may have to include ancient celebrities if we want to avoid
WP:Recentism. While most celebrities are
WP:Notable for Wikipedia, their babies are not per se, leave alone their names.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since someone other than me recommended(through their !vote) that the page be deleted, clearly speedy keep is void. The whole idea of a controversial baby name is biased, so Wikipedia saying in its own voice that these names are controversial is unacceptable. We can discuss somewhere about societal attitudes towards baby names and celebrities flouting them, but listing out self-judged 'controversial' names as a separate article is the height of triviality.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Firstly there is a serious WP:BLP problem here. Controversial babies, anyone? Secondly, it is the articles in the press which are notable, not the subject matter. So a list of articles that mention the names of the children might be notable, but an extrapolation of that information is WP:SYNTH, as per this article, and is not acceptable. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Extrapolation? Synthesis? What is the synthetic proposition which the sources do not state? Andrew ( talk) 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. If you don't understand me you should read (and understand) the guideline WP:SYNTH! Now the article has been been renamed I trust you are not going to omit any celebrity baby names, Andrew? Sean? Zak? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're ducking the question and so your objection is still just a vague wave: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Andrew ( talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to duck the question, I am trying to avoid repeating myself. But as you insist on me supplying an analysis of the content of
WP:SYNTH in the hope I will either go away, or better still, change my mind, here goes :-
- The taking to two concepts and merging them into a thought, an article or a list (as in this case) is original thought. I have no doubt that there are lists of "celebrities who give their children extraordinary names" and I have chuckled at them myself, but to take the "concept" of a list and to create an article is a stage too far. Even the supporters of this article agree with me when they need to ask "Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name" If the question needs to be asked then there is a complete failure of a number of policies and guidelines including OR, Synth, opinion and probably others.
- Of course you knew this before and the vague wave is yours. Cheers. I have no need to respond again. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postcript comment. If my argument wasn't going to carry much weight at the closure of the AfD, why ask me to improve it if you are on the opposing side? (rhetorical question, no need to respond). -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The general point to be aware of is that WP:SYN is a quite narrow and specific complaint, not some general catch-all which can be used againts any list that you don't happen to like. Please see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not for more details. Andrew ( talk) 08:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Query - Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Beats me. I have the same question about "Apple", "Justice" and "Cruz". They may all be unusual but here, the trouble is 'controversial'. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've been working down the list and hadn't got to Ford yet. There's some coverage out there for this baby's name, which is Robert Ford, in full. This discusses why the name was chosen and how popular it is but there's no indication that it is thought to be especially bizarre or weird. Apple, on the other hand, shows up in just about every list of strange celebrity baby names and that's why the entry now has six citations and counting. So, this is easily addressed by by ordinary editing - Apple stays in and Ford comes out. We have to do this kind of maintenance for every list of any size. It's not a reason to delete. Andrew ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If reliable sources cover and comment on the strange names, then its notable. The article should be titled "unusual" baby names, not controversial. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adjectives like 'strange' violate
WP:NPOV.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not it doesn't. Look at the references. "The most unusual celebrity baby names", "Some of the oddest celebrity baby names", "Notorious Celebrity Baby Names", "The best of the unique", "Bold Baby Names", "whacky names". If reliable sources use these names, so can we. Dream Focus 02:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adjectives like 'strange' violate
WP:NPOV.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Delete a collection of povs and numerous personal opinions. A cited one, perhaps, but not a suitable article. All the issues of a list like worst films without the superlative that gives a discretional ability and the notability of an actual ranking system. The exact same arguments being used here could be used for lists of celebrities with bad plastic surgery or ugly tattoos -- just because something has articles about it does not mean it is suitable for an article .-- Yaksar (let's chat) 03:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is a noted and familiar phenomenon as evidenced by social commentary in reliable sources of which Wikipedia keeps track. Wikipedia editors have discretion on what to include or not based on the criteria, disagreement over individual entries can be worked out on the talk page. -- Green C 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep -- the sources make it clear that notability is not in question. What's needed is a more developed intro that expands on the phenomenon itself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Sourced, discussed, can have reliable objective criteria, thus notable and good to stay.-- cyclopia speak! 09:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Plenty of secondary sources, also - not "self-explanatory" at all. Zambelo; talk 10:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on the phenomenon of certain celebrities choosing unusual names for their children would be supportable, but not this list. The people listed in this article are private individuals and should be granted a presumption of privacy; it is not the job of an encyclopedia to point and laugh at them for a characteristic they did not choose. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well put! Jayakumar RG ( talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete: Per WP:IINFO. Another one of these lists with "unusual" or "controversial" in the title that needs to die. What is "unusual" or "controversial" is subjective and open to disagreement. If a list has an adjective in its title, it should be something like "first", "longest", etc. p b p 14:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Superlatives (biggest, longest) are also inherently subjective. How do you define the length of a bridge? The part over water, the part over land+water, etc.. there is disagreement about this. How one defines things determines how things are measured and very often there is disagreement and subjective opinion. We simply report what sources say, we don't determine on our own which bridge is longest. The same here, we report what sources say and don't worry that they are subjective, because they always are. If you seek absolute truth with no subjectivity in the sources then most of human culture (and much else besides) would be excluded from Wikipedia. --
Green
C
16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:IINFO specifically relates to fiction/lyrics/stats/software versions. It is not a catch-all for anything that one doesn't happen to like or disapproves of. Andrew ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cardamon, the subjectivity of this list is nothing like the subjectivity (of which there really isn't any) of bridges lists. If there are 3 or 4 different ways of measuring a bridge, you can just have different lists for each way to measure a bridge, or you can combine the 3 or 4 different ways to measure a bridge into a sortable wikitable. You can't do that with this list. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Superlatives (biggest, longest) are also inherently subjective. How do you define the length of a bridge? The part over water, the part over land+water, etc.. there is disagreement about this. How one defines things determines how things are measured and very often there is disagreement and subjective opinion. We simply report what sources say, we don't determine on our own which bridge is longest. The same here, we report what sources say and don't worry that they are subjective, because they always are. If you seek absolute truth with no subjectivity in the sources then most of human culture (and much else besides) would be excluded from Wikipedia. --
Green
C
16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with 2/0 and other delete arguments. The list can do more harm than good, in my opinion, there are other sources more suitable than Wikipedia for readers interested in that kind of information. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- This information is covered in numerous other sources, as the references show. The fact that the information is reported elsewhere is exactly what makes it notable and so that's a reason to keep it, not to delete it. Andrew ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- you misunderstand me, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient argument on its own for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many things that can be read in multiple sources and still should not be included in an encyclopedia. In my personal opinion this classifies as a clear example, specially since it could be potentially damaging to people involved. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: It is obvious the creator of the article, User:FordNixon, is trolling us. Now, please, don't tell me "AGF"; because its painfully obvious. He's dragged good and well-meaning editors into it as a result. I'm sure Ford is a consummate gentleman, you may peruse his diligent offerings since he joined us earlier this month. This is the kind of list certain to create drama, because you have the intersection of "reliable sources" pumping out puff pieces on this very topic vs. the fact that such lists are super silly. Should we really have stupid lists? No. Can it be hard to draw the line between stupid and worthy of keeping. Yes. Add drama and stir.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think ForNixon is a troll. Are you a troll? --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. The joke about "Ford" above tells you I'm not alone in my thinking.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- What joke? The user in question is User:FordDixon not FordNixon. Their other contributions such as 2005 Rally Japan seem quite sedate. Compare this with dog daycare, List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure or Pizza cheese. Milowent used to be proud of such whimsical topics. What happened? Andrew ( talk) 08:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm proud of all those! Claudius Gele which he also created was very inspired, but I'm not sure how intentionally. There's a difference between those notable creations I have worked on and subjects and List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants. The subject has to be definable.-- Milowent • has spoken 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. The joke about "Ford" above tells you I'm not alone in my thinking.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think ForNixon is a troll. Are you a troll? --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note - I assume that we're all going to be more than happy about the fact that Barack Obama needs to be included on this list since apparently multiple reliable sources calling a name "funny" is enough to justify a list like this. And yes, his father counts as a notable figure. Or that foreign names like Krishna or Indio must be counted as weird because, hey, sources refer to them as strange, and we therefore absolutely must have an article.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Barack's name would obviously be silly. If some insisted we would have a discussion on the talk page, and we would work out by consensus if the name should be included or not. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is under editorial control, there is no automatic inclusion. --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was kidding about Obama, but totally serious about the racist issues this article is going to suffer from (and all articles that are nothing more than a synthesis of non notable opinions on non notable people will suffer from). When numerous sources call a bridge the longest in the world, or a building the tallest, or a celebrity a catholic, a discussion on inclusion would be actually based on sources. In this case, it would simply be nothing but "I don't like it's".-- Yaksar (let's chat) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Barack's name would obviously be silly. If some insisted we would have a discussion on the talk page, and we would work out by consensus if the name should be included or not. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is under editorial control, there is no automatic inclusion. --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question Aren't most of these items violations of WP:BLPNAME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and therefore need to be removed? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - As a general rule, list articles on Wikipedia are lists of links to Wikipedia articles, and given WP:NOTINHERITED, those who are merely children of the famous generally do not get articles. Some of the supposedly unusual names here aren't unusual; more than one in a thousand baby girls in the US are being named Brooklyn putting it in the top 30 baby names, about one in four thousand boys are being named Romeo, relatively the same for Cruz; if someone deems them strange, that would be an opinion, and something that should not be in Wikipedia's voice. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are defining a disambiguation page, there is nor requirement for lists to have links,a dn ayway there are links to the parents. There are several lists of mayors of townships, ceos of companies, where no one is notable, but the topic is notable. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete the fact that these childrens' parents have made naming decisions we don't like doesn't mean we can drag them through the mud. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified. We have better things to do. We also should not be listing celebrity's children's names: there is no reason to do so. Drmies ( talk) 00:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - For multiple reasons. Yes, celebrities give their children odd names with some frequency, but I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's job to catalog them in alphabetical order. The biggest problem is the subjective nature of what constitutes an "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" name for a child. Opinions will differ. At another level, I believe there is a
WP:NPOV violation for the inclusion of any name that is not characterized as "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" in the mainstream media, and compiling such a list borders on original research per
WP:OR. Then there's Dr. Mies' non-policy reason given immediately above: "Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified." I agree with that, too.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
00:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be policy. (Incidentally, I just noticed that WP:HOTTIE was deleted...) Drmies ( talk) 05:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete for almost to many reasons to list them all; everyone else has done so above. Serious WP:BLP issues; unless public figures in their own right, these children have a right to privacy. List is indiscriminate; the world is filled with lists of things based on the authors own criteria; that these lists exists doesn't mean we need to repeat these lists here. Wikipedia does not benefit for this list; if people need to read lists like this, I see no reason to stop them from finding them elsewhere. -- Jayron 32 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as calling violating the general rule about not mentioning the names of children who can not "inherit notability" in the first place, and where we deprecate using such names in BLPs. Secondly, as requiring a valuation essentially in Wikipedia's voice that the names are "controversial." For example, why would "Apple" be controversial"? It may be unusual, but "controversial? Nope. Sorry -- the list criteria are arbitrary at best, thus the list fails. Collect ( talk) 01:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The page in question doesn't use the word "controversial" and so this indicates that the !voter hasn't read it. What we have now is a flurry of censorious comments which have arisen since the matter was canvassed on the BLP noticeboard. The fact that entire books are written about the topic is ignored and personal, kneejerk opinions are deployed without any reference to the evidence. Andrew ( talk) 08:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The title contained the word 'controversial', so you just went and removed that word from the title. But the contents of the page remained as such. If I had known that there was such a simple solution for the problem, I would have tried it too! Jayakumar RG ( talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)It did until you removed it on 20 Sep at 21:55. 15 hours after this AfD was started, and the redirect using "controversial" is still in full force and vigour. I take it that you feel Wikipedia's voice for saying "unusual, odd, notorious, unique, whacky, bold, or other such terminology" cured the problem? It doesn't - "notorious" and "whacky" are fully as "controversial" as one might wish. By the way, attacking other opinions as "kneejerk opinions" rarely makes the closer value your opinions more highly here.
Collect (
talk)
11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The words such as unusual and odd are taken from independent external sources and so are not a Wikipedia invention. Other words, such as stupid and trolling, are used here by the nay-sayers expressing their personal opinions. This is the essential difference - what do the sources say? Andrew ( talk) 12:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – This is an indiscriminate list of unrelated information stitched together with no clear definition. Academically, there is no study of this information, and presenting it as a meaningful whole is weirdly misleading OR. It drains credibility from the project to host such a weed garden of embarrassingly weak sources. Delete, and salt. SteveStrummer ( talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The WP:AFD page clearly states:
- While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
Collect (
talk)
11:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not prohibited because it's not a problem. There used to be some technical issues but Uncle G and other veteran admins fixed them many years ago.
Andrew (
talk)
12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We spent a lot of time and effort explaining to people that they couldn't do it, back in the years where it broke the notice, and a fair amount of effort getting rid of the technical problem that prevented it. I don't want to go back to the times when I had to explain over and over to people who just wanted to edit like they normally could, addressing points raised in discussion with action, that an AFD nomination imposes restrictions whose technicalities they have to understand. We managed to get the restrictions down to, in effect, don't do anything that would remove/hide the AFD notice or that would make cleaning up copyright licence problems at the close of discussion harder, and that was a good thing.
— Uncle G, 17 November 2010
- It's not prohibited because it's not a problem. There used to be some technical issues but Uncle G and other veteran admins fixed them many years ago.
Andrew (
talk)
12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
Collect (
talk)
11:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, the vast majority of items will need to be removed per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - very few babies are 'celebrities', and I can see no evidence that more than a small minority of those listed meet Wikipedia notability criteria (notability not being inherited). Of those that are notable, their notability has nothing to do with their name. An unencyclopeadic list of vacuous trivia selected by arbitrary criteria, mostly concerning individuals that WP:BLP policy (and notability policy in general) says we shouldn't be discussing at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - "strange" or "unusual" is not the same thing as "controversial". According to whom? A random gossip "journalist" who decided to name her children Steven, Simon and Samuel instead? Some of them aren't even "uncommon" let alone "unusual" or "controversial" (which, as I say, is a significant step further). Banjo? Lennox? Rhiannon and Romeo? The new title, " List of celebrity baby names" just turns this into a list of children of notable people, few of whom are notable in their own right which just creates a WP:BLP issue. St★lwart 111 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but possibly rename, as suggested above, per WP:ODD. At this moment, the list is self-limiting. Bearian ( talk) 13:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sure there are names that are controversial. This is a BLP disaster though. Ladyof Shalott 14:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep! And here's why. I thought that since there are lists on people from Newfoundland, people of Korean descent and people who disappeared mysteriously, I thought it was a good idea to make an article on people who have been given controversial names by celebrities. I still think it was a good idea. Some of the problems listed in the discussion have been fixed by other users (such as the citation of the sources), while I've added a link to Celebrity to solve the orphan problem. FordDixon ( talk) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you see, 'controversial' is no longer in the picture.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- That may be so, but the original page still redirects to the current version. Maybe we could rename the page "List of notable celebrity baby names?" It still shows that the names that are controversial without using the word "controversial."
FordDixon (
talk)
15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the article title doesn't alter the fact that it violates WP:BLP policy by listing non-notable individuals. And violates WP:NPOV policy by asserting as fact that these individuals have 'controversial' names based on opinions expressed in particular sources clearly cherry-picked for this specific opinion (or rather, for an opinion which our article decides fits self-invented criteria as 'controversial'). Incidentally, the title is also entirely inappropriate in that it describes adults as 'babies'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- That may be so, but the original page still redirects to the current version. Maybe we could rename the page "List of notable celebrity baby names?" It still shows that the names that are controversial without using the word "controversial."
FordDixon (
talk)
15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you see, 'controversial' is no longer in the picture.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Most of these items on this list are violations of WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, most of it will need to be cut out leaving it just a stub. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep notable by every standard, only a BLP problem if we have biographical information in the list, and there is none. We do not give their age or date of birth or where they were born, all the things that private people need to keep private. Change to "List of unusual celebrity baby names". -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unusual is still something that generally reflects an opinion, rather than an actual factual analysis (and "odd" would be even more so). It is not a claim we should be making in Wikipedia voice, any more than we should have a list of shitty movies or list of people with nice haircuts... only to even a greater degree, as this list is largely a ridiculing of specific children. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would note that we do actually have a page at
List of films considered the worst. However, this is a page with a clearly stated requirement that multiple movie critics, whose opinions we consider notable in determining a film's reception, have called a specific film the "worst" of all time. There's actually very little subjective interpretation here, unlike this article, which would be more like an article just called "List of bad movies" or "List of weird movies".--
Yaksar
(let's chat)
17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- As explained above, just about everything in human affairs is subjective. A better precedent for unusual is the list of unusual deaths. External media have praised the page as one of Wikipedia's finest and so it has withstood numerous AFDs. This case seems quite similar in that we have numerous external sources which enable us to determine what is or isn't considered unusual. Andrew ( talk) 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those sources deserve no space in this project at all. They are throwaway pablum, as could only be expected from such a juvenile "topic". SteveStrummer ( talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- We should only cover highbrow topics like Suzy Saxon and the Anglos, eh? de gustibus non est disputandum Andrew ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- They're not as good as The Anemic Boyfriends, but at least they are a definable entity.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would note that we do actually have a page at
List of films considered the worst. However, this is a page with a clearly stated requirement that multiple movie critics, whose opinions we consider notable in determining a film's reception, have called a specific film the "worst" of all time. There's actually very little subjective interpretation here, unlike this article, which would be more like an article just called "List of bad movies" or "List of weird movies".--
Yaksar
(let's chat)
17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, as Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Andrew have argued, this has as much merit as other lists of unusual whatever. BLP issues can be avoided. And yes, rename it to "unusual", not "controversial". Edwardx ( talk) 21:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete- What makes a name "unusual" or "controversial" is a subjective opinion, making this list inherently fail the WP:NPOV and [WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] policies. Where sources are cited, these are generally pretty crappy; someone above me called "throwaway pabulum", which is a fitting description. No source treats the topic as a topic, as opposed to just listing some alleged examples. Finally, I think some weight has to be given to WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE arguments. Reyk YO! 22:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a list, not a narrative topic, and fully satisfies the guidance of WP:LISTN. But if we want some more detailed analysis, there are good sources which for that too. For example, A Matter of Taste develops a theory of fashion from the study of names and naturally includes the influence of celebrity naming in this. Papers such as Identifying the Presence and Cause of Fashion Cycles in the Choice of Given Names then build on this. Andrew ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Eh? WP:LISTN says that the topic needs to be covered as a group in reliable sources, which is exactly my point. Whether it's a narrative article or not does not enter into it. Reyk YO! 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The name that the reliable sources use can be "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre", break out your thesaurus. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
00:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sources cited may possibly be 'reliable'. They are however specifically selected to promote a particular opinion - that the names of these largely non-notable individuals are "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre". Cherry-picking sources to promote a particular opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and listing non-notable individuals because a cherry-picked sources consider their names as "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre" is a violation of WP:BLP policy.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Performing a Google search is cherry-picking? Then every search for every fact is cherry picking. While "unusual" and "best" and "worst" are subjective opinions, we can have a consensus of opinions. We have
List of films considered the best and
List of films considered the worst. Both are top read articles. While the list may not seem encyclopedic, we aren't just an encyclopedia, we are a reference work. We are a biographical dictionary, an almanac, and a gazetteer, all in one. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'A consensus of opinions'? The only 'consensus' that the article demonstrates is that cherry-picked sources sometimes agree with each other - which is unsurprising, since they were selected for their POV. And as for your suggestion as to what else Wikipedia is other than an encyclopaedia, it is not only a questionable assertion (you cite no policy or guideline), but is also utterly irrelevant, since such publications don't include facile opinionated lists concerning the names of the offspring of 'celebrities.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- An example of explicitly encyclopedic coverage has already been provided above - the Encyclopedia of Motherhood. Other sources provided include the quality press and academic works. It seems clear that the matter is well covered across a variety and number of sources. In trying to deny this you seem to be representing your own personal opinion, unsupported by fact or evidence. This does not seem to be a neutral position and, with insults such as facile, seems both uncivil and contrary to policy. As for cherry-picking, if you think there's some large body of coverage about the topic which has not been represented in a proportionate way, then again we need to see some evidence of this. Your personal opinion is insufficient because this is not a vote. Andrew ( talk) 13:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The ' explicitly encyclopedic coverage' you cite is a piece criticising 'celebrity mothers' for multiple supposed transgressions, which mentions in passing "outlandish, often embarrassing" names given to children, and gives a few examples of such (without surnames). It is absolutely not an encyclopaedia article on the topic of 'celebrity baby names', and therefore cannot be cited as evidence that an encyclopaedia should include a list of 'List of unusual celebrity baby names'. And yes the list under discussion in this AfD is facile and unencyclopaedic, and I am expressing my opinion that Wikipedia should not include facile unencyclopaedic content - if the people promoting such facile unencyclopaedic content chose to see my advocacy of the stated objectives of an online encyclopaedia as a 'personal attack' that is their problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- That encyclopedia presents the matter in the context of a wider topic - celebrity motherhood. It is not a passing mention in the sense of being tangential because naming the child is a proper part of the larger topic and so satisfies WP:SIGCOV. If we were to follow their example, then we would expand the topic to cover celebrity motherhood or celebrity parenthood and notice that these are both red links. Such development is the proper way forward, per our editing policy; deletion is not. Andrew ( talk) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a single sentence. As for an article on 'celebrity parenthood', that is not the topic of this AfD, and accordingly our opinions on the merits of such an article are irrelevant - I can see nothing in Wikipedia policy that suggests that a hypothetical claim that an article could be expanded to cover another topic entirely would be a legitimate reason not to delete otherwise unacceptable content. If you want to create such an article, feel free to do so - assuming you can find the necessary sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'A consensus of opinions'? The only 'consensus' that the article demonstrates is that cherry-picked sources sometimes agree with each other - which is unsurprising, since they were selected for their POV. And as for your suggestion as to what else Wikipedia is other than an encyclopaedia, it is not only a questionable assertion (you cite no policy or guideline), but is also utterly irrelevant, since such publications don't include facile opinionated lists concerning the names of the offspring of 'celebrities.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Performing a Google search is cherry-picking? Then every search for every fact is cherry picking. While "unusual" and "best" and "worst" are subjective opinions, we can have a consensus of opinions. We have
List of films considered the best and
List of films considered the worst. Both are top read articles. While the list may not seem encyclopedic, we aren't just an encyclopedia, we are a reference work. We are a biographical dictionary, an almanac, and a gazetteer, all in one. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sources cited may possibly be 'reliable'. They are however specifically selected to promote a particular opinion - that the names of these largely non-notable individuals are "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre". Cherry-picking sources to promote a particular opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and listing non-notable individuals because a cherry-picked sources consider their names as "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre" is a violation of WP:BLP policy.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. -- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Although it is quite interesting, it isn't very objective or a suitable item for inclusion. Looks more like Buzzfeed than Wikipedia.. Shritwod ( talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Indiscriminate list of trivia with no objective criteria and also a BLP landmine. I can't see lists of this nature having any sort of encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:23, 26 September 2014 (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 Redirect to Sun TV Network. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Surya Music ( | 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 no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to Sun TV Network. Cult of Green ( talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sun TV Network. No sources to assert notability by itself. Not every service or product a company sells is notable. -- Alexf (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect - as @ Alexf: suggested. — CutestPenguin Hangout 13:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:36, 20 September 2014 (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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Zhang Peng (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Chinese)
Appears to be a Chinese artist. Tagged for unclear notability for over six years.Sources are not independent. Google produces primarily his social media. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep notable individual showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources (see references). The Saatchi Gallery (one of the top private galleries in London) owns works by Zhang and he has featured in exhibitions across the world per WP:ARTIST. Quite why the nominator thinks that the sources are not independent is puzzling to say the least. Philg88 ♦ talk 08:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Thanks for locating his Chinese name! WP:ARTIST seems to be met. However, I'm not able to find more Chinese sources for this artist. One problem is that the name "張鵬" is too common. I try to add some definitions, but nothing useful turns up. ( [44] [45]) Ref 4 in the article says he has held a exhibition at the Museum Of Contemporary Art in Shanghai. As a Shanghainese, I've never heard of that. Further more, this search gives nothing.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:ARTIST he is in the permanent collections of the Saatchi Gallery, London and the Klein Sun Gallery, New York. Philg88 ♦ talk 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦ talk 09:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:33, 20 September 2014 (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. G12 Ronhjones (Talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Foysol Hussain Choudhury ( | 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 article is essentially a press release for local figure wit no elected positions. MBE is not sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Copyvio from http://www.linkedin.com/pub/foysol-choudhury-mbe/59/872/803. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:24, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ladi Ajiboye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, Ajiboye has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources; the coverage that has been found relates to his suspension from the team for a marijuana infraction which raises BLP1E issues. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy specific notability guidelines for college football players per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), nor professional players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in the NFL or other major pro league). Analysis under the general notability guidelines is a closer call, but my review of 230+ Google results suggests the overwhelming majority of coverage is discounted because it's not independent (teams, leagues, etc.), not reliable/professional (blogs, fan sites, reader-contributed material), trivial or WP:ROUTINE or otherwise heavily discounted (usual post-game coverage, transactions, recruiting, etc.). As noted by Cbl63 above, the only thing resembling "significant coverage" arose from his suspension for getting caught buying marijuana, and we can safely ignore that per the one-event rule of WP:BLP1E. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:46, 27 September 2014 (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 Redirect to Clayhill. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Ted Barnes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · (2nd_nomination) Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (I think). All links seem to point to simple fact that he wrote 3 songs for Beth Orton, which seems to be only primary claim of notability, which I don't think is enough. scope_creep 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- As the nom created this on the first afd page - I've had to set up this page so apologies if i've messed anything up or missed anything off of here, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Second time nomination for delete. Now looking for a WP:SALT. scope_creep talk 11:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment -about the Ted Barnes article - I started it because I heard a couple of pieces on radio and thought them good, that's all really - the presenter said he worked with beth Orton and such and I thought he sounded notable -I didn't realize there was an article called Clayhill (when I first had the inspiration I mean, to create the article) either that covers much of the notable work - so if it is deleted I think that's probably right after all. I haven't quite the heart to vote delete however as I don't think the article is too utterly preposterous and undue to include on its own. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Clayhill for now. That article doesn't really show much evidence of notability either, but if the band is notable, redirecting the members that are not individually notable thereto is reasonable. I'd also support a "delete and redirect" to clarify that we should not have an article on Barnes himself if something should happen to the Clayhill article. Huon ( talk) 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:08, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to By2 discography. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- NC 16 (By2 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)
Fails WP:MUSIC. No references. Blocked editor. scope_creep talk 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. If the nom had followed WP:BEFORE -- something he seems to ignore, generally -- he'd have seen that this is an album from a notable band, from which five singles made the top ten of a national chart, something that's a prima facie pass on WP:MUSIC. The article is unsourced, but that should've been handled with tagging to start, and I wonder what steps the nom took to source it, as WP:BEFORE requires be done before a nomination is made. From someone who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this level of omission is inexplicable. Ravenswing 10:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to By2 discography. This is nothing more than a track list. There's no such thing as prima facie pass without reliable sources. WP:MUSIC criteria is regarding music artists not albums. Chart information is much more succintly covered in the discography already. If actual coverage of the album itself (production, reviews, etc.) can be found and added into the article for an actual stub and not just a track list, it would be very easy to do so. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to By2 discography. Lack of coverage, lack of content. Ravenswing did not choose to tell as which charts or which songs either here or in the article, but the discography which has more information on the album than this article, shows that it was the Gaon Korean chart, although none made #1. Taiwan and other charts are not listed. The citation given for the Gaon Korean chart is a deadlink. The article indicates that the Goan webpage was accessed 14 February 2012, that date was not archived, but the archive for 19 Jan 2012 and 8 April 2012 do not list either the album or the band or any of the singles. Since the singles were released April–July 2008 why would they chart only briefly in Feb. 2012, and not January or April? Anyway, lacking access to the old chart, I was unable to verify the single charting. lastly, even if notable, there is no reason to duplicate the By2 discography article, so a redirect is appropriate. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Stefan Junestrand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Page has been copied verbatim from supposed cv, majority of sources are damaged. No evidence presented that the man is recognized expert. Can't find anything on Google Sweden. scope_creep 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you can't find anything on Google Sweden because he works in Spain, see the sources here ( Radio Nacional de España among others). -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The references are deceptive because they are references, for example, to the University he attended, not to any resources about him. The only resource that I see that might be significant is an article in a trade magazine. However, that would not be enough to establish notability, IMO. The various interviews and recorded panel discussion (a total of 4 on the media page, including a 2.5 minute Youtube videa) do not establish notability. LaMona ( talk) 02:09, 26 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Bjarni Salvarsson ( | 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 fictional character that is unsure how he is notable if all. Wgolf ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:02, 20 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dan Sebring ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sebring is now in his fourth campaign for Congress, yet there is almost no coverage of him in reliable sources. Of the 9 references listed on his page at the moment, 3 are links to lists of candidates or election results; one is to the Leadership Institute PAC, which isn't a reliable source; one is to the blog straightforwardwisconsin, which is also not a reliable source; one is behind a paywall; and the final three offer routine coverage - one for each of his last three runs. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as an unelected candidate who has received nothing more than the most routine of coverage - 4 sources for his 4 campaigns over the last six years.
Although the article has already been nominated for deletion and was closed as "keep", the arguments used in favour of keeping the page were faulty. For example, "I'm sure that more reliable sources exist" (they don't) and "Anyone notable enough to by a major party candidate in a two-party system for a national office such as a seat in the US House of Representatives) should be consider suitable for an article". WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted". Tiller54 ( talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with nominator. I tried to do some work on this article in the past, but did not find any "notable" coverage, as nominator describes. * Seen a Mike * 00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Under WP:NPOL, unelected candidates for office do not get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just for being candidates. Rather, with rare exceptions for a candidate who busts way outside of the WP:ROUTINE level of local media coverage that is expected for all candidates in an election ( Christine O'Donnell being the canonical example that I always point to of how this is possible), a candidate who was not already notable enough to pass a different inclusion standard before he became a candidate does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election — and nothing written or sourced here demonstrates that he's passed the high bar necessary to qualify for the exception. As written, this is effectively just a campaign brochure — which is exactly the kind of content that our notability standards for politicians, as well as policies like WP:NOTADVERTISING, are designed to weed out of Wikipedia. He'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, certainly, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not-notable candidate with trivial coverage. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (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. Deor ( talk) 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- SAE Agricultural Machinery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small Italian company ( 12 employees) not relevant due to the production of common products. Likely product promotional page. НУРшЯGIO( beware of the moose) 21:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 12. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 21:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company of no evident notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, this is an ad, not an encyclopædia article. Fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adrián Cubas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From what I can tell-has yet to play a full season so does not go into wiki soccer status yet
Wgolf (
talk)
04:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This confirms that he has made three appearances in the Argentine First Division, meaning the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - per Sir Sputnik. Footballers don't necessarily have to play a full season. The fact that he already made three appearances in the Argentine Primera Division means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and just needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael ( talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn-I really got this wrong-I was thinking based off the page that he was not even a pro player yet. Userfy is needed then. Wgolf ( talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quotaism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure neologism used by South African white activists and pushed here by a tiny handful of s.p.a.s. whose NPOV is conspicuously absent. Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Surely the origins of the contributor should not be the grounds for deletion. I believe the facts are accurate and rational. DV76 ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete My numerous newspaper and magazine searches, US, internationally, India, and elsewhere, don't turn up any sources discussing the term in depth. There are a few scattered mentions on the web, but my sense is the term is not crystal clear, and is really a rather awkward vague way of saying "a quota-based system" or somesuch. In searches of Google books, there are some mentions, but not in depth. If we search for even a dictionary definition of 'quotaism', we're redirect to 'quota'. The lack of reliable references here suggests the article is mostly
original research, and should either be deleted or else redirected to
quota.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
12:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will concede the English references are short & sweet (but still clear enough). In SA its mainly referred to as “Proportional representation” or “Absolute representation”, but I couldn’t find any good English references. It’s mainly the Afrikaans media reporting on this. Redirecting to
Quota would void it of all meaning (to wide), renaming would be a better option. Any suggesting?
DV76 (
talk)
14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes if the term is popular in South Africa, find South African newspapers, magazines and news sources (TV & radio). Next, assemble them into a search string like this (but with S.African news sources of course) -- (site:theguardian.com OR site:france24.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:cnn.com/world OR site:chinadaily.com OR site:canada.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:iht.com OR site:theage.com.au OR site:iol.co.za/the-star OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:jpost.com OR site:irishtimes.com OR site:economist.com). So into your browser put Quotaism followed by the search string (which acts as a filter). So you'll have a long search string to put into your browser bar. That might lead you to good sources. If found, rewrite the article but only using the sourced content -- remove any non-RS sources (blogs, promotional sites etc). If you need my help let me know.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
A rose by any other name ... – Sadly, it seems the media don’t use the text book term Quotaism directly, then again I am hopeful the textbooks resources trumps news articles. I added a few more reference from reputable news sites for support. - Half the problem it’s a new social phenomenon. The Textbook refs are from the 80’s and 90’s and the supporting news article are only starting to emerge in the last 10 years.
DV76 (
talk)
00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you'd like the article to stay, consider removing references which are not considered reliable, and especially remove ones which don't use the exact word 'Quotaism' in it, since what happens when Wikipedians, having to slog through non-references, get annoyed and bored and are more likely to vote 'delete'. Consider removing article content which is not referenced, in the sense of less is more. If you fix up the article I may change my vote but right now I have other stuff I'm interested in working on.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Quotaism and “Absolute representation” are the same subject matter, interchangeable term if you like (depending on the audience). Would adding the line: “Quotaism is often referred to as ‘Absolute representation’ “ help.
DV76 (
talk)
10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish the article to try to stay, fix it first as I suggested in the previous paragraph. Trying to link a non-notable term such as Quotaism to another term such as Absolute representation, well, is that a term in use either? A quick search of selected newspapers internationally
here suggests the term is not used much. If you find sources for Quotaism and fix the article, I'll change my vote to keep, but my guess is that such an effort is likely to be unproductive.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct. I tried myself. - The subject matter is still evolving and will take a while before it penetrates the international media. I hear the trade unions are planning to take their case to the UN, maybe then we will have good solid sources. - For now, striping it back to the basic definition may be the best cause of action. - Many thanks for your assistants. DV76 ( talk) 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish the article to try to stay, fix it first as I suggested in the previous paragraph. Trying to link a non-notable term such as Quotaism to another term such as Absolute representation, well, is that a term in use either? A quick search of selected newspapers internationally
here suggests the term is not used much. If you find sources for Quotaism and fix the article, I'll change my vote to keep, but my guess is that such an effort is likely to be unproductive.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Quotaism and “Absolute representation” are the same subject matter, interchangeable term if you like (depending on the audience). Would adding the line: “Quotaism is often referred to as ‘Absolute representation’ “ help.
DV76 (
talk)
10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you'd like the article to stay, consider removing references which are not considered reliable, and especially remove ones which don't use the exact word 'Quotaism' in it, since what happens when Wikipedians, having to slog through non-references, get annoyed and bored and are more likely to vote 'delete'. Consider removing article content which is not referenced, in the sense of less is more. If you fix up the article I may change my vote but right now I have other stuff I'm interested in working on.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
A rose by any other name ... – Sadly, it seems the media don’t use the text book term Quotaism directly, then again I am hopeful the textbooks resources trumps news articles. I added a few more reference from reputable news sites for support. - Half the problem it’s a new social phenomenon. The Textbook refs are from the 80’s and 90’s and the supporting news article are only starting to emerge in the last 10 years.
DV76 (
talk)
00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes if the term is popular in South Africa, find South African newspapers, magazines and news sources (TV & radio). Next, assemble them into a search string like this (but with S.African news sources of course) -- (site:theguardian.com OR site:france24.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:cnn.com/world OR site:chinadaily.com OR site:canada.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:iht.com OR site:theage.com.au OR site:iol.co.za/the-star OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:jpost.com OR site:irishtimes.com OR site:economist.com). So into your browser put Quotaism followed by the search string (which acts as a filter). So you'll have a long search string to put into your browser bar. That might lead you to good sources. If found, rewrite the article but only using the sourced content -- remove any non-RS sources (blogs, promotional sites etc). If you need my help let me know.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep & define more thoroughly.-- Deletapedia ( talk) 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is neither a neologism nor especially associated with South Africa. For example, here's a source defining and discussing it near;ly 40 years ago: Jennings, Hertel (1975),
Inquiring about freedom, p. 206,
quotaism (kwo'te iz em). The use of predetermined percentages, or quotas, to discriminate ...
Andrew ( talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Switching to weak keep from delete, as per comments from other users. Problem is, the article, particularly the lede paragraphs, could be better written; if the article stays, I'll try to fix it up.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is worth a Wikipedia entry. -- Michael ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Morgan Val Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor who has 2 issues-first only 2 roles and 2nd, notable for being a grandson to someone famous. Wgolf ( talk) 03:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- CollinPotato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about the owner of Minetime, a Minecraft server. There are no sources on this outside of a personal blog and the Minetime server website, and I was unable to find any reliable sources during a Google search. This article therefore fails WP:N. (The article was previously deproded and does not appear to meet any of the requirements for speedy deletion). Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Delete. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable, no sources independent of person. KylieTastic ( talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Checking for refs shows nothing other than various Minecraft-centered sites, none of which is very notable. Searching "Collin Love" doesn't help any, either. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:13, 22 September 2014 (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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Johann Harmse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with an amazing ONE performance! Nothing notable about it either! I would say too soon but it even says he wont be acting any more (who knows how true that is anyway), but still either way either redirect or delete. Wgolf ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as fails WP:NACTOR. – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tye Harper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with VERY few unotable roles. Wgolf ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete fails GNG DocumentError ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, has appeared in notable television programmes, but in roles that are essentially just extras/background characters. Does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:09, 27 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Linda Tally Smith ( | 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 woman is a local elected politician in the US state of Kentucky, but she simply doesn't measure up to our inclusion standards for biographies. Her elected position (a local prosecutor for two of Kentucky's 120 counties, and the first woman in the position for these counties) doesn't help her to pass the inclusion standards for politicians and unelected officeholders, since the only Kentuckians who automatically qualify are national and state politicians (e.g. Kentucky General Assemblymen, members of Governor Brashear's cabinet, and Kentucky Supreme Court justices), not local prosecutors. Of course, local prosecutors can qualify for inclusion if they get substantial coverage in secondary sources, but as far as I can tell, everything's just news coverage, which is a kind of primary source and not enough to qualify her for inclusion because it's not chronologically independent of the subject: we need books, academic journals, and government websites, or we need news articles that look back at her activities years after they occurred. If any of these get provided, I'll happily withdraw, but until we can find evidence that they exist, it's unverifiable speculation to say that she's going to get coverage in the solid secondary sources upon which encyclopedia articles are written. Nyttend ( talk) 01:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per Nyttend. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that the article's subject is notable. Being the first female Commonwealth's Attorney in Boone county doesn't meet notability guidelines (the county population is about 120,000 and there is only one Commonwealth's Attorney} and I see nothing else. The article seems to be a WP:COATRACK on which to hang coverage of the Willa Blanc case. Meters ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- She also covers Gallatin County, but given Warsaw's small size and Gallatin County's distinction as the tiniest county in the state, that shouldn't have a substantial effect. Even the Jefferson County Commonwealth's Attorney won't qualify for an article solely on the basis of holding that office. Nyttend ( talk) 18:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Help me out here. Although not particularly important, I can't find a non-self-published source that says she is the attorney for Gallatin County, only Boone. This source doesn't even mention her.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's from Gallatin County, Montana; I'll check on Gallatin County, Kentucky. Location ( talk) 20:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here's one: [46]. Location ( talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Location. Think of me as a comedy of errors. In addition to the Montana thing, when I did my search I didn't spell Smith's middle name properly. The only thing I can plead is sleep deprivation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep She's notable because she's interesting. I had other cases she worked on, but I was told those didn't matter. I think she's notable because the Commonwealth Attorney's positions is very important. I'm having trouble finding the Commonwealth Attorney's districts, I've found them before, so I know what I'm talking about, but the Commonwealth Attorney is above the County Attorney, and usually, there's 3 or so counties that's including in their district. Not only does she cover Gallatin and Boone, for sure, but there may be another county that I left off. Nyttend offers a mean smackdown for this article, so I won't be fighting very hard for this. I do appreciate Nyttend's approach, however, and now that I know that all state wide officials are fair game, that gives me something to work on. Being from Kentucky, I had to learn Civics on my own, and I'd guestimate that 90% of Kentuckians do not even know what a Commonwealth Attorney is, or who there representatives are. Maybe I can work on just the Civics side of it, here on wikipedia.
- And on the argument that this is a Coathanger, it's not. Willa Blanc is actually a coathanger for Linda Tally Smith. You got it backwards. Linda Tally Smith was the main article I was trying to write. There's also like a dozen murder cases she's tried, but, hey, one citizen shooting another citizen. That's not up to wikipedia's standards. I understand this now. They have to be important people, or be a case that makes national headlines, or changes public policy, etc.
- It would be beneficial for Jefferson County to get their Judges there sorted out, because they've got about dozen of them, and the Circuit Court Judges, and up, they're making over a $1 million in their 8 year terms. They have power, and money, and few Kentuckians even know who any of them are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sarahrosemc (
talk •
contribs)
19:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Subjective personal assessments of whether the subject is "interesting" or not have nothing to do with our inclusion rules — please see
WP:INTERESTING, which is a subsection of a Wikipedia guideline called "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Either a person meets one or more of our inclusion rules on purely objective fact, or they don't.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:INTERESTING is an essay, not a guideline. WP:BIO, which is a guideline, begins with a definition of notability that refers to a person who is interesting enough to deserve attention. James500 ( talk) 02:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sarahrosemc, if you want to write articles about Kentucky politicians, you may do best to concentrate on current and former General Assemblymen. WP:POLITICIAN, the page describing our inclusion criteria for politicians and unelected officeholders, unambiguously permits articles about all state legislators. Category:Members of the Kentucky House of Representatives has only about 400 articles (including numerous long-past members such as Ninian Edwards and Abraham Jonas), and we similarly have few articles about senators, so if you can find reasonable sourcing for previous assemblymen, you should be able to write hundreds of articles. You can write on other people, of course; I simply think the previous assemblymen would be easiest. Nyttend ( talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Subjective personal assessments of whether the subject is "interesting" or not have nothing to do with our inclusion rules — please see
WP:INTERESTING, which is a subsection of a Wikipedia guideline called "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Either a person meets one or more of our inclusion rules on purely objective fact, or they don't.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. There are plenty of sources from 2000 to 2014 (mostly local, some national, a few international) that refer to Smith working in her official capacity, but this is to be expected in her position. I found three pieces in which she is actually the subject (i.e. magazine, newspaper, and book). Other than that, and possibly the Murder of Walter Sartory case, I'm not sure that there is a distinct "claim to fame". Location ( talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- While it might certainly be possible to write an article about her that's substantial and well-sourced enough to get her over WP:GNG, this article as written ain't it. Userfy in creator's sandbox for improvement, without prejudice against moving back into articlespace if and when it's in much better shape than this — but as written, it's not making or sourcing sufficient notability to warrant an encyclopedia article about her, and should be deleted from articlespace. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable local official. Nyttend's suggestion about creating articles on Kentucky statewide officials is a good one. Mini apolis 22:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Local officials at this level are not notable. There is no substantial coverage about her, and the efforts to drag in the Sartory case seem like a last desperate effort to manufacture notability where none exists. I echo the many other editors on this: write about Kentucky's commonwealth-wide officials, and her legislators past and present, who do meet our standards for notability. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. She's a prosecutor and prosecutes cases. That's about it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, having nominated this page for speedy deletion A7, I felt that the page did not meet notability requirements. From what I can tell from the article, it seems the only thing she did so far is be an attorney. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are on attorneys but I'm sure that only those who worked on cases like OJ Simpson's would probably get an article. Given the evidence given in this discussion, I think it's time to snow this discussion. Aerospeed ( Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is far from a Snow, as there are many invalid or weak arguments here, like proposing that only attorney's who have worked on cases like the OJ Simpson trial merit articles, arguments from WP:ATA such as "per nom", that newspapers cannot be used to identify notability, and that this article was an attempt to coatrack a murder case. Unscintillating ( talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete county DAs can sometimes be notable, but not in a semi-rural county of 120,000 (Boone) & 8,000 (Gallatin), unless there are special factors. Routine casss are not such special factors. This has been a consistent criterion for local attorneys and judges. Conceivably we might want to change of practices, and expand our coverage to include them, but the consensus has been consistently against it for many years, and I certainly am not suggesting it. I see no reason to make an exception here. (But it's not snow, and should run the whole time, to make our guidelines clear. Snow in afds like this will leave the editors of an opposite opinion unsatisfied that their case has been properly considered.) DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm, Boone County, Kentucky is part of the Cincinnati metro area, and includes the Cincinnati international airport. It is the fourth largest county in Kentucky by population. Calling this metro area semi-rural is I think a bit like calling San Bernardino County, California mostly a desert. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Call the county partially rural then, if you prefer. Either way it has no bearing on the question of whether this article demonstrates the notability of its subject. She graduated form law school, she's the first female Commonwealth's Attorney for Boone County, she's married to a judge, and she prosecuted a locally-known trial (which wasn't sufficiently notable to survive as an article). That's all we have, all we are likely to get now, and it is not enough. Meters ( talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and Userfy per Bearcat. I've perused this new contributor's work, and I think she has the chops to write a lot of interesting articles (that we will gleefully keep), and as she learns the wiki-ropes, she may well be able to make this into a keep-able article. Let's not bite this new contributor too hard, peeps! :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I too hope the editor will not be discouraged, but there is no point in userifying an article that describes a career that will never be considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Electric Century ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that was previously deleted per prod. A rock group that has no notability....yet. Now eventually it will I'm sure. Wgolf ( talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep: By the weak standards we seem to keep around here, I believe they meet General Notability Guidelines. They have two legitimate references; they've actually produced something that's been covered in the press; two of the members come from notable bands (one of them very notable) and one is notable in his own right. I agree, not very notable, yet, but notable enough. ubiquity ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Bringing articles to AfD should be a last resort after other alternatives have at least been considered. Even if you don't think this merits a standalone article, the obvious thing would be a merge to Mikey Way. This MTV article in addition to what's already in the article probably gives the band a pass of WP:GNG/ WP:NBAND. It's a keep or a merge - either way it shouldn't have been brought here. -- Michig ( talk) 14:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-I thought that you bring up AFD's though when someone does delete the prod template also though. Wgolf ( talk) 04:26, 21 September 2014 (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. this might be a case of TOOSOON as an academic and otherwise is ONEEVENT - willing to move to draft or userfy on request Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Walter Sartory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearcut case of WP:BLP1E NeilN talk to me 01:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- And yes, I know he's dead but all coverage is about his murder and murderer. -- NeilN talk to me 01:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. With the additions by other authors, Walter Sartory's article is no longer just about his murder. Sartory was a major player in the development of new inventions, including work on separating blood cells, and nuclear reactors. He has 2 patents mentioned, but 2 other major patents have yet to be declassified, but one would suspect they were classified for specific special reasons, such as their importance, or the subject material, nuclear bombs, they are dealing with. While his murder was heinous, it ended the life of a very valuable man in our society. A successful scientist. A notable life, and a notable death. I vote keep. Sarahrosemc ( talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
He was a huge millionaire, and the details of the murder are gruesome. Hollywood gruesome. He also did important work for the government on nuclear projects. A few topics are mentioned in the articles. He also had 3 patents. Does any of that matter? Sarahrosemc ( talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- His being a millionaire doesn't matter. The fact that his murder was gruesome doesn't matter. You don't mention working for the government in the article. That might matter. The patents matter only to the extent they were actually used for something and received coverage from secondary sources. You kind of lumped all of the sources together, so without reading them all, it's hard to tell what source supports what material in the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Most of coverage appears to be regional centered around
Boone County, Kentucky around the times of the murder and trial. In accordance with
WP:EVENT, I think notability needs to be demonstrated by coverage outside the local area spanning a longer period of time. The Los Angeles Times did give non-trivial coverage in 2010 (i.e.
[47]) as did The New Zealand Herald (i.e.
[48]) and The Independent (i.e.
[49]). Additional overseas coverage in The Telegraph (i.e.
[50]). Cincinnati Magazine would be local coverage, but it certainly devoted more attention to it than the average murder (i.e.
[51]).
Location (
talk)
03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I suggested this to Bbb23 - what should be done is a creation of a "Murder of Walter Sartory" article and this article redirected to that one. -- NeilN talk to me 03:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Any secondary sources, anyone? We need sources that are independent, and news stories about the event are by definition not independent. Any academic journals cover the guy or the event? Any books? Any media stories that refer to it and analyse the primary sources? Let's not engage in unverifiable speculation by saying basically "the incident got non-trivial coverage, so of course it's going to get secondary source coverage". Most such incidents get forgotten. Nyttend ( talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This article is mostly a
WP:coatrack for the murder, so renaming it makes sense, but only if the murder itself is notable. We already have three articles; the prosecutor
Linda Tally Smith, speedied and now at AFD; this article about the victim, PRODed and now at AFD; and the murderer
Willa Blanc, speedied, that largely consist of just the links for this case. Lets not add another one. If the murder case is notable then we can rename this article and rework it. We have no evidence of the notability of the man, and so far only short term coverage of the murder.
Meters (
talk)
18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- With the changes to the article it is no longer a coatrack for the murder, but all of the refs in the article are actually still about his murder. Everything we have about him other than the murder (his patents, work history, etc.) is just background from the murder coverage refs. In effect, we don't have independent sources, we just have multiple sources writing about the same event ( WP:ONEEVENT). We can't determine notability on potentially-notable but classified work. I'm still not seeing independent sources to show his notability so I'm not changing my "Delete". Meters ( talk) 00:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepI'm talking to Americans, so I assumed his millionaire status meant something. It definitely meant something when he was alive. It's also what got him killed. His patents I do not know about, just that he had 3 of them, and I wouldn't even know where to even begin to look for them, and lastly, Sartory working for the government, all that he knew, is probably gone with him too. He worked on nuclear reactors. He was paranoid that the CIA was out to get him, so either, he's crazy, or maybe he knew too much. Either way, his work on nuclear reactors hasn't been much publicized, since, it's nuclear weapons. The government probably wants to keep a lid on that kind of information. The "Murder of Walter Sartory" I would not be against, and would work on it, but the threshold seems to be really high for notability, and frankly, I just do not care about any of these people. The case is interesting, and people's lives are important, but I can see how, from an ivory tower, this could look meaningless. Sarahrosemc ( talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)- Just a note to say that this is the English Wikipedia for the over a billion people who understand English. There are about 12 million millionaires in the world so that means little. You might want to check out WP:NOTNEWS. -- NeilN talk to me 20:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep This article piqued my interest, so I started digging a little to see if it could be saved. Per WP:ACADEMIC, notability can be established by "[receiving] a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; the IR-100 Award might qualify. Also, the opinions of his colleagues, as cited in the Drogin article, seem to indicate that he "made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", although this is unlikely to be verifiable in reliable sources for a while, since it is apparently classified. I think you can make a case to keep. I'll continue digging, as I have time, as long as the discussion is open. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing here that supports notability. Being paranoid, a millionaire, or murdered is not sufficient to show notability. Coverage is focused on his murder, but that seems like WP:NOTNEWS. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Acdixon. He's notable for being an inventor and being recognized as such. As his classified activities are eventually declassified, my hunch is that this kind of recognition will only grow. Also, I'll highlight the development of this article since it was nominated, and it no longer focuses on the subject's murder. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. If information is declassified in the future which makes his notability clearer, then of course we can restore the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
- Keep Publishing pioneering papers on reactor design and medical centrifuges, which facts are supported by reliable secondary sources, not just primary sources, qualifies him under WP:ACADEMIC even before his classified work is released. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- E.Stonji ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Musician with no notability at all. Wgolf ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:42, 20 September 2014 (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 keep. as meets WP:SIGCOV, I'm closing this early as it was only nominated a month ago.... ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Unidan ( | 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 internet forum super user. Byates5637 ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Not only is this the 5th AfD in the past few months, there is nothing new in the nominator's rationale that is any different than the other AfDs. Without explaining how the article is about a "non-notable" subject, the sources in the article refute that claim, especially without any elaboration on how Fox News and Vice supposedly do not show notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep meets the WP:SIGCOV standard, and has passed multiple prior afd debates, establishing community consensus... Roberticus talk 08:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- National Integrated College ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Normally, schools are deemed automatically notable; but this one has remained unsourced for over three years now. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The proper remedy for an unsourced article is to add sources, not to nominate it for deletion. Did you conduct a search for such sources, as required by WP:BEFORE? According to that page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." - 71.112.198.23 ( talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – Educational institutions are notable -- Hackerboyas ( Talk) 05:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is this policy? Can you point me to it? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The second bullet point at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is the relevant one. AllyD ( talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Highbeam (subscription reqd) turns up mention in two articles from Kathmandu Post, one about an ex-student [1], one about the institution's participation in a wider event [2]. Neither is worth adding to the article, but they do provide verification; no reason for this not to follow the normal outcome for such articles. AllyD ( talk) 06:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Highbeam has just two mentions – one only indirectly as the result of a student, and the other about a fair for Nepali secondary schools. Neither mentions the school in the opening three paragraphs visible without subscription. Google search turns up social media, automatic-inclusion lists, self-published stuff like job openings, and indirect mentions in résumés, etc. I can't find anything that could be used to add any useful content to the article or cite as a source for anything other than maybe its rough address.
WP:NSCHOOL is confusing (as to the meaning of "this guideline"), but seems to mean it must pass either
WP:NGO or
WP:GNG. I say it passes neither. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
08:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that consensus is that there must be evidence that it simply exists and operates, which seems to be true. I don't know what purpose an article like this serves, but the precedent seems clear. Changing my vote (with objection). —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit 2) WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "most ... outcomes" and also that it is only an essay and when it conflicts with policy or guidelines, to respect the latter. WP:ORGSIG seems to directly contradict it, with "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists".
In the 13 years its been open, it's been mentioned just twice (and only indirectly and as a member of a larger group of schools) that we can find. In the 3 years its been tagged as requiring more sources, nobody has found any, nor found any information to expand it beyond a one-line stub. There is, of course, nothing keeping it from being created again if things change. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as a verified secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this college educates up to and including Bachelor degree level that puts it at a higher status than, for example, US high schools that are generally considered notable. It is hardly surprising that not many sources can be found on the Internet in English for a school in Nepal! To avoid systemic bias local sources in the Nepali language should be examined. When, as here,we have a likely notable subject we don't delete rather we seek improvement. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. I looked at the school's website to get its name in Nepali (or Newari) and found their website to be entirely in English (even the masthead and logo), which is somewhat unusual, and indicates to me that their primary language of instruction is English. I would therefore expect coverage in English sources.
Still, I searched for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत" which is what Google Translate came up with for "National Integrated" in Nepali. "College" did not translate, though it showed an alternate of कलेज, similar to the Hindi कॉलेज. Bing Translate doesn't have Nepali, but "राष्ट्रीय एकीकृत कॉलेज" in Hindi. Searches of various combinations of these yielded pages that, when translated back to English, were unrelated to the school (though did usually contain "national integrated").
Perhaps someone can comment on the correct name of the school in Nepali? Or Newari? There appears to be significant internet presence of Nepali media, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to find coverage. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Though it is college of Nepal, it uses its English name. Many of the colleges use English names such as: Liverpool International College, Prime College, Barsha College and so on. Finding sources regarding the schools and colleges of Nepal are much harder as there are less websites (noted to be reliable on wikipedia). As the above user found source of HSEB affiliation, it credibly indicates notability. Hackerboyas ( Talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- As you have asked its Nepali translation, it would be राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज, the word college is just written in Devanagari script and is a agantuk word (copied from other languages than Sanskrit). Hackerboyas ( Talk) 03:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That had occurred to me. I looked at the school's website to get its name in Nepali (or Newari) and found their website to be entirely in English (even the masthead and logo), which is somewhat unusual, and indicates to me that their primary language of instruction is English. I would therefore expect coverage in English sources.
- Thanks. So it is as I searched it, both with and without the "loan word" for college. I still didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps someone who reads Nepali can verify (i.e. search for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज" and see if you find anything that qualifies as an
WP:RS).
As far as HSEB affiliation, it seems likely that, just like other places in the world, being a member of such an organization is a requirement, not an option. How many similar schools are not members? Between the issues with the encoding of the HSEB spreadsheets and the bad links on their site(s), I had to give up, and was unable to even verify their affiliation. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. So it is as I searched it, both with and without the "loan word" for college. I still didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps someone who reads Nepali can verify (i.e. search for "राष्ट्रिय एकीकृत कलेज" and see if you find anything that qualifies as an
WP:RS).
- Check this out: Check the PDF Affiliated HSS 2069/70
- You can find in 3192, college code: 7622 -- निक उ.मा.वी which is short form written in Nepali language — NIC. This proves it is affiliated to HSEB. Cheers! Hackerboyas ( Talk) 02:18, 27 September 2014 (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, with no prejudice against further discussion regarding merge or redirect. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reality distortion field ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The topic is unique to Steve Jobs and the majority of the text is already on the page devoted to Steve Jobs. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We need a policy related nomination for deletion. I cannot fathom the rationale here. It is a neologism, for sure, yet it seems to be in reasonably widespread and cited use. The article does need better references, yes, but it seems capable of being better referenced. Fiddle Faddle 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- comment - the argument is that this is not a notable topic in and of itself; it's merely an epithet used primarily about Jobs, and very secondarily about other people in and out of Apple; but has no notability independent of Jobs. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- redirect to Steve Jobs, the content that is not already in that article is 1) not reliably sourced or 2) about "Reality distortion field" only via
WP:OR. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- another option that would be more work is rename and expand into something along the lines of Public perception of Steve Jobs-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) If most of the content is already on the Steve Jobs page, then Merge is a better option.-- Auric talk 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep seems reasonable as a standalone topic. And it meets the GNG handily.
Protonk (
talk)
00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- How does it meet WP:NEO? there are uses of, but not commentary about-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Since it also has a sourced attribution to Clinton, merging or redirecting with Jobs is not appropriate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- the phrase when applied to Clinton is via a blog, not a reliable source and for clinton it has a completely different meaning - for Jobs its a positive meaning reflecting his charisma in talking people into his dreams; when applied to Clinton it is a pejorative insinuating that everything surrounding him is a field of lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Steve Jobs. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Steve Jobs is already at 10,000 words-- some content has to go to subarticles. WP:NOTPAPER. Darmokand ( talk) 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep or merge and redirect, there is really no valid rationale for a deletion here, at best a merge proposal could be in order, but the article sounds as a legitimate spinout. Cavarrone 13:39, 26 September 2014 (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 and salt Speedy deleted as an attack page. Salted due to the face that there have now been 3 creations of this article that had serious BLP violations. If someone can make a BLP compliant version in draft space then that can be considered. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Benn Zarin McCord ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Had this a sa prod until I just saw how off this is-attack page? a hoax? Considering this guy was born in 2000-none of this makes sense. Wgolf ( talk) 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. Article was deleted by INeverCry and CactusWriter per G3 in april and January 2013 respectively. Here is the deletion log. Wikicology ( talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-Yeah I agree-it also seems like a borderline attack page even. Once I noticed the birth year and the years active it seemed impossible. Wgolf ( talk) 23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as is a complete hoax. – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2014 (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. Coverage is clearly on the thin side, but this discussion hinges on that one award. Without agreement on that matter, I cannot find consensus to delete. Drmies ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- April O'Neil (pornographic actress) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AVN award (twitter queen) not significant award and XBIZ award (girl/girl actress) scene related. No independent biographical detailed sourced to reliable sources for this person. was one of 16 porn actresses to appear in a documentary and is not mentioned by name in the review except being listed as one of those interviewed. As an interview the film is a primary source and does not therefore count.
What all this leaves us is a BLP without any decent sourcing and a subject who does not meet the GNG and/or PORNBIO... Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The Girl/Girl Performer of the Year win is not scene-related, and the
source proves this. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
22:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- That "source" proves nothing of the kind. It is simply a list of the awards, with no content whatever explaining/describing the criteria by which award recipients are chosen.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- A list of winners from the official website proves nothing? That's like saying including a mention of someone winning an Emmy sourced from
emmys.com proves nothing. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're deliberately misquoting me, Erpert, and that's disruptive and dishonest. Just stop it. I said it proved nothing regarding the claim you cited it for, and you haven't disputed it. Tendentiously trying to muddy the waters rather than reasonably discussing the issues is grossly inappropriate behaviour.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Erpert provided a list of the 2014 XBIZ Award winners as evidence that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category. You stated that the list proved nothing and that we should disregard it. I'm not sure why I should have to explain this when it is so obvious, but if O'Neil would have received that award for a particular sex scene, which she didn't, the film would be mentioned in the list along with her co-star(s) and the production company. We know this because all of the scene-related categories on that list mention the film, all of the participants in the scene, and the production company. O'Neil is listed under the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" category all by herself. That list does prove that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category, although I'm not even sure we should be debating this. I mean, what could possibly make you think that a category with the phrase "Performer of the Year" in it's name is scene-related?
Rebecca1990 (
talk)
22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Granted, HW didn't call the win scene-related (it was actually Spartaz who did that), but he did !vote "delete" lower in this discussion by claiming that the award is a "token award for a few of [XBIZ's] clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories". You have used this kind of argument in several AfDs before, HW; the problem is, you have yet to actually prove that that is the case. Do you or someone you know work for XBIZ? Is there a page on xbiz.com detailing how and why categories are created? Basically, no matter how many times you state that opinion (and no matter how many other people might agree with you), if you can't provide proof of that claim, all it is is, well, just that: an unsourced opinion, which doesn't really hold much weight against sources that the other participants in the discussion provide. (SN: Disagreeing with you is disruptive and dishonest? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Erpert provided a list of the 2014 XBIZ Award winners as evidence that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category. You stated that the list proved nothing and that we should disregard it. I'm not sure why I should have to explain this when it is so obvious, but if O'Neil would have received that award for a particular sex scene, which she didn't, the film would be mentioned in the list along with her co-star(s) and the production company. We know this because all of the scene-related categories on that list mention the film, all of the participants in the scene, and the production company. O'Neil is listed under the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" category all by herself. That list does prove that "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not a scene-related category, although I'm not even sure we should be debating this. I mean, what could possibly make you think that a category with the phrase "Performer of the Year" in it's name is scene-related?
Rebecca1990 (
talk)
22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're deliberately misquoting me, Erpert, and that's disruptive and dishonest. Just stop it. I said it proved nothing regarding the claim you cited it for, and you haven't disputed it. Tendentiously trying to muddy the waters rather than reasonably discussing the issues is grossly inappropriate behaviour.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- A list of winners from the official website proves nothing? That's like saying including a mention of someone winning an Emmy sourced from
emmys.com proves nothing. Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- That "source" proves nothing of the kind. It is simply a list of the awards, with no content whatever explaining/describing the criteria by which award recipients are chosen.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO. Has two well-known and significant industry awards. Her AVN Award for "Twitter Queen" is indeed significant. It's an AVN Award, the "Oscars of porn". And it is not a scene-related or ensemble category, which are the only categories excluded by PORNBIO. She was also selected as the winner of that category through fan voting. What better evidence than that is there that she also passes the second criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER which states "Has a large fan base"? And her XBIZ Award for "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" is not scene related. She was given that award for her entire body of work throughout 2013, not for a particular sex scene. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca, please stop making deliberately false statements in your attempts to influence deletion debates. You know perfectly well that consensus in the lengthy and exhausting debates over PORNBIO was that both the award category and the awarding organization were taken into account in determining whether a particular award met the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and that scene-ensemble/related categories were not the only exclusions. You pushed your view at length in discussions regarding "MILF" category awards, and it was rejected; as
User:Morbidthoughts, who is hardly one of the anti-porn editors you complain about often enough, stated in one of those discussions, there are "insignificant token award[s]", even from AVN, that fail the PORNBIO test. And, by the way, what is your source for the claim that the "Girl-Girl Performer" award is not scene-related? It certainly can't be given for her "entire body of work", because a quick check of IAFD listings shows "girl-girl" scenes are a pretty small part of it.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm "making deliberately false statements"? I'm simply stating the fact that PORNBIO does not exclude any other categories besides scene related and ensemble ones. That is not a false statement, it's the truth. And it's going to take a better argument than WP:I just don't like it to exclude any other ones. Several adult industry A-listers have already been deleted under the current, unfair PORNBIO guideline, so why do you insist on trying to make it even stricter? And then you act surprised when people wonder if you're anti-porn. The fact is that numerous articles on notable porn stars have been deleted this year, and it was you who started most of those AfD's and PROD's. I would really like to know why articles on non notable porn stars who have become anti-porn activists, such as Nadia Styles and Holly Ryder, never get deleted, but articles on notable pro-porn porn stars do. And you pointed out that IAFD lists very few girl/girl scenes for O'Neil. Here's the thing: IAFD is a database of adult films that have been released on DVD or VHS (back in the day). IAFD does not keep track of internet only porn scenes. Recently, IAFD has started to add internet only scenes from Brazzers and Kink.com (highlighted in yellow in performer filmography lists), but they haven't finished doing that yet and they continue to focus primarily on expanding their database with DVD titles. Perhaps O'Neil appeared in several more girl/girl scenes in 2013 which aren't listed on IAFD because they were internet only. And even if she did do less girl/girl scenes in 2013 than all the other Girl/Girl Performer of the Year nominees did, why does that matter? All this does is demonstrate that these adult industry awards are about quality, not quantity. You said that O'Neil did not attend the ceremony to accept her award. I don't know if this is true or not, but what does that have to do with the awards significance? In fact, this just proves that your claim that XBIZ is a "PR business" whose awards and nominations are "purchased" by their "clients", is false. Do you really think that someone would pay to win award and then not show up to accept it? Rebecca1990 ( talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rebecca, please stop making deliberately false statements in your attempts to influence deletion debates. You know perfectly well that consensus in the lengthy and exhausting debates over PORNBIO was that both the award category and the awarding organization were taken into account in determining whether a particular award met the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and that scene-ensemble/related categories were not the only exclusions. You pushed your view at length in discussions regarding "MILF" category awards, and it was rejected; as
User:Morbidthoughts, who is hardly one of the anti-porn editors you complain about often enough, stated in one of those discussions, there are "insignificant token award[s]", even from AVN, that fail the PORNBIO test. And, by the way, what is your source for the claim that the "Girl-Girl Performer" award is not scene-related? It certainly can't be given for her "entire body of work", because a quick check of IAFD listings shows "girl-girl" scenes are a pretty small part of it.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer win does meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO. However other winners under niche categories (e.g. Bridgette B - Unsung Siren) have been deleted as not notable. Completely fails GNG. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you bring up Unsung awards because those aren't the ones we are discussing here, but I just wanted to point out that there is an equal amount of Keep vs. Delete votes in Bridgette B's AfD. Bridgette B is currently the only AVN, XRCO, or FAME award recipient of an underrated/unsung award without a WP article. The category may seem controversial, but they is no consensus to exclude it from PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 00:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There appears to be no dispute that the subject fails the GNG by a country mile. The "Twitter Queen" award, like all the AVN Fan Awards, fails the well-known/significant component of PORNBIO; the awards are (allegedly) determined by a website poll, which allows you to vote not just multiple times but daily, as well as allowing anyone who can access the voting site via dynamic IP addressing to vote an effectively unlimited number of times. The results of such a poll can hardly be said to be significant, the outcome is easy to manipulate, and such a survey is generally regarded as worthless. The "Girl-Girl Performer Award" is neither well-known nor significant; XBIZ created it just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories. (And, according to IAFD. O'Neal performed in only four such scenes in 2013, making one wonder just what the award criteria are.) Another point against significance: she reportedly didn't even bother to attend the awards ceremony. The bottom line is (or should be) this: she by all accounts fails the GNG, and, if she passes PORNBIO, it's a narrow and technical pass at best. We often enough delete mainstream performers who technically pass NACTOR (for example, performers with multiple recurring but minor roles on soap operas. There's no basis for special, favorable treatment for porn performers.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "XBIZ created [the category] just this year as a token award for a few of its clients/advertisers who didn't show up in any other categories." Two questions:
- How do you know that's why it was created?
- Why does it matter if it was created this year? (And if you can't respond civilly or without using bold print, don't respond at all.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep.
Subtropical-man
talk
(en-2) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)- I agree that it should be kept, but stating why would really help. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. One other thing that should be mentioned though, is that in spite of all the porn bios that have been brought to AfD, I have yet to see one deleted on an actor who not only won a notable porn award, but the award win was even mentioned in the delete rationale. It didn't work with Capri Anderson ( [3]), it didn't work with Leilani Leeane ( [4]), and I doubt it's going to work here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - Passes GNG & PORNBIO,
Also I echo Erpert's concerns - Is there any award on these notable ? .... At this rate there aint gonna be any porno model articles left here.– Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)- What did you ask? Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
05:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ah was away with the fairies! – Davey2010 • (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- What did you ask? Erpert
blah, blah, blah...
05:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Found more evidence of her notability; her popularity is noted by at least two mainstream media outlets (Complex & LA Weekly). I have added them to the article. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 10:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Erpert and sources found by Rebecca1990.-- cyclopia speak! 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Lior ( talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. StainlessSteelScorpion ( talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep This is a tough one. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe the Xbiz award is a significant industry award, and not a scene or assembly award. Thus, it complies with the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Furthermore, Ms. O'Neil has garnered some coverage in non-industry publications, indicating she has some notability.-- danntm T C 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Finnegas ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Found more mainstream coverage in Rolling Stone and Complex. I have added the sources to the article. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 17:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per PORNBIO and GNG. Not just the award, the subject got reliable mainstream coverage ( Complex Magazine, Rolling Stone and particularly LA Weekly) and was portrayed on a very notable documentary film alongside some of the most notable adult performers of the 2000s, something which sounds a strong indicator of notability. Unconvincing arguments for deletion. Cavarrone 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I find Erpert's argument persuasive. - 71.112.198.23 ( talk) 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Award-winner and coverage in reliable sources. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason to regard her XBIZ award as not meeting the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. The only case against her seems to be that it is in a new category, but the other substantively similar XBIZ award categories are regarded as meeting the standard, and it would be silly to delete articles every time they change or rename the categories only to have someone rewrite them the following year when the award is no longer new. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Princeflorishlimited ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability, written like an advertisement. Llightex ( talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Tagged for A7/G11 Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:40, 20 September 2014 (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 keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Connected Baby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. ( talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project.
Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (
talk)
22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep #1 due to the above. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia ( WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
- additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
- 1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
- 2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
- 3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
- If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mads Nielsen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. I don't see him been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary reliable sources . Wikicology ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. As the player is on loan at a non-FPL team this season, WP:CRYSTAL would seem particularly relevant here. Fenix down ( talk) 08:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA ( talk) 15:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fully pro means fully pro. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- 2014 Indian Super League fixtures ( | 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 separate page for league fixtures is first of all, never done, and second of all, does not provide anything encyclopedic. It is literally a list of fixtures and results. There is already a standard way to list fixtures and results as seen here. You can also list fixtures and results on the season pages for each team so this is not a needed page at all. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 17:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - not required. Giant Snowman 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - per arguments above, already dealt with in main season article. Fenix down ( talk) 08:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator and comments above. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Per above. Kante4 ( talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mike D'Amato (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Some local coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I won't cosider an assistant legislator notable enough to meet WP:POL. All I can see is a scanty reliable sources which does not satisfy the criteria. Wikicology ( talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly consider Milwaukee to be a large enough city that its city councillors could be considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles if you could write a genuinely substantive article that was sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — but it is not in the narrow range of cities for which city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here isn't even approaching the outer suburbs of the volume necessary to pass GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearcat. Nothing more to add. Bearian ( talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability for a politician as explained well by Bearcat above. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Shadazzle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost a year has passed since the previous no-consensus AfD, but the article has not improved, so the previous rationale still holds: "Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article (besides their own website) are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:WEB, WP:FILM, and WP:GNG, hence: Delete." Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, nice discussion in sources about this comedy. — Cirt ( talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, Excluding reviews, I see four secondary sources here, one of which is from the world's largest broadcaster. I also think it's worth mentioning that, although some of the sources are local, they span several different localities. Definitely passes WP:GNG. — Fugabutacus 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The argument about "the world's largest broadcaster" was also brought forward at the previous AfD. I don't think that Radio Sheffield fits that description, it's just a small local part of the BBC. All coverage is minor and very local. To paraphrase: definitely misses GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I suppose that's a fair point. However, I would stress that GNG makes absolutely no mention of locality. It is just a guideline, of course, and it's down to the community to decide, but if you go through each point of GNG one-by-one, this article checks them all off without a doubt. — Fugabutacus 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is visible, if we don't consider electronic media a reliable source, we have to delete hundreds of such articles. Justice007 ( talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify what you mean with "electronic media" here? I don't know whether any hard figures are available about this, but my personal guess would be that at least 80% of all reliable sources used on WP are "electronic media"... The question here is not whether the sources are electronic or not, but whether they are of sufficient importance and depth to establish notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well
Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster" is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.
Justice007 (
talk)
06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that, I was confused because radio is not usually taken as an "electronic" source. The question here is whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well
Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster" is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.
Justice007 (
talk)
06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources found online WP:RS. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Would you mind expanding on what online RS meet GNG? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The article has undergone some major surgery, gaining and losing large chunks of data - in particular the episode guide and the information about the soundtrack. While that does not directly affect notability, it does seem that the article now contains less information than it once did. If the article is kept, shouldn't that information be added back in? Other series (TV mainly in the US) have lists of characters, lists of episodes, etc. LaMona ( talk) 00:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the articles on the Wikipedia all the time can be expanded and improved citing reliable sources, every passage of the article needs source, if not, can be challenged by any editor, it is more better content with source than unsourced. Justice007 ( talk) 07:03, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rakesh Khanna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Business person's resume. I'm not sure I see notability/requirement of why this person needs an encyclopedia article. I've not been active on Wikipedia for a while, though, so a bit rusty on notability criteria. — Gaff ταλκ 07:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- His biography in the section of the company he works for should be ample coverage. Outside of working for the company, not sure what is notabile: /info/en/?search=Syntel#Rakesh_Khanna — Gaff ταλκ 07:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The following was left opn my talk page. Posting here for clarity and benefit of the involved editor/creator — Gaff ταλκ 22:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
| Dear Gaff, |
|---|
| Rakesh is a notable personality in the Indian IT industry. He has contributed a lot for the industry and holds a key position at Syntel. Besides students from his alma mater, key industry personalities and media persons find him influential.
Please be assured that this is not a business page. Also, I had consulted Jim F Bleak [5], a fellow wiki editor before publishing the page. I would appreciate if you could share more pointers on how to make this page more person-oriented and lower the "business" tone of it. Regards, Vishal Yajnik 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalyajnik ( talk • contribs) |
Also: Need help to clear flag on Rakesh Khanna
Dear Gaff,
I have made the required edits to Rakesh Khanna's page. I have also added few new sections and diluted the language a bit.
Can you please help me clear the "flag"/"notifications" for this page.
Regards, Vishal Yajnik 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalyajnik (talk • contribs) --— Gaff ταλκ 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Chief operating officer of a major company. I think he scrapes through. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:31, 22 September 2014 (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. CSD G4 (no new non-primary sources), and SNOW deletion. Salting. Please request WP:DRV to seek recreation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Jeremy Jahns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography that doesn't establish notability. Cites an affiliated source, a bunch of the subject's YouTube videos and a stats page.
A quick web search doesn't turn up anything more: just blogs, wikis, and more YouTube videos. Article was deleted before for pretty much the same reason. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:A7. Since this self-promo article was recreated, I suggest salting to prevent recreation. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Citing YouTube isn't ideal neither. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all. There is no evidence of notability, almost all of the sources come from Jahns' personal YouTube channel. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there to show that he's notable. I can see where he's popular on YouTube, but popularity does not mean that someone is notable. ( WP:ITSPOPULAR) It may make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. For example, Cryaotic (a LPer known for his association with PewDiePie) has over a million subscribers but hasn't really gained enough coverage to merit his own article. Heck, SkyDoesMinecraft has over 10 million followers and no Wikipedia article for the same reason and that's the 9th most popular channel on YouTube. This is actually a pretty common problem with YT personalities: you can be popular but still never actually gain any coverage about you. I can't really see where any of the concerns from the previous AfD have been met, so this could potentially be speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 22 September 2014 (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. but stubed for rewriting based on non-promotional tone and reliable sources Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hands On Science Outreach, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly promotional article with notability issues unresolved for over six years. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:CORP. 'HOSO' fails to meet the depth of coverage/notability requirements. Also, the article is clearly written in a promotional tone, reads like an advertisement basically. The related article Project NEXUS should probably also go for the same reasons. Valiant Patriot ( talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or weakly consider keep&cleanup because there might be something in there of use to somebody researching how to develop informal/hands on science education. (I'm more forgiving to allow a quasi-notable educational non-profit slide on notability technicality, than say a self-promoting business tycoon). I don't entirely agree with the arguments above, that it should be deleted because it has a promotional tone. Tone of an article is better fixed through editing, than deletion. --— Gaff ταλκ 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. While I agree the article is in deplorable condition, and likely written by connected individuals, there are several excellent sources, among them this
1995 Baltimore Sun article and extensive coverage in several books:
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11]. Number 3 is actually written by the program creator, and #6 is a mere directory listing, but the others easily meet the standard for significant coverage in independent reliable sources (in many of these cases academic sources).
BusterD (
talk)
00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If a delete outcome is preferred by this process, I'd be happy to develop this page after userfication to my userspace. BusterD ( talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I would vote to delete the current article, but I think including BusterD's sources would be enough to save this article. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep given BusterD's sources, but would BusterD be will to do a competent rewrite on the article? Should it be stubified for the time being? -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm on a work-related wikibreak right now, and won't be able to contribute meaningfully until just after October 10. However, I'd be happy if the result of a keep outcome here was to stubify the pagespace and allow someone (possibly myself) to rebuild it from scratch using reliable sources. I believe there's a bit of useful information in page history as well. I'm not a connected individual, but I have a fondness for and long familiarity with discovery science techniques and science-based museums. I should add that I'm in agreement with User:Valiant Patriot that Project NEXUS has a very similar COI problem. Rather than delete that page however, I urge editors to allow me to look over the extensive related sourcing attached to that bloated pagespace for possible page rescue. BusterD ( talk) 00:36, 30 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mac Lawton ( | 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 non notable music director. Nothing wrong with be a indie one, but it seems this one is rather unotable. Wgolf ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notabiliy found. -- Michig ( talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- ABC of Emergency Radiology ( | 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 book, not discussed in reliable sources, not a bestseller, no book awards. Binksternet ( talk) 04:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I think you were missing a few things so I added them. Probably good this was relisted. St★lwart 111 12:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep appears to be a formative text but needs work; I'm open to changing my opinion to Weak Delete BlueSalix ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I added another source, a book review from the Critical Care Medicine journal. This along with the BMJ reliable source in the external links section, shows that the book has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, in enough depth that a reasonable short article can be written from the sources. The article is but a stub, but is well-formed and referenced. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I see nothing that makes this book notable. Two of the references are to sites that sell the book. The last reference is a book review, but that journal has a review section and reviews a couple of books per issue - this one is not unusual in any way that I can see. The second external reference is not about the book, at least not the part that I can read. It is about a trauma technique (named somewhat differently from the book), to whit: "The primary survey comprises a rapid evaluation of the patient, resuscitation, and institution of life preserving treatment. This process is called the ABCDE of trauma." LaMona ( talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pavel Naumenko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Most sources given are passing mentions or do not mention him at all. The Banner talk 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not think he is notable per WP:PROF, but he seems to be the general director of Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company, see ru:Харьковский авиационный завод, the main subsidiary of Antonov and the biggest aircraft producer of Ukraine. Not sure whether this is sufficient for notability though.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. His position would seem to make him pretty notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:32, 22 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- A-May Eain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song that has been tagged for a few years-can't find any thing about it. Maybe should be a redirect to the singer? Wgolf ( talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per book sources added. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Clearing (EP) ( | 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 EP with very little info that could probably be redirected to the band's page. Wgolf ( talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:22, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- AudioSoft ( | 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 business doesn't seem to be Notable as AudioSoft, Ultra Electronics AudioSoft or Ultra Electronics Network Analytics. Stesmo ( talk) 22:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: An article which was created and expanded by several WP:SPA accounts - describing what the firm did but not demonstrating notability. I can find very little coverage of it in its lifespan, other than reporting when it was taken over. It is now a business unit of Ultra Electronics so unlikely to gather more coverage under the former name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Dubmood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional fluff piece. The sources listed provide trial mentions of the subject in passing, if at all. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 16:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources cited within the article are a combination of expired links, do not qualify as a reliable source, or do not make direct reference to the subject. I cannot locate non-trivial coverage of this subject in reliable third party sources. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 13:21, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Solent Thrashers ( | 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'll firstly establish that the previous AfD nomination for this page included it as part of a bulk nomination, and the Keep decision was made solely because each page merited individual attention.
Having given this page individual attention, and quite aside from the extremely non-encyclopedic tone and content it consists of (almost none of which is referenced), various reasons for deletion occur to me:
- As detailed in the previous AfD nomination, it does not meet any specific notability guidelines for sports organisations laid out in WP:NSPORTS - it has had no nationally or internationally notable members/employees and has participated in no nationally or internationally notable events or activities.
- WP:AUD - according to Wikipedian standards "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" and at least one "national, or international source" is necessary - having searched google, google news, google scholar and google books I cannot find any national or international interest or sources, only local media and media of limited interest.
-
WP:ORGDEPTH - even though there are these local news references and references on specialist, enthusiast websites, almost all of this coverage is Trivial according to Wikipedia's standards - specifically:
- sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
- inclusion in lists of similar organizations
- the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
- routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
- brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
- routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
- quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
- passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. WalkingOnTheB ( talk) 13:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- D
- Delete. The reasons given above are pretty iron-clad - I've done all the searching for media coverage I can and have had the same findings - local-press, trivial, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrontDeskMust ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as above. have googled: no national/interational notability, no non-trivial coverage. also (and incidentally) its written like a personal website and has had years to address issues. MarlovianPlough ( talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete --- All points raised so far (which, as far as I can, I've corroborated) would individually be enough reason to delete, but taken as a group they're overwhelming. Personofi ( talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable amateur "American football" club team based in southern England. User:WalkingOnTheB nails this in his AfD nomination above, so there's no need for me to rehash the "delete" reasons in great detail, except to say that the subject fails to satisfy the specific notability guideline for teams and organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, both for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (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. The nomination has been withdrawn with no contrary !votes. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Holy Ghost (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)
Deproded without explanation, non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Production:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per meeting WP:NF (see addendum below). Article needs a lot of work, but that issue seems addressable and not one calling for deletion. Judson University speaks toward kickstarter campaign. Minor mention at Charisma News. Longer article in Revival Lifestyle. Brief writeup in Hallels. Longer article in Christian News Service. Much longer article in Charlotte Observer and a decent one at Christian Review. Podcast review at Christian Film Central. These found with a very quick look. This will never be Star Wars but not all films need to be. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: Apparently this film's production and marketing is also spoken of in Variety, Washington Post, Gospel Herald, Breitbart, World Religion News, International Business Times, Christian Post and others. Nominator, how about a withdrawal? It can then be tagged for improvements. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per the sourcing found. The Variety piece is especially extensive. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and Withdraw. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:33, 20 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- InformaCast ( | 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 assertion of notability, and no references supporting such an assertion. ubiquity ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Please research notability WP:BEFORE nominating. ~ KvnG 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per sources found by KvnG - Passes GNG. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep
IncubateTopic satisfies WP:GNG and is "worthy of notice" (WP:N). The article was created without WP:V sourcing. The fact that the time of the deletion nomination is within 26 minutes of article creation, that the nomination mis-ascribes content problems to WP:N, and that the nomination does not show evidence of the steps to be taken WP:BEFORE nominating, doesn't change the fact that readers cannot verify the article content. Unscintillating ( talk) 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changing to keep, as an editor added references to the article. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:39, 20 September 2014 (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. postdlf ( talk) 04:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of Miss Grand countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like fancruft based on related sources. As the source given does not contain the info present here, also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only stuff I've found are all FB/Twitter related. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Part of the problem here is structural. The list is focused on geography when it should be focused on people - a beauty pageant is not really about what country the contestants come from. Which countries that have sent contestants to a beauty pageant is not a notable topic for a list. Beauty pageants are about the individual contestants, who happen to come from various countries. I would suggest the information presented in this list would be better presented in something like " List of winners of the Miss Grand contest". That would be a much more justifiable sub-article as far as notability goes. The countries could be included as a column of that list. Thus I think this list should be deleted, but a similar list - one with a different focus and structure created to replace it. Blueboar ( talk) 13:31, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dana KCM ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google brought up social media and sites unrelated to subject. Google News had only 2 results, both having nothing to do with the subject. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:37, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- East Side (Phoenix) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely original research.Google brings up real-estate websites triggered by the mention of a major city. What's more, notability is not inherited by being a part of a notable place. Unsourced since October 2006! Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:36, 20 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation in the discussion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dads and Daughters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While I found many sites talking about the stereotype mentioned in the article, I failed to find RS confirming the notability of the lobby group. The two given sources were reliable, but I don't think they alone are enough. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a short-lived organization that accomplished one relatively small thing (getting an ad pulled). Then it died. LaMona ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cyprus Amateur Radio Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. Google Search brings up their social media and aggregate websites that make passing mentions of the subject. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Page to Stage Festival ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:N. Local first time event, media coverage limited to local newspaper. Article creator has WP:COI as founder of event. (note: there is an unrelated event with this name run by Kennedy Center) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 16:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:35, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tom Vitoin ( | 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 fictional comic strip character with no links coming in or out and nothing of how he might be important. Wgolf ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:34, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- SoundsUP records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on an independent record label with no independent references. Signed some notable artists and thereby avoided an A7 speedy deletion, but there's no indication of notability otherwise. -- Finngall talk 17:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know soundsUP is going to publish Poets of the fall on vinyl. Does it make sense to keep the small article in wiki? • vakhlov 13:17, 9 September 2014 (MSK)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:34, 20 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Daniel Adair ( | 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 article gives the appearance that it was self-published for promotional purposes. furthermore The article is a biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The article needs a rewrite, but apparently he's actually in Nickelback, and was in 3 Doors Down? As much as this all pains me, there are sources that merit consideration. [17] [18] And he didn't end up with a slew of other language wikipedia articles out of nowhere.-- Milowent • has spoken 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Adair meets notability criteria #6, specifically he "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensemble". Regardless of anyone's opinion on their music, 3 Doors Down and Nickelback are definitely notable bands and Adair received independent coverage for his work in both of them. The article needs better sourcing, not deletion. A quick Google search demonstrates that there are plenty of reliable sources to be had with which to improve the article.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Meets wp:band. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:29, 21 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Robert Strauss (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 16:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Its a resume more than a blp.-- Milowent • has spoken 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Insofar as I can tell most of this stuff is verifiable, and there clearly a public subject interest here, as article links musician to various other public figures. [1] [2] [3] [4]-- Funkypubs ( talk) 2:58, 18 September 2014 (GMT)
- I would hope his personal website is interested in him! Any regular newspaper coverage, like a major or regional newspaper?-- Milowent • has Milowent ( talk 2:58, 20 September 2014 (GMT)] 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- yes many articles all over the web, this is a well know music producer, and I'm a big fan - thus my efforts to make this information accessible new references added for consideration <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektIFgBRxu0, www.ukvibe.org/interviews/robert-strauss-2014, http://endz2endz.com/tag/robert-strauss/, http://endz2endz.com/exclusive-interview-with-uk-soul-band-personal-life/, http://personallifetheband.com/post/61043248672/nice-feature-article-on-personal-life-in-august</ref>
Funkypubs • spoken 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete verification, but not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails MUSIC Just shows how far one can go on blogs, personal webpages and youtube citations. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:46, 29 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. Jprg1966 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. I would treat this as a secondary school and consider it automatically notable on that basis. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eastmain: ... but it's not a secondary school. It's an enrichment program - just a private business. Except for the book you added, the sources are primary and appear to be advertizements. I can't actually see what's in the book but it looks like the subject was mentioned on only one page: [19]. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Divine Worshipper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pulp fiction book that doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for books. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable third-party publications, in particular. Author is prolific but doesn't appear to be notable, and the book isn't used for course ware. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:29, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ilya V Osipov ( | 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 person. An entrepreneur who has had some success, but no significant coverage has arisen from it. Listed sources do not mention Osipov, but merely link to the companies or websites mentioned. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Osipov made the project absorbed by the Russian division of Hearst Corporation. Transaction entered into TOP10 mergers and acquisitions Internet projects in Russia 2012-2013. Links to Osipov as the founder of the projects is on the site of the project, unfortunately some of the links in Russian. So as there are articles in major publications such as The-Village Iexeru ( talk) 05:20, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Steven Parsonage ( | 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 junior rower, not competing successfully at senior level yet. Fram ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (vent) @ 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Coverage is mainly reporting of results and junior accomplishments are not usually considered sufficient for notability. He may become a notable senior rower, but this article was created too early. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:28, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Xhevat Kelmendi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-sentence article based on unreliable sources. Λeternus (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Please do not confuse with an actor of the same name. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I think from this translated link that he appears to be a singer with his own television show in its fifth season. But I would like to find a list of his records somewhere, and I haven't been able to do so, not even at the National Library of Kosovo. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Clarence W. Hinck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Mentioned within local aviation discussion, but not enough to meet WP:GNG and no mention of anything which would meet WP:Notability (people). Boleyn ( talk) 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 3. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 06:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete nothing in the article show anything of note that would pass the general notability requirements. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage except for the single book cited in the article. Brief mentions in passing in other peoples biographies such as Larry Daudt's in Warbirds of America, Inc: 1989, and Phoebe Omlie's in Walking on Air: The Aerial Adventures of Phoebe Omlie. Even the 50th anniversary publication of the Minnesota American Legion only gave him three sentences. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:52, 29 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Dale Huffman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at 2005 AfD. Huffman is successful at his job, and within local area, but does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 06:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Local paper columnists aren't notable. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No significant independent coverage, only the newspaper for which he writes. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:03, 29 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Take (Welsh band) ( | 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 band with 2 albums that have no pages and it seems they are not that notable as well. Wgolf ( talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:26, 20 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adaptive Server Enterprise ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
GNG failing advert Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Disagree This system seems notable enough to me. There is
this book,
this video made by another company, and the google results show other connections with other companies. −
Pintoch (
talk)
10:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: A database product line preceding and then alongside the branch of Microsoft SQL Server, which I think gives enough importance to justify an article here. Several book refs added. AllyD ( talk) 16:26, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Absolute Peach Podcast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible advert. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Acme Mills ( | 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, fails WP:NCORP Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adam Hunter (Comedian) ( | 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 per WP:ENTERTAINER BMIComp 16:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- As written, this article is sourced only to IMDb and his own high school's webpage (neither of which is an acceptable reliable source for a Wikipedia article about a comedian or actor.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly sourced version making a proper claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) can be written, but this version is a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - I'm somewhat lenient when it comes to IMDb but 99& of the article is sourced via IMDb which isn't great, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:24, 20 September 2014 (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. good luck finding a consensus here. I couldn't... Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nowhere near notable enough. This location has only been used as a minor background, and that only in a very small number of stories Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Brief, incidental mentions don't constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. For this (or any fictional location, or real one for that matter) to merit its own article, the location itself needs to be the specific focus of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 21:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I have substantially expanded this article since it was nominated for AfD; it now contains many references to "significant coverage in reliable sources". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge. Take away the extraneous plot details about the characters, and there's maybe 2-3 sentences you can say about the school. It is a searchable term, but I have no idea of a good target article immediately (maybe List of Doctor Who items) -- MASEM ( t) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect/Merge (if there is any material rescuable) - I just don't see the required substantial coverage of the subject as described by the General Notability Guideline. Certainly not in the reviews. Harmes mentions it in discussion of the show reusing its heritage, but the text does not go into depth on the school. (I recognize what follows here is an OtherStuff-based comment but by comparison one could probably assemble a greater number of passing mentions over the years to put forward a case for writing an article on the Brigadier's office, or the Doctor's laboratory, during the Unit years.) GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The quoted bit is just his conclusion, after two paragraphs discussing the way that schools were generally portrayed at the time in British children's television and children's fiction in general. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Is the location where an iconic TV series began. Almost all of the 25th anniversary series takes place in or around it and it is a reoccurring location in the last two series as the current companion teaches there and the article can continue to grow due to this. MarnetteD| Talk 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Not everything that appears in two Doctor Who stories needs an article. If it was an important location then you may have a point, but as I said it is just a background location. Literally all we learn in the episode is Susan goes there, and Ian and Barbara teach there - this is not remotely worthy of being mentioned in a separate article. The school is then not seen for 25 years, and then not seen again for another 25. This is not a crucial location like the TARDIS, this is a minor location easily replaceable with another minor location with absolutely nothing beyond fancruft (seriously, where the heck are we getting the motto from? That's not in Unearthly Child) and speculation. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: actually, it's four stories in three periods over the course of 51 years (and more in the coming weeks). I think that the discussion by Kim Newman indicates why this location is more than fancruft. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- what - the sheer speculation over what type of school it is?
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The point isn't whether it's a comprehensive or a secondary modern; the point is that it's not what Newman calls a "fantasy fee-paying school" like Greyfriars or Chiselbury. Newman talks about how Doctor Who sets itself apart from the fictional public-school tradition which still lives on in Hogwarts. If it comes across as "sheer speculation over what type of school it is", perhaps I should rework the relevant text. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eleventh Doctor: There is more on the alleged motto at Talk:Coal Hill School#School arms. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Josiah Rowe: - wait, your comparing this to Hogwarts? Seriously?! There is literally no comparison. Nothing in any of the stories that we have seen gives any detail at all about the nature of the school. What has been revealed amounts to 4 sentences. 1) Susan went there, 2) Ian and Barbara taught there, 3) It was used as a base by the Daleks once, 4) Clara and Danny teach there. How on Earth you can pretend that this is like Hogwarts is beyond me.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Eleventh Doctor: No, I wasn't comparing Coal Hill to Hogwarts. Kim Newman, in the reliable source I found, contrasted Coal Hill with Hogwarts. I'll post the full quotation on the article's talk page, so you can see what I'm talking about. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The full quotation is now at Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation. The only reason I mentioned Hogwarts is because Newman did, in a source which I think meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect/Merge It merely serves as a setting. There's no "history" or "mythology" involved (as opposed to Gallifrey or Camelot or Fortress of Solitude). Can be self-contained in the episodes that it appears in (sometimes replaced with Barnes Common-- The Daleks#In print). DonQuixote ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: it has just been confirmed by reliable sources that the forthcoming episode " The Caretaker" will also be set at the school, so it is likely that there will be more coverage in reliable sources after that episode airs (scheduled for Sept. 27). This might be worth considering in closing. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 18:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Request for Comment I haven't gone through every link as of yet, but is there at least one secondary citation in which this fictional location is the primary topic of an article (i.e. instead of being mentioned as part of a review of an episode or as a reference to Doctor Who's history)? I'm willing to consider the argument that fictional locations on their own have some notability, be it Pemberley or the Baxter Building but I'd like to see some clear evidence of "significant coverage" that's not in a gray area. - Markeer 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Markeer: The best cases for the "significant coverage" criterion, IMO, are the books by Newman and Tat Wood. YMMV on whether Newman's comparison of the setting to other children's television settings of the period and the traditions of the school story is sufficient to constitute "significant coverage". The Tat Wood article is admittedly more "fannish", but it's certainly detailed; it's a four-page sidebar about the school, based on the evidence shown on-screen and the British educational system of the period. The online links, however, are largely passing references. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and thank you Josiah Rowe for clarifying my question above. The overall question of whether fictional settings should have their own articles would probably be an interesting one, but as I linked above at the moment there are numerous precedents for articles of that type so the only question would be whether this specific article passes notability. Based on Josiah Rowe's comment, at least one citation is for a lengthy sidebar article specifically on this subject and there is a second book that deals with the location itself in at least some detail. Combined with the numerous trivial references in secondary articles about the episodes this location appears in, that seems (to me at least) to pass the guidelines for notability. But for emphasis: This seems to BARELY pass those guidelines. Additional sources would be of great value to this article, particularly of any secondary source that treats this location as its primary topic. - Markeer 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or "numerous precedents" =
WP:OtherStuffExists?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean
WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion. Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles. I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-
Markeer
18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to
Wuthering Heights while
Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to
the Shire where it has a few paragraphs,
Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to
Beowulf.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this. In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school. For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself. The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless. If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's worth remembering that the question is not whether we think that there is enough information in a primary source (in this case, the TV episodes) to merit "significant coverage" in secondary sources, but whether such significant coverage in secondary sources exists. In this case, I think it does. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this. In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school. For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself. The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless. If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination.
Eleventh Doctor (
talk)
20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to
Wuthering Heights while
Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to
the Shire where it has a few paragraphs,
Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to
Beowulf.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean
WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion. Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles. I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-
Markeer
18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or "numerous precedents" =
WP:OtherStuffExists?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Significant recurring location. Artw ( talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge into "An Unearthly Child" (or a more relavent article if you can find one.) -- User J Dalek 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Into which episode? Because next week's episode is due to be set there. And it's a recurring location that's shown up over the course of decades. Neonchameleon ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above. – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Recurring location which gets reasonable coverage as such in the extensive Dr Who literature. Passes WP:GNG and our editing policy applies. Andrew ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- That editing policy says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Deletion could be considered 'removal'. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - currently scrapes past the sufficient coverage guides and is about to be the central setting of next week's episode as well as having been a recurring location over more than 50 years. Deleting right now would be silly. Neonchameleon ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "a recurring location over more than 50 years" - hardly. It's featured in only 4 stories, and in two of those it was there for less than a minute. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- And then there's books, comics etc... Though that may begin to get ridiculous. Artw ( talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A recurring location which is significant enough in the series history (and continues to be used regularly in the current season). The article definitely needs to be improved upon, but it shouldn't be deleted. kuwabaratheman ( talk) 15:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect a background feature in a popular programme that fails to have significant coverage. (Does the apartment window in The Honeymooners which Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) uses almost every episode to call Ed, and through which Ed crawls in numerous episodes rate an article stub? Or Ralph's bowling league? Both are mentioned in reviews.) These two or at most three sentence about Coal Hill Sch. belong, if they belong in the encyclopedia at all, in an appropriate article and not as a standalone. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - with the latest episode now past, I still don't see anything either in the article or in the sources that warrants it's own article. The sources are all incidental coverage in relation to reaction to the episode, not about the school. In regard to the number I started earlier being short, I will apologise for missing some appearances out, but the earlier point that the location is only a background to other events stands. The last episode could have been in deffry vale school - and it wouldn't have made that more notable either. Eleventh Doctor ( talk) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it couldn't have been — as the Radio Times reviewer noted, the episode linked the presence of the villain to the Doctor's repeated visits to Coal Hill, so the Doctor is "rectifying a problem he's caused". That wouldn't have worked with any other school (or any other location, really, except perhaps 76 Totter's Lane). You may not have noticed how the location was relevant, but fortunately a reliable source did. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge ala Peladon or Andoria entries. eheinr007 — Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question: @ Eheinr007: Peladon redirects to List of Doctor Who planets#P. Andoria redirects to List of Star Trek planets (A–B)#Andoria. Coal Hill School is not a planet; is there a redirect target you feel would be appropriate? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Just because this setting recurs several times in the fiction does not make it notable. WP:GNG is not met: we have numerous references to the School, but where's the out-of-universe discussion of the School? WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The citations given provide significant coverage of the stories concerned, not of the School. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Bondegezou: What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at
Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply
WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage":
WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works.
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV does not require chapters or articles. In any case, once we have any amount of well-documented material, we're no longer talking about outright deletion as merger is preferable. This is made fairly clear at WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew ( talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage":
WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works.
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reply
WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @
Bondegezou: What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at
Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect/merge There's little reason to have this purely in-plot minor element of the show on a separate page to include its completely in universe plot only details.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 05:14, 2 October 2014 (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. We do not have so many opinions, but I do not see any sense in one more relisting.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- John T. Binkley ( | 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 sure of the notability of this artist as the article lacks sources and I present it to discussion as I have not been able to find anything more than the tiny refs already here. Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Forgot to say that it seems to be an autobiography. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of valid sourcing. If the article is to be "kept" then it needs to be rewritten entirely from scratch to meet the sourcing and encyclopedic tone requirements. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:06, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to EPOS Game Studios. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Olof Gustafsson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, lacking sources congruent with appearing in encyclopedic text. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 3. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Will change my mind if reliable sources are offered. -- Λeternus (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to EPOS Game Studios, his studio. This is the third nomination of yours in a row, and the third that I'm recommending redirection. It's worth attempting to find a worthy redirect target before taking the page to AfD. You can usually BOLDly redirect such pages without needing much discussion. Now, Gustafsson has many mentions in a WP:VG/RS search, but they are primarily credits and press releases in conjunction with his aforementioned company and their upcoming game. Certainly that makes him at least a search target and a worthy term redirect. He, as a topic, though, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to EPOS Game Studios, per Czar. I could only find mentions, but that EPOS is his studio is verifiable. A redirect preserves that bit of verifiable information while not running afoul of BLP requirements. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:06, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Amala Rose Kurian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress with just one role so far. Falls under too soon I believe as it seems to be a child star. Wgolf ( talk) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Week Keep • The article meets general notability guidelines but it appears to be the case of too soon. CutestPenguin Hangout 14:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 12:01, 20 September 2014 (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. After discounting the opinions by accounts who are not established editors (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahar27), there is a clear consensus that this is a non-notable subject and that the article is written in a promotional manner. As provided for in WP:NACD, this closure undoes a previous, mistaken "keep" closure by a non-administrator, as discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30. Sandstein 09:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Randall Bell ( | 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 article is really fishy, I don't know how it survived the first AfD. Basically it is the epitome of what we call WP:SOAPBOX. The biography does not indicate any notability, especially from a science/research standpoint. What adds insult to injury is the fact that its "main creators"—namely Bcar92 ( talk · contribs), Dianearmitage ( talk · contribs), Youknow009 ( talk · contribs), and Sahar27 ( talk · contribs)—also spammed (yes, I mean it!) a lot of other articles (as evident here or here) which itself might call for a sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow, this article needs to be removed. bender235 ( talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable. Should have been deleted before this Op47 ( talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks the significant and independent coverage required by GNG. I tried to check the links but many of them don't work, don't mention him, or are not independent. Certainly appears to fail WP:PROF. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This article is cited by independent sources and is not promotional; also importantly, Dr. Bell has made tremendous contributions in his career Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? If so, what
peer-reviewed article has he published? Or, more importantly, which other peer-reviewed literature cites Bell's works? --
bender235 (
talk)
01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepHe has published many peer-reviewed articles, 11 of which appear on the WP page. Here is a link on Google Scholar which proves that 23 other articles have cited his book, "Real Estate Damages: An Analysis of Detrimental Conditions." Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- I really don't think publications like The Appraisal Journal or Bloomberg's Environmental Due Diligence Guide meet Wikipedia's criteria on peer-reviewed sources. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? If so, what
peer-reviewed article has he published? Or, more importantly, which other peer-reviewed literature cites Bell's works? --
bender235 (
talk)
01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - wouldn't seem to pass our inclusion criteria. We need more than mere citations - we need significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is both promotional and dishonest, giving the subject credit for things and citing the subject's own work as verification for that credit. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. St★lwart 111 07:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Please provide specific examples of each of your contentions. There are two references to his own work: "Strategy 360" and his PhD thesis, "Post-traumatic Behaviors: The Socioeconomic Reasoning of Homeowners Who Voluntarily Remained in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." "Strategy 360" is only referenced once for basic information about Bell's occupation; and his PhD thesis is a peer-reviewed paper, which can be cited and in any event, is cited only to demonstrate the contributions the paper has made. Sahar27 ( talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- Delete This article has "promotion" written all over it. For example, the way that some fairly insubstantial newspaper articles are cited half a dozen times when the article actually says virtually nothing about the fact being cited. (Just because a news article has the word "Katrina" in a single sentence doesn't mean that you put Katrina in the WP article and add a separate cite.) Also, citing two books as being Bell's "influences" is really not kosher, and looks like a way to pad the references. In addition, one of them seems to be an overview of theories by other economists rather than the presentation of the author's own theories, so it isn't clear how this is an "influence" by a known economist. ("Presents fifteen classic economics readings by such scholars as Armen A. Alchian, George A. Akerlof, David J. Teece, Oliver E. Williamson, Michael E. Porter, R. H. Coase, and Harold Demsetz. Analyzes the implications of their findings for the fields of organization theory, development, and behavior.") The number of edits that have been done to this page is rather astounding, although nearly all have been done by a small number of accounts. The bottom line, however, is that in spite of this effort, nothing here rises to the level of notability. LaMona ( talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepEach of those articles cites his work. Please re-read them or request a PDF version if that is easier. Also, the citations to the books for Bell's are meant to provide context for the authority of the authors/economists. Bell's Wikipedia page only provides factual information about his credentials, experience, and work so this can keep going on and on, and the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. The bottom line is that this is a person who has made tremendous contributions with his research, publications, and case-work; his career is interesting enough to be featured in the media; and his unique experience developed through his consultations on some of the world's most serious disasters helps to impart extremely useful insights. For all these reasons, Bell is a good candidate for a Wikipedia page; the point of Wikipedia is to provide a free public good. Sahar27 ( talk) 09:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
- Keep These delete recommendations are factually wrong. I have checked and everything is factual and well-cited. Bell has obtained high notoriety professionally, academically and with the mass media. Bell literally wrote the book on the topic of Real Estate Damages (which is cited) and this book is published by the Appraisal Institute in Chicago. Bender235 asks about what peer-reviewed articles (which is not even a Wikipedia requirement for an article) yet he/she apparently did not read the Wikipedia article on Bell, which cites 11 peer-reviewed articles. There is a ton of independent and substantial notoriety of Bell, I just saw an article on the front page of the LA Times and he was on ABC with Diane Sawyer a few months ago. Obviously this is notable work. Bcar92 ( talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There has been very significant coverage of his career for many years, including both the media and peer-reviewed articles. He has written the following peer-reviewed articles in The Appraisal Journal, which is the most notable peer-reviewed publication for real estate appraisers:
The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate, Project Delay Economics, The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values, Contaminated Waterways, Medical Office Building Appraisal, and The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies.
I have seen this guy on CNN more than once, and ABC's 20/20. Are you kidding me? Aprais411 ( talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The notion that a PhD … whose career has been profiled everywhere from the Wall Street Journal, to People Magazine … and recently on the front-page of the LA Times … and should be deleted is ridicules. Clearly this opponent has motives that have nothing to do with Dr. Bell’s contributions to his profession. Dr. Bell has written 12 articles in peer-reviewed journals, several books and is cited widely in the media. If this article is deleted, then 80% of the articles in Wikipedia should be deleted.
The allegations made are false and misleading. This is not promotional whatsoever and every statement is referenced. Bender235 seems to think that only Wikipedia articles should include people who have published in peer-reviewed articles. This is wrong on two levels. First on its face this position is ridicules. Second, Bender 235 is factually wrong. I went to Dr. Bell’s website and he has written 12 articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. So clearly Bender 235 is just a wantabe or competitor of Dr. Bells who has some kind of grudge, but he can’t back up his claims. — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures Mictach ( talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Mictach comment added by Mictach ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Mictach ( talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- A note, out of curiosity: isn't it amazing how this AfD caught the attention of not one but two newly registered accounts? Just for general information, AfD's are not a vote. Even half a dozen people showing up here and repeating the same arguments doesn't make them any stronger. (FYI: I opened a sockpuppet investigation to look into this issue). -- bender235 ( talk) 17:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm shocked! Not. None of them seem to realise that hysterical, accusatory, non-policy arguments will simply be discarded. But of course that feels more productive than actually making a legitimate argument. St★lwart 111 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepJust look at the facts. Bender235 ( talk · contribs) starts his argument that Bell has no articles in peer-reviewed journals. It is pointed out that Bell actually has 11. Then Bender235 ( talk · contribs) says nobody has cited Bell's work, but again he is factually wrong and Bells work has been shown to be widely cited with a simple google search. Bender235 ( talk · contribs) then makes the wild accusation that the Appraisal Journal is not peer reviewed. Again he is factually wrong - again just google it Then notions of "not honest" are tossed out without a single attempt to back it up. Sahar27 ( talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
- Comment - Stalwart et. al. has failed to make a singlet fact-based argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should be backed up by facts. Putting aside the sarcasm and meanness, there is no legitimate basis for deletion. Every single assertion has been shown to be false and misleading when the facts are actually looked at. Bells academic and professional contributions are widely cited by the literature ... and if profiles from everyone from the Wall Street Journal to People Magazine (and everyone in between) does not demonstrate notoriety, I don't know what does. Stop with the cheep, sarcastic pot-shots and stick with facts. Sahar27 ( talk) 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- You have to laugh, or you'd end up crying at the bizarre, sock-puppetry-riddled, seen-it-all-before attempts to shoe-horn a couple of local news articles and some of the subject's own work into "notability". Again, we need sources about the subject, not written by the subject (those constituting most of the existing references list). One local pop news item (not demonstrating notability beyond a couple of suburbs) is disingenuously cited a staggering 21 times! Your actions here are actually doing more harm that good - suggesting (if not confirming) that this was all an attempt to promote the subject from the start rather than the effort of a few new account holders to contribute genuine content. St★lwart 111 07:35, 29 September 2014 (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. (As noted below it does need ALOT of improvements - Anyway I have no objections to this being renominated in November or so if no improvements have been made.) ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Markus Kaarlonen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, completely lacking sources of any kind. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 17:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The subject meets criteria #6 and #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. I have also added several sources in the article. -- Λeternus (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with Λeternus, keep for the moment at least. Certainly could be improved significantly. Consider cross references with other occupations. PotassiBot ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— PotassiBot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and is indef blocked Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:55, 20 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Problems with concussions in high school athletes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is written like an essay, but has given citations. Would require a lot of work to clean up to encyclopedia standards. Osarius - Want a chat? 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Blow it up and start over. Too notable of a topic to just destroy. It may need a rename too, though. Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: In case of a rename, I would propose Concussions in high school sports to mirror Concussions in American football and Concussions in sports. I do agree that the topic is notable, but the article can either be deleted without prejudice to re-creation, or kept and heavily rewritten. -- Gccwang ( talk) 08:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but move to Concussions in high school sports as suggested. It needs clean-up, but not expert attention, and is not so bad as to invoke WP:TNT. Bearian ( talk) 21:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per comments and caveats above -- article needs a better title and complete re-working for a coherent narrative. This is a notable topic in contact sports per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG (a lot of ink has been spilled in the United States on this topic in the last decade), and Wikipedia should have a well-written and well-sourced summary article on the subject. If someone wants to take a rewrite on as a personal project post-AfD, I would be happy to volunteer some of by editing time in that effort. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete; we already have articles such as Concussions in sport and Sports-related traumatic brain injury, and Concussions in American football. Is there any reason we need an article specifically focused on high school athletics? How distinct is the issue of brain injuries to high school students as compared to similar injury to pre-high school youths, college athletes, pro athletes, or other adults who play sports? Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Jweiss11: JW, I think there are different issues among high school, college, and professional contact sports, starting with long-term degenerative brain effects more prevalent among long-time American pro football players. The 14 to 18-year-olds are more prone to immediate death and permanent disability -- I think the number I saw earlier today was 50+ high school football players have died during a game or as a result of a game in the last decade. That's not what the pros are experiencing; they are bigger and stronger, and better able to sustain the physical stresses (at least in the short run). I can't remember the last pro football player who died as a result of game-related injuries. Certainly the injury statistics are going to be different across the three age groups. As these articles are presently structured, there is obviously significant subject matter overlap, but that should not stop a small group of interested editors from re-balancing the subject matter of them to more specifically target the high school, college and professional athlete age demographics. Personally, I think that would be worthwhile. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:54, 20 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- IPR-Helpdesk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article erroneously PRODded (apologies, I missed a PROD from April 2008). Nevertheless, the PROD reason that I gave still stands: "No indication of notability, just a helpdesk website. One of a gazillion things funded by the EU. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB." Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added further references, notably from the OECD, the UNECE, the British Council, the University of Münster, innovations-reports, and the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science. The project appears to be notable and historically significant because it "offers an example of what governments can do to help compensate for a lack of technology transfer competence among [public research organisations (PROs)]" and it has "played a key role in building a culture of innovation in EU countries" (from the 2005 OECD report). The project has also been there for a long time, i.e. 16 years ( WP:NOTTEMP). -- Edcolins ( talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I appreciate the hard work that Edcolins has put into this. However, the references are either not independent of the EU/Helpdesk itself, or they are in-passing mentions, not in-depth descriptions (there are a few book references that I don't have access to, but judging from their titles, I'd be surprised if they were any different. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Both the OECD and UNECE refs are independent of the project itself (and of the EU Commission, which funds it) and provide in-depth descriptions, with more than 2000 characters in each of the two refs. The 800-character description in the British Council publication and the roughly 1200 characters in the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science also appear independent from the project and support notability. To me, there is significant coverage. Further, the article now describes the project's historical significance/impact, and therefore both WP:GNG and WP:WEB are met. (The project is not merely a web site anyway.) -- Edcolins ( talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG. The fact that the European Union funds many things is not a reason to delete any of them. James500 ( talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody says that EU funding is a reason to delete anything. It just means that being funded by the EU is nothing special (just like being funded by the Federal Government in the US) and is in itself not an indication of notability. It would slo be nice if you could indicate how this meets GNG (i.e., what coverage you consider to be in depth and independent). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Edcolins has already given you an adequate explanation, and there is no reason why I should provide a webliography of what I found in GBooks and elsewhere. Frankly, compliance with your request would be a waste of time that I don't have. Why don't you go through all the sources on the web one at a time, starting with the books etc in GBooks, of which there are well over a hundred, and tell me what you think is wrong with them.
James500 (
talk)
16:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer, friendly as always, to my question (posted before Edcolins posted his answer). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- *Keep as it seems to meet the general notability guidelines, unless there is another basis for deletion. It also seems to pass the indiscriminate collection of information test. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (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 redirect to Daxter (video game). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jamey Scott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person, in this case a music composer, which lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 19:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Daxter (video game). So I had to dig in the Internet Archive but I found two interviews: [20] and [21]. He has a lot of credits but no coverage about him as a composer in a WP:VG/RS search. I'd entertain redirection to a related topic, and his only mention in any of the games listed in his article is Daxter (video game), which is a fine target. He's common enough that a redirect makes sense, but there is simply not enough coverage to substantiate a full article: the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect per Czar. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Amazin' Blue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks sufficient significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. All coverage is either hyper-local, not independent (related to the school), or is not significant enough. While there is some coverage in a cappella focused sites, it is either an insignificant level or so routine that it does not confer any notability, such as from a site that reviews all released collegiate a cappella work. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - No references whatsoever. Many hyper-local sources. PotassiBot ( talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:52, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Von Haulshoven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person which lacks sources of any kind and apparently lacks those sources for good reason. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - after three different searches, I could find no reliable and independent sources about this subject under his stage name. All the sources that I found are MySpace/social media or Wiki-mirrors. Bearian ( talk) 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No references; couldn't find any. Perhaps more suited to Dutch WP. Note that he also appears as Eppie E. Hulshof in searches, but again they are music sites that don't give any significant information about him. LaMona ( talk) 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above and Lacks independent sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (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 redirect to Network (film). Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Union Broadcasting System ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An entirely original research description of a fictional news network. Zero sources, essentially 100% plot summary. Daniel (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:NOR BMIComp 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Network (film), the film surrounding this fictional element. Merge whatever information that can be sourced, as this fictional element is not unsourcable. [22] [23] It can be written of and sourced there. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Network (film). How did this get through its first AfD? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:39, 30 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Leo van der Goot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In a prod a few months back I stated "This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements." I stand by this - the article has not been improved since. Deprodded by creator. There are no sources to support WP:GNG; this is just a person doing his regular job which includes appearing on TV. Not all writers, journalists or tv personalities are notable. And no, having been involved with covering Eurovision is not a criteria for notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Article does not establish notability of subject. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only references are his name in a list of Eurovision commentators (not sure I'd be proud of that one!) and an article that he was injured in a plane crash in the US. Not notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2014 (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 redirect to Colour Coding. j⚛e decker talk 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Proof (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)
A album that looks like it could go be redirected into the band's page. Wgolf ( talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to band page. Kierzek ( talk) 01:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:42, 20 September 2014 (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. redirect at editorial doscretion Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Genevha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been tagged since 2008. They have only done one album, though the members do seem to be the only reason why it is notable. Though I think it could easily be merged into either of them as a page, this was a borderline afd for me to be honest. Wgolf ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this duo meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. I'm amenable to a redirect if a suitable target can be agreed upon. Gongshow talk 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Orfeh. What content there is on this band is already in the articles on both the members. Orfeh seems to be the more notable, so a redirect there seems reasonable. -- Michig ( talk) 07:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 11:39, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to Murray City Council. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Greg Anderson (Kentucky politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Google News and Gogle Books showed up nothing. Boleyn ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Not finding anything on Highbeam either. Being on a town council falls short of WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD ( talk) 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cities in the 10-20K population range do not confer notability on their city councillors under WP:NPOL, "youngest officeholder in a particular jurisdiction" isn't a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia (and the claim isn't actually sourced here, either — and even if it was true when the article was created in 2008, what evidence do we have that it still is?), and the quality of sourcing here isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since wp:notability is not conferred, saying that "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Murray, Kentucky is a college town. As per the article, it has a micropolitan population of 37,000. There is also a transient student population of 11,000 at Murray State University. So Murray is a bit more influential than is shown by the statistics cited above. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- A city usually has to have a population in the millions before Wikipedia accepts its city councillors as "inherently notable" (anything below that, you've got to powersource them over the WP:GNG bar.) So its influence vis-à-vis the population statistics is irrelevant, because even 37K micropolitan + 11K extra university students still falls very far short of the mark. Bearcat ( talk) 06:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect
DeleteThe local NPR radio station, [24] reports that the age issue created controversy at the city council meetings. The LinkedIn resume, link, shows that the term of office was two years, ending December 2010. [25] shows statewide television coverage on 17 November 2008, which would be shortly after the November elections. KET has an extensive television broadcast network throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Something missing here for WP:N is coverage "over a period of time". I see no analysis of the WP:ATD in the nomination. Statewide coverage after a city council election in Murray would be something wp:prominent for Murray City Council. When we/someone writes Murray City Council, this topic should be re-created as a redirect and the edit history restored using WP:REFUND. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC) - Comment I've created a very basic stub for Murray City Council. Boleyn ( talk) 07:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Murray City Council per WP:CHEAP. Thank you, Boleyn, for being WP:BOLD. Bearian ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2014 (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. The question of the article's name may be decided by means of a requested move (or by a bold move if it's thought to be noncontroversial). Deor ( talk) 11:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Akash Aar Mati ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. A google search reveals nothing notable about the movie that could be added KJ Discuss? 14:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:INDAFD: Aminul Haque
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleteper failing WP:NF. Apparently this is a 1959 film and is now only mentioned in articles of its cast and production as they themselves pass away. I did find a mention in a 2005 artricle in Daily Star in an article about its music director Subal Das passing away, and a book mention shares translation as Sky and Earth. It would seem this article is more about its lead Aminul Haque and is sourced entirely from two articles about Haque's death. Perhaps the author might wish to write about that actor. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)- Keep as suitable stub verifiable now as the FIRST Bangladeshi film. Even if never a bigger article, this first is a notable accomplishment. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This film appears to have historical importance being the first film made in Dhaka based film industry. Prior to that, the Bengali film industry was primarily based on Kolkata; but with creation of division of two Bengal the industry began to split. Right now, I do not have sources and probably I can't dig up any either, as it is near to impossible to find any source from 60's media on internet. To bolster the notability someone has to come up with some more print media sources (definitely there is none on internet now). We can thus allow some time for editors to come up with sources for it, keeping a notability tag on the article; especially since we have a lot of movie entries with lesser historic importance. – nafSadh did say 21:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Akash Ar Mati per Nafsadh, it was the first Bangladeshi film, Fateh Lohani was the director and Sumita Devi starred in it. See also G-books result for "Akash Ar Mati". -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NFILMS. -- Zayeem (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of current female college gymnasts ( | 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 is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. There are far too many redlinks. Also, given that college gymnasts graduate every year maintaining this list is going to be a nightmare. If a gymnast is notable they could be mentioned on their college page instead of in a list like this Gbawden ( talk) 13:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Swpb talk 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to list of college women's gymnasts in the United States (to drop the unacceptable "current" criteria, to match the category, and to clarify that this is, in fact, just American gymnasts), purge the redlinks if we're confident they will never merit articles, and expand to include any other articles we have that are missing because they weren't "current". I count 53 articles in the category structure, so definitely enough for a list, and maintaining one list will help balance the subcategorization by school that prevents readers from browsing all at once. postdlf ( talk) 16:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Almost impossible to maintain a constantanly expanding list like this and merely being a college gymnast isn't itself notable. Wikipedia is not meant for keeping all sports records and information.
204.126.132.231 (
talk)
19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's ordinary practice for us to limit such lists to notable people. There's no maintenance problem if we drop the "current" criteria. postdlf ( talk) 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been pondering what to do with this list for several days. I follow college gymnastics, and I want to be supportive, but I can't rationalize keeping this generic list. It's a question of whether this topic is more appropriate for a "list" or something else. Would we sanction a generic "List of American college football players" or "List of American college men's basketball players"? No, because there is nothing particularly notable about college football players as a class, and there are literally thousands of such persons and the list would be unmanageably large. The only difference here is that there are fewer notable college gymnasts -- there is nothing particularly special about this particular group. This class is much better treated as a category, which is how we treat all other generic classes of college athletes. If someone wants to start a "List of college gymnastics All-Americans" or a "List of NCAA gymnastics champions," I will support that in a heart beat and contribute.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
08:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please read my response to the last comment. postdlf ( talk) 13:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postdlf, my issue with this is not the notability of its individual members; as you mention, that can be readily cured by deleting the red links. My issue is that there is nothing exceptional about the generic list topic, in the same way we would not create a generic list of college football players. I would have no problem with a list of All-American college women's gymnasts. FYI, in order to be "notable" for Wikipedia purposes, I would bet most of these athletes are All-Americans (or top performers from pre-college national and international competitions), which would make a quick conversion of the list to a more interesting topic relatively easy. Very few gymnasts are going to be notable based solely on the media coverage they received for their college sports careers. "American college gymnasts" is a basic category, not a good list topic. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- "My issue is that there is nothing exceptional about the generic list topic..." That's not a thing. Most of our lists of people are not about "exceptional" characteristics, and we simply limit them to notable examples because obviously most people who would literally qualify for such lists would not be notable. There is nothing exceptional about being from Idaho, being Irish American, having epilepsy, or dying in 2014. No one is notable because of those things. Not to mention lists of alumni by university; certainly merely attending a school is less "exceptional" than having played a sport for that school. So there's no basis for this heightened standard you're trying to apply (why did you think otherwise?). The main purpose of such lists is to index articles, but they also give information relevant to the notable topics of the place, school, etc. by listing the notable people associated with those things. See WP:LISTPURP. And you're also contradicting WP:NOTDUP without giving a reason as to why it shouldn't apply here. postdlf ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Post, you're either missing my point or ignoring it. I have readily conceded your point about the notability of individual list members; in fact, I would not have it any other way. Lists where half or more of the listed items are red links either need to be deleted or restructured. Back to my point: as a general proposition, we (as in the various sports WikiProjects) have not compiled generic lists of college athletes (e.g., "List of college football players"). By sport, we have lists of college All-Americans, college hall of fame members, recipients of particular college awards, athletes who were members of particular teams, members of college teams who played in the pros, etc. We do not have generic lists of college athletes where the sole distinguishing characteristic is the sport they played; for that, we have consistently used categories. My !vote is an !vote to continue that well established precedent. As we both know, satisfying NLIST, GNG, and/or LISTPURP is not a guarantee of inclusion. Members of the community may exercise their judgement and common sense with regard to other standards and other precedents, and that's what I choose to do here. Frankly, I think it's a sensible approach, notwithstanding the existence of other generic lists of limited utility like "List of Irish-Americans (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- You made the claim that a list based on something that isn't "exceptional" should be deleted. I pointed out that this is completely contrary to practice and guidelines. "OTHERSTUFF" is not a further response to that. Nor can a Wikiproject ignore guidelines that apply project-wide. You're always free to simply not work on such lists, but you have no basis for deleting them if someone else starts them. If you want to make a WP:TNT argument here, fine, but the problem is you seem to be arguing that as a matter of principle we shouldn't have any list complementary to Category:College women's gymnasts in the United States contrary to WP:CLN, and there's been no valid or relevant argument for that yet. postdlf ( talk) 23:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Whilst I would like to agree with Postdlf for a rename, this list has more redlinks than bluelinks. Many of the blue links are of questionable notability, sourced from primary links, or just a single reference. I think when this list is cut down to those notable on wikipedia we will be left with a handful of people. Martin451 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a topic for a category, not a list. p b p 00:38, 28 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jimmyjane ( | 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 company, has been tagged with WP:NOTE since '09 with no significant improvements since then. Primefac ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. — Swpb talk 15:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per significent improvements made. – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as already having 6 valid third party references showing notability. some are in the "external links", but thats just a formatting issue. They have gotten coverage, as a company and for their products. there is no indication that they are NOT notable. there is no set time frame for WP:NOTE that i am aware of. and, i just found 2 refs, one, a full article on the company at Atlantic Monthly magazine. which i found on page 3 of a google search for the company. Did anyone actually read the refs here or attempt a search?(user:mercurywoodrose) 50.193.19.66 ( talk) 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment i just removed the Note tag, but then realized that might not look good while at AFD. so, to be clear, nominator was correct, tagged as possibly not notable since 2009 with little or no improvement. if i had found this article just prior to this afd, i probably would have removed that Note tag anyway, after a brief search. if someone restores that tag for the sake of this afd, i will NOT revert.(merc) 50.193.19.66 ( talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment you are allowed to improve an article when it is in AfD, including removing tags such as NOTE or UNREFERENCED if relevant. If the AfD results in the article significantly improving then people may change their votes. Primefac ( talk) 21:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The Atlantic and GQ articles alone are enough to establish notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep MelanieN's argument is sufficient and accurate. -- j⚛e decker talk 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, nice source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 02:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: After further analysis, was easily able to find more secondary sources and discussion in appropriate references at Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- so I reiterate my sentiment that the page should be kept and improved upon with editors discussing the appropriate way to move forward on the article's talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 27 September 2014 (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 Nomination Withdrawn. The nomination has been withdrawn. The talk of redirection as suggested by a couple can be discussed on the talk page ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Brides in the Bath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG GiraffeBoy ( talk) 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to George_Joseph_Smith#Popular_culture. I couldn't really find anything to show that this film ultimately passes notability guidelines. There are a few hints that there may be coverage, so I think a redirect with the history intact would be a good idea here in case it ever surfaces. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable TV drama. We have articles on thousands of them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes... but they have sources.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- As a TV show, it is its own source. A source does not have to be something on the internet - any media will do. And lack of sources is not, in any case, a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes... but they have sources.
Redirect as suggested by Tokyogirl79. I looked for sources and found nothing suitable for establishing notability. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)- Keep per sources found which could allow imrovements and per nominator's withdrawal. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect seems the simplest idea - it is a good film, but reliable sources/ media coverage appear to be non-existent Alligators1974 01:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (Nominator)
- Title:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Production:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Brazil:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Sweden:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- @ Necrothesp: I did some searching and found it spoken of here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. A couple might even be considered SIGCOV, but almost all speak toward this film in relationship to the murders. Unless sourced and greatly expanded, I still think it best that this stub be redirected to the parent topic. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Clean UpI'm leaning towards granting it a reprieve, pending an overhaul. Is there any general consensus about tv movies and notability on wikipeida? GiraffeBoy ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep Big star names in the original production (Kemp & Griffiths) and it's a drama that is still being broadcast on major channels 10 years later. It was shown again just earlier this year. 82.132.245.90 ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- And it's on dvd which is a rariety for tv movies [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 September 2014 (Nominator)
- keep I originally listed this for AFD but the discussion has convinced me it should stay - it has more media coverage and available sources than I realised. GiraffeBoy ( talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Observation: some signed and some unsigned, GiraffeBoy and Alligators1974 are the same person. His comment above may be taken as a nominator's withdrawal per sources found and offered. Let's get this one fixed up. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw the nomination GiraffeBoy
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep My nomination was an error - there are far more available sources and media coverage than I realised and the film has been recently released on DVD. GiraffeBoy ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2014 (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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lele Pons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Okay just had it as a prod but decided to change it as she does not seem notable at all (and interesting that this links to a sock puppet report) Wgolf ( talk) 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N, no evidence of notability.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, although I agree the previous version of the article failed many of Wikipedia's guidelines, still, hopefully these problems are fixed, references added. So, why should we keep this article? It's this crazy new medium -- Vine -- with its six-second loops, well guess what, Pons is a star in this new medium which is even beginning to have its own awards so it won't be long before Vine celebrities are up on the dias, teary-eyed, holding goldish statue-junk and boring the rest of the world senseless. Pons is leading the pack in terms of Vine 'plays' and there are sufficient references suggesting notability such as here and Streamy award nominee here and rave review here and nominated for award and in-depth source here and here and in-depth source here that I think we can keep her article here in Wikipedia PROVIDED OF COURSE that she does not prank any Wikipedians, like it would be personally upsetting if she pranked our lord-chief-all-high-master of the WORLD OF TRUE FACTS Jimmy Wales. And, of course, if she's 17, probably she's applying to colleges, and I hope she considers the greatest college in the world.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, there seems to be sufficient mention in media. Sjö ( talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 10:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG, but I personally would keep the page as a monument of the craziness of today's world, for future generations. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 12:44, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Croatia national American football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell the team does not actually exist as of September 2014. A Google search of local media only yields two results - one from January 2014 saying a decision was made to create the team (cited in our article), and another one from February 2014 saying a training camp for players intended to feature in the national team was cancelled due to low interest. Looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Timbouctou ( talk) 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou ( talk) 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is certainly missing. I googled this in Croatian and found only a 2012 Nacional article [29] saying the organization is planning to form such a team. Given the tempo, we need to give them some more time to achieve real-world notability, rather than appear to be promoting them. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too soon. In the meantime, there are almost no reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GregorB ( talk) 22:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable "American football" national team of Croatia, which has never played a game, and it's unclear whether it will ever play a game. Putting aside issues of notability per WP:ORG, this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia does not speculate about things which have not yet come to pass. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Magic gopher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverified article for a little flash application; the internet reveals no significant discussion of the topic in multiple sources. Or even insignificant discussion in one source. Drmies ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There's insignificant discussion in 10,000 sources http://www.google.com/search?q="magic+gopher, including commercial educational resources ( [30]) NE Ent 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Extensive online mentions, some less horrid than others. I've added two that analyse it and link to alternate versions of the same game or trick. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing reasonable appears in any of my searches, and if it were notable something reasonable would pop up. Explicitly checked magazines, news, etc. Mentions online don't assert notability. Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or Rename to ???. The particular flash game isn't a notable thing. The concept outlined in most of the article, simple arithmetical "mind-reading" parlour tricks, is a notable thing.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]. If there isn't an article already, there should be one. This just looks like an article about a simple magic trick that is backwards-ly named after a single instance where the trick was performed. The practice of using multiples of nine to entertainingly "mind-read" has been around for centuries, this flash game didn't invent the idea.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I put 2 of those in the article, if I'm remembering the URLs correctly. I wondered whether this particular number property or trick has a name; if so I agree, a move to that name would be the best outcome. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to something, yes, though I'm not sure what. Calling this article "magic gopher" would be like calling the article for Seven Bridges of Königsberg "extra reading of chapter 7 of my discrete mathematics textbook" (or whatever, just giving an example). The specific app itself isn't notable as far as I can tell. Ansh 666 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is about a non-notable app. I would not be opposed to a merge/rename, but someone needs to identify a clear target. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. These are some interesting comments. Thank you all. Drmies ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. We do have an article on the general subject, Recreational mathematics, but it doesn't look like a good fit for a specific instance. Can anyone see anything in the greater Category:Recreational mathematics that would be a merge candidate? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or recast as Multiples of nine, which is the name of the trick that the sources are about. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete. Nowhere near enough for notability and none has been provided here: google hits don't establish it. We already have a page on divisibility rules, and this is a piece of trivial mental arithmetic based on the rule for nine. There are numerous tricks like these, based on divisibility, properties of numbers, etc.. I don't see that this is particularly notable or interesting.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No in-depth and reliable sources on this app (as opposed to the simple and well-known mathematics behind it) that would show notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 09:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - software (app) article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS references. Refs provided are a brief mention in a blog, and a page about the math concept that does not discuss the app at all. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this app. Dialectric ( talk) 11:08, 27 September 2014 (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. If we ignore comments from sockpuppets and block-evading IP editors, the only argument for "keep" comes from In ictu oculi, but, as others have pointed out, the coverage that In ictu oculi mentions is not substantial, in-depth coverage. The mere fact that she is briefly mentioned in books about someone else does not demonstrate notability, "she's a backing singer/muse to someone who is not a nobody" is off the point, as notability is not inherited, and the fact that she "has released records under her own name" is not enough, as so have thousands of people who come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Some editors arguing for "delete", on the other hand, have advanced good reasons in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Dina Rae (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Rae (singer) Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article clearly does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO for a Wikipedia article. Fevrret ( talk) 02:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at all. Her only claim of significance is through her association with Eminem and their early collaborations. It was already deleted at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Dina Rae and the subject has done nothing of significance since then at all. There is no independent coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any notability. Not to mention the creator/top contributor is a personal friend of the subject. Thank you Fevrret for nominating this, I was going to wait for the RM to close so there would be no technical issues, but this discussion might just need to be moved once the article is. I firmly believed this should have been G4ed, but a regular user that had no access to the deleted version at all declined it. STATic message me! 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Deleted once before, when the page was Dina Rae; the previous AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 09:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The orginal article was unrelialbe all it said she was an American R&B singer and she did a few tracks with Eminem, Obie Trice and Jin; I would like to point out @ STATicVapor:, I know of her from Facebook and that she sent me a signed copy of The Dina Rae Show and Snippets of Powerhouse With a Pen and I interviewed her for a Media Studies coursework for a paper and I thought she'd be aight with it and she was but it hardly makes us "Hey Dina, Mum's cooking a Sunday Roast, hop on a plane to the UK and we'll dish you up a plate" OK I follow her on Twitter and she returned the favour, but I'd like to point out she has done a lot more since the original article was written, She was featured on Phokuz's "Today" song (2013), Bigg Hunnitt$' "Real Weigh" (2013), "Welcome to LA" and "Fan Mail" by King Lil' G (2013) as well as more recently Kreed-N-Deed's "Reaching for the Stars" (2014) and is working on her debut album, if we got rid of her article, we'd have to get rid of both Sylvia Striplin (who's article tags her as could be alive and doesn't say that she's done anything since the '80's other than her song "You Can't Turn Me Away" has been sampled by Junior M.A.F.I.A., Erykah Badu and was featured on GTA Vice City Stories and we'd have to delete Jentina's article as well; only released three singles and an album exclusively to Italy and has given up ebing a rapper so I don't think we should delete Dina Rae's page as she's still working even if it's behind the scenes now Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 18:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and for God's sake. Please upload a picture of her 93.186.23.96 ( talk) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- You gave no guideline backing reason for keeping, your vote holds much less weight that way. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - User:STATicVapor when you say "There is no independent coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any notability" are you including David Stubbs Eminem: The Stories Behind Every Song 2006 1560259469 p.195 "Eminem has demonstrated immense professional fidelity to Dina Rae, to whom he invariably turns when needing a female vocal. Some might argue that this is because few women could stand Eminem's misogynistic company, but it's ..." Or Vibe November 2002 p.94 "And the seedy-sounding girl on "Superman" and "Drug Ballad" isn't a ho-she's a charming woman called Dina Rae ..." I don't understand why these sources and the other dozen Google Book hits shouldn't be counted as independent coverage in reliable sources. Admittedly she's mainly a backing singer/muse. But she's a backing singer/muse to someone who is not a nobody and has released records under her own name also. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I note also that the AFD is brought by a new and inexperienced editor and that there are wikis for Dina Rae in 8 other languages.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those are articles about Eminem, please note the words significant and independent coverage in reliable sources that is needed. She is not the topic or even subtopic of these Books, it is trivial coverage. You need to see WP:INHERITED. Notability is not inherited from Eminem or their songs, she must have individual notability. Her personal work has never received any kind of coverage. It should be clearly noted, that none of her recent work away from Eminem has been covered in reliable sources, trivial or not. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I note also that the AFD is brought by a new and inexperienced editor and that there are wikis for Dina Rae in 8 other languages.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What's wrong with the article? I'll tell you; Eminem hasn't used her since D12's "Bitch" song and the only woman he turns to now is Rihanna also if Motown hadn't messed around with Dina, And?, Can't Even C It and possibly other tracks ("In Ya Dreams", is a personal favourite and fans of Dina know that song and I think it could've been a single but Motown might have thought it was a bit "ghetto, ho-ish and too explicit" for them as they were used to their songs to be like "I Heard it From the Grapevine" but if she was as bigger star as the star she's worked with from The Slim Shady LP we'd have more information, it's not like she's some girl from LA who thought she could sing but sounds like a cat being strangled and he ditched her 'cause he knew he would be a one hit wonder and their careers were over, no he went from unknown emcee to the King of Rap and he kinda helped boost her career, she went from Eminem/D12 to Proof, to Obie Trice, to Ms. Korona, Jin to even being a DJ in LA, she is what you'd call a celebrity but she's not an A list celebrity so keep the page 217.39.34.5 ( talk) 16:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$, please only comment under your account. Logging out to vote in AfD discussions is sockpuppetry. STATic message me! 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Er I was logged in on my account; what you chatting about and please stop adding comments it's a bit boring you're backed up into a corner and your just acting like you've got a bee in your bonnet Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I would also like to add the remix of And? - Dina Rae featuring Erick Sermon was featured on Kiss: Hot Joints 2 CD 2, track 14 released in 2004 and still selling on Amazon.co.uk [1] so there, that might help Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- And I would like to add this, STATicVapor I do believe you're taking it out on this page 'cause I commented on your behaviour towards Wikipedia, so I do think you're acting uncivil Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ ( talk) 21:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and salt fails WP:MUSICBIO, and notability is not WP:INHERITED. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. An effort has obviously been made to make the article appear well-referenced, but none of them amount to in-depth coverage of the subject in independent secondary sources, so notability is not demonstrated. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Just need optimizations, but the article itself is right. Maybe we need to tag as {{notability}}, but no reason to delete it. [35] previously AfD Discussion makes me point out a weak keep. Bdboyc ( talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, as Bdboyc pointed out, and what don't help she ain't as famous to find out information about her, who knows might she might release a album, a autobiography or something and we could get info on her but keep it 5.81.224.153 ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak delete notability claim is not really convincing. The Banner talk 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Yes the article needs a LOT of work done to it and needs a LOT of RELIABLE sources; but I don't think we should get rid of the article we need reliable information and a grammar check on it too. 93.186.31.82 ( talk) 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: This was missing from the daily AfD lists. I've reattached to the daily list of 7 September, somewhat arbitrarily. I'll let an other admin make the call as to whether to close or relist this. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 08:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisting comment — There's a lot of socking/meating going on above. Ignoring those, the result is becoming clearer, but additional policy and guideline-based arguments are appreciated. Mainly relisting because this somehow dropped off the AfD log (as noted by Joe Decker). -- slakr\ talk / 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Shitfaced Clowns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article based on unreliable sources, thus failing WP:NOTE. Λeternus (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Can you detail what sources aren't reliable? Surely, links to Scene.org Awards and Assembly.org archives are reliable source for information on who got their nominations and what placed where in their competitions, no?
Kusmabite (
talk)
09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about their reliability.
Scene.org and
Assembly (demo party) articles don't stand well with reliable sources either. Other sources in the article are clearly not reliable. Please see
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the primairy sources of the demoscene aren't 'standing well with reliable sources' it becomes impossible to state any demoscene-related group, production or party as notable. Subcultures tend to have little to no exposure, that is their defining nature. If the demoscene is notable, where do you draw the line concerning the groups that make up this culture? It seems winning the most prestigious price isn't relevant, and actively participating isn't relevant neither. Without the people who produces these demos, there is nothing left but an empty placeholder.
Numtek (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Demoscene is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources. But this does not mean that every demogroup is notable just because it has been related with it, because
notability is not inherited. Similarly, just because rock music is notable, that doesn't mean every rock band is notable just by performing this kind of music. There has to be reliable sources which directly cover Shitfaced Clowns in order to establish their notability in Wikipedia. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are way more rockbands than demogroups. This scene is a loose knotted group of individuals who generaly aren't very much notable as a person. They accomplish a lot more as a group, and gather at demoparties. I get your argument and I read your link, but if you start deleting all dempogroups that aren't covered by multiple notable sources you'll find out only two/three remain. That sums up to about 10 people. As a reference, Revision attracts more than 1000 people. I know not all 1000 of them are notable. But deleting each and every group till just 10 people remain sounds a bit drastic as well, agreed ? Obviously you are more experienced than I concerning editing Wikipedia, so I'll leave the judgement on this to you. I just hope that my view as an active demoscener since 1996 gave you a bit more insight in this subculture. Numtek ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Demoscene is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources. But this does not mean that every demogroup is notable just because it has been related with it, because
notability is not inherited. Similarly, just because rock music is notable, that doesn't mean every rock band is notable just by performing this kind of music. There has to be reliable sources which directly cover Shitfaced Clowns in order to establish their notability in Wikipedia. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- If the primairy sources of the demoscene aren't 'standing well with reliable sources' it becomes impossible to state any demoscene-related group, production or party as notable. Subcultures tend to have little to no exposure, that is their defining nature. If the demoscene is notable, where do you draw the line concerning the groups that make up this culture? It seems winning the most prestigious price isn't relevant, and actively participating isn't relevant neither. Without the people who produces these demos, there is nothing left but an empty placeholder.
Numtek (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about their reliability.
Scene.org and
Assembly (demo party) articles don't stand well with reliable sources either. Other sources in the article are clearly not reliable. Please see
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --
Λeternus
(talk)
09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just in Pouët.net's database, there's 11511 known demogroups (yeah, sure, there are some duplicates, but not a whole lot). The amount of demogroups on Wikipedia is *way* less. I think you're greatly underestimating the size of this subculture. The amount of groups on Wikipedia are somewhat relevant. And in this particular case, I've even linked to a video from French national television covering the group. How is that not reliable? I can't link directly to the TV-channel's archives, because those are behind a paywall. Kusmabite ( talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand how the quality of Scene.org's and Assembly's wikipedia-articles relates to the reliability of said websites when it comes to being sources of information on their own events and awards. Kusmabite ( talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Their demo Newton never did this, BITCH got nominated for "Best effects" the Scene.org Awards in 2005. [36] // Liftarn ( talk)
-
Verifiability, not truth. --
Λeternus
(talk)
10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here you go: https://www.scene.org/awards.php?year=2005 Numtek ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Besides what they achieved being a reason alone, deleting them would mean this list needs an update again: /info/en/?search=User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek ( talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. We keep articles based on their significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) This article has none. As for its importance, no one's saying it isn't—we just don't have any more coverage than a single link to substantiate a full article without falling back on original and uncited research (which WP does not host). There are better wikis for this information, just not Wikipedia. Now perhaps it's worth a mention on a related demoscene page, cited to a reliable niche source as important for the period, but "Shitfaced Clowns" as a topic of an article will only continue to collect unsourced or unverifiable information until someone can show that there is a stack of reliable sources waiting to be used. No suitable redirect targets. czar ♔ 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - No reliable sources in article. No independent sources found. ~ KvnG 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. The concept is notable, but that doesn't mean all participating groups are notable. St★lwart 111 07:00, 24 September 2014 (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mitch 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)
Does not seem to be a player of any major significance. Bueller 007 ( talk) 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Taylor led NCAA Division I basketball in a positive statistical category as the nation's most prolific three-point shooter in 1994–95. He also is one of only 15 players in Division I history to record 12 or more three-point field goals in a single game and is listed in the official NCAA men's basketball media guide for it. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment – I call into question the deletion rationale: there are no policies or guidelines cited and it smells of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As the article's creator and primary contributor, I was also not made aware of the AfD (fortunately I had it on my watchlist).
Jrcla2 (
talk)
12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". This is a player who never made it past college ball and who has no unique major records; just a couple of piddling ones. (Second place in one and tied for sixth place in another.) It's like arguing that someone who places fifth in two different amateur spelling bees should get a Wikipedia entry.
Bueller 007 (
talk)
12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting comparison, but no, it's not like that. He was the national leader in one of the statistical categories in the top level of amateur competition basketball in the United States. And being "tied for sixth" for the 3FGM in one game article is being disingenuous to what the article's threshold is, which is having made 12 in a single game, something like 0.0000000001% of any Division I college basketball players have ever done. In fact, it's so rare that the NCAA media guide lists them, as mentioned before.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- "0.0000000001%"? That's a fascinating and entirely made-up number. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting comparison, but no, it's not like that. He was the national leader in one of the statistical categories in the top level of amateur competition basketball in the United States. And being "tied for sixth" for the 3FGM in one game article is being disingenuous to what the article's threshold is, which is having made 12 in a single game, something like 0.0000000001% of any Division I college basketball players have ever done. In fact, it's so rare that the NCAA media guide lists them, as mentioned before.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". This is a player who never made it past college ball and who has no unique major records; just a couple of piddling ones. (Second place in one and tied for sixth place in another.) It's like arguing that someone who places fifth in two different amateur spelling bees should get a Wikipedia entry.
Bueller 007 (
talk)
12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 ( talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As SNG WP:NCOLLATH is not met, is there evidence that WP:GNG is satisfied?— Bagumba ( talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A close call, but I think there's enough significant coverage in the Baton Rouge and New Orleans newspapers from 1994 to 1996 to pass WP:GNG. I've added a couple of the sources to the article. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 02:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fiend (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)
The article contains little more than a short summary, cast listing, and the running time. No claim of significance.
Eman235/
talk
04:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly redirect to its director and writer, Don Dohler. Its a low-budget film starring nobody most people have heard of and without any critical notice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Found this in about 5 seconds. Yes, the article is terrible right now, but through editing and finding sources it can be improved. I've removed the copyvio in the meantime, too... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- A review by somebody named Trashfilmguru doesn't do it for me. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Video:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Germany:(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)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Actor:(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, NorthAmerica 1000 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Heck with it, I'm Withdrawing this AfD. Eman235/ talk 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per multiple releases over 24 years in English and non-English countries, as well as being released on DVD as part of Don Dohler retrospectives, and being reviewed and analysed in comparison to other Dohler works. IE: in DVD Talk for instance. Opinion, Clarityfiend? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:20, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tom Blood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:BIO, in that no sources exist to establish notability for this person. Tried looking for sources to help expand and save this article, but I am unsuccessful. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Only source links to his web page. Doesn't seem to be notable politically and certainly doesn't meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I just want to point out that his book on Mrs. Albright was reviewed i.e. by [37] ( Jerusalem Post, accessible via HighBeam Research) [38] ( Kirkus Reviews) and [39] ( Publishers Weekly). See also G-books results for metions about the book. His other literary works are less frequently reviewed. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can certainly see the potential for him to be notable under WP:AUTHOR, if the sourcing were substantively improved to cite coverage of his writing, but nothing here gets him over WP:NPOL and nobody ever qualifies for an article on here on the basis of exclusively primary sourcing to their own website. No prejudice against recreation in the future if his career as a writer can be properly sourced, but this version as written is a delete if the sourcing isn't beefed up. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete My god, you need to actually read the reviews, not just cite them. First, Kirkus attempts to review every book published in English and likely to be available to libraries. Their review reads: "A slapdash effort, lacking in critical perspective and reading like a background report for an Albright for President campaign. Blood, a lobbyist and trustee of the Democratic National Committee, is so gushing about his subject that he may have unwittingly created a new phenomenon: damning with great praise." [40] Library Journal also pans it. Publishers weekly reviews about 7K books a year, all offered by the publishers themselves. I don't know what that review says, but generally they are very short (200 words) and are aimed to sell the book. This person is not notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete lack of significant independent coverage. Fails NOTEBLP fails AUTHOR. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (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. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- C. Courtney Joyner ( | 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 author has seen local interest but there are no reliable sources describing his career or his books. The author has not won awards or otherwise become notable.The books have not been bestsellers nor have they won awards. Binksternet ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I was actually fully expecting to find zero sources for this guy, but I did find some stuff out there. He's had more than a few of his audio commentaries get special notice and as a scriptwriter he's been singled out for notice in reviews as well. It's not the strongest sourcing out there, but it shows that his work is notable enough for him to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep, multiple references and publications on this person. Major contributor to the western and horror genres. I could go on and on. Somewhat puzzling as to why this gets a deletion nomination. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC))
- Note: I've struck this comment, as this is a sockpuppet of Electromechanic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment At Tokyogirl79's request leaving this open. I've deleted others by this sock which hadn't had significant edits by anyone else but this one obviously has. Dougweller ( talk) 07:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak/Delete I am not an expert of this subject, but, this person does at least to seem notable. Notable enough for a personal bio/article? I don't think so, but I think some information could be added to a few projects he seems to have been involved in. Orasis ( talk) 08:04, 20 September 2014 (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. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- China Bank Savings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement. has solely primary sources. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge very selectively to Chinabank#Subsidiaries and Affiliates, probably down to only the bare facts in the infobox. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep The article does cite third party sources; will only require some rewriting and removal of promotional phrases. Articles on subsidiaries or affiliate companies offer added traffic to Wikipedia so I am usually against merging. :)-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Of note is that 3PB was moved to Paper Buildings, from where it was nominated for deletion herein, and this AfD discussion was titled "3PB". NorthAmerica 1000 13:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- 3PB ( | 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 set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales defines "chambers" primarily in terms of "a place", I don't think that WP:ORG is applicable, since you are also dealing with the notability of a building. I think it is fairly obvious that "3 Paper Buildings" is an address. A copy of the definition is here. James500 ( talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the context of this article and all the others about sets of chambers, "chambers" are akin to a law firm (even though they are technically not as barristers are self-employed etc) and the articles are written as such, about the chambers fields of expertise etc, so, irrespective of what the CC says, for Wikipedia purposes WP:ORG does apply. We could write articles about all the interesting buildings in the Inns and indeed some exist already ( Temple Church), but they wouldn't need all the guff about the barristers who practice there.-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that they are akin to a "law firm" which I assume means a partnership of solicitors. According to the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services (1979), there had, since 1902, been a rule of conduct prohibiting any practice in the least degree resembling partnership between barristers, though this did not apply in respect of work overseas. Common purse arrangements are not allowed. They do share the services of a clerk (with whom they have an individual relationship) and the expenses of the chambers. They do not share clients, work or profits. In particular, members of the same set can represent both parties in the same case, something that solicitors in partnership are not allowed to do. This information could be out of date by now, but if this set goes back to the nineteenth century, that may not be an issue. James500 ( talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Read my comment more carefully: technically there are not, but in the context Wikikpedia and the way these articles are written, they are. (I know the technicalities, I am a barrister myself, albeit not in private practice).-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am wondering whether we could do something with this. There are quite a few results for "3 Paper Buildings" in GBooks. It seems the building was, for example, formerly the headquarters of MI5: [41]. It seems John Galsworthy had chambers there, and it is where he wrote "Dick Denver's Idea": [42]. And so forth. Perhaps the article could be moved and rewritten. Or perhaps we could do a selective merge of the various chambers into articles on streets. James500 ( talk) 13:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Paper Buildings is red linked at the moment. Perhaps this article could be moved there and broadened out to include the entire street. There is for example a detailed article
here. The Common Bail Office was at 14 Paper Buildings:
[43]. And so forth.
James500 (
talk)
17:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. The article requires further expansion, but should completely immune from deletion in its present form.
James500 (
talk)
20:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Paper Buildings obviously satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I also advise the adoption of a similar solution to the other articles that have been nominated for deletion. The streets are probably notable, and the addresses are plausible redirects. One finds them in lots of sources going back hundreds of years.
James500 (
talk)
21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- 3PB is now a redirect to Paper Buildings. It was originally a redirect to ABC News Radio. James500 ( talk) 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We have a good alternative to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. The abbreviation 3PB doesn't seem to have much competition - the Northrop N-3PB is the closest and still loses out in Google ranking. Andrew ( talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- André Conde ( | 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 music producer from what I can tell is not that notable. Wgolf ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Person in question was unable to meet WP:GNG and therefore pointless to contrast and compare with WP:MUSIC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis ( talk • contribs)
- Delete - not notable. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:25, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chomutov Wind Farm ( | 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 evidence that this wind farm was ever built. No evidence of significant coverage. C 679 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with the nominator. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence that this project, whether planned or built, is or would be notable. AllyD ( talk) 07:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete if we can't even verify it exists, there is no case for notability. LibStar ( talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (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. In addition to the roughly 2–1 split in favor of deletion here, the concerns expressed with respect to BLP, indiscriminateness, and subjectivity do not appear to have been persuasively addressed by the advocates of keeping (even in the light of the move to a different article name). Deor ( talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- List of controversial celebrity baby names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
'Controversial', 'strange', 'weird', etc. are all subjective, if not biased qualifications and cannot be allowed on an encyclopedia( WP:NPOV). According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a fansite- hence listing all baby names from A to Z is beyond our scope. In addition, this list is currently a mess with the creator having abandoned it and other editors taking it over without a clue about the article's scope. There is no agreement on what the article will cover that has not been attempted in other deleted propsals. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This just looks like a random list of celebrities who gave their children unusual names. In addition, not only are the names not controversial, but none of the sources even label any of the names as controversial. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Should I say "self-explanatory" too? No, I will actually explain my position by reference to policy: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". And not only does the nomination not bother to explain itself, it seems quite clear that no consideration has been given to WP:BEFORE. The naming of babies is quite a big deal in the real world and so the topic clearly passes WP:LISTN as there are numerous examples of relevant coverage including:
- I have rarely seen such copious support for a list and the sources seem to agree on the selections:- Moon Unit, Fifi Trixibelle, &c. The only point at issue seems to be the word controversial. This seems a reasonable choice but, if we don't care for it, we can replace it with some alternative, such as exotic or notorious, without having to delete the page; we would just move it to the new title. Andrew ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the policy fully? The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. The boldface is given for a reason. Hence speedy keep does not apply. But it was my mistake for not clearly pointing out that this article is Tabloid journalism, and not fit for Wikipedia. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I read it - I read all policies that I cite quite carefully. The fact that another editor has posted a contrary !vote is no obstacle to mine because the idea is that we provide our separate inputs. The outcome depends upon what the closer makes of the overall consensus. It may be that editors change their !vote after seeing the arguments and evidence. It may be that !votes are discounted for some reason. Our positions are not fixed and so my proposal that the matter should be dismissed peremptorily stands. As for the link to tabloid journalism; you provide no evidence or policy to support this as a valid reason to delete. The first source I provided in the list above is to The Independent which is a high-quality newspaper, not the yellow press. And the other sources are all books. And here's another source: Encyclopedia of Motherhood, which provides a list of such names in its entry on Celebrity Motherhood: "Apple, Elijah Blue, Kal-El, Moon Unit...". This source is an encyclopedia and so the encyclopedic nature of the information is established. Andrew ( talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since someone other than me recommended(through their !vote) that the page be deleted, clearly speedy keep is void. The whole idea of a controversial baby name is biased, so Wikipedia saying in its own voice that these names are controversial is unacceptable. We can discuss somewhere about societal attitudes towards baby names and celebrities flouting them, but listing out self-judged 'controversial' names as a separate article is the height of triviality.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the word controversial to demonstrate the ease with which ordinary editing can address such qualms. The selection of names is not self-judged as these examples all seem well-established in the extensive literature such as the sources listed above. I have started citing these to avoid any doubt on this point too. Again this is ordinary editing and it is our editing policy to improve new articles in this way, not to delete them. Andrew ( talk) 22:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now we have changed the article to 'List of celebrity baby names'- what is the scope of this list? Every celebrity baby name from A to Z? Not only does that change the whole point of this article, even the new article fails under
WP:NOT.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The page is a new one created by a new editor and so is still shaking down. It might help if we had the editor here, participating in the discussion, but perhaps he has now been scared off by this unfriendly proposal. Myself, I have studied numerous sources now and so have a good feel for the topic. There is extensive coverage of celebrity baby names because new parents are especially influenced by them when naming their children. That's why Liam, for example, is now one of the top choices - because of the influence of celebrity Liams like Gallagher and Neeson. In the copious baby name literature, you find three sorts of celebrity name lists. One is what the celebrities are called themselves. Another is what the celebrities are calling their children in general. And the third are lists of celebrity baby names which are considered to be especially bizarre or weird. The idea here seems to be to compile a list of the oddball names and this seems quite easy to do because the sources generally agree on what they are. Andrew ( talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note that we already have extensive coverage of baby names on pages like category:Given names and List of most popular given names and there are countless pages for particular aspects and details such as the Icelandic Naming Committee and Germanic personal names in Galicia. The page we have here seems comparatively straightforward. Andrew ( talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- But the author only meant controversial names, while you have changed the nature of the article itself (without hearing his opinion on it, I might add). If we really cover all celebrity baby names from all over the world, the list should run into the thousands. Can you prove that this is not in violation of
WP:NOT? We may have to include ancient celebrities if we want to avoid
WP:Recentism. While most celebrities are
WP:Notable for Wikipedia, their babies are not per se, leave alone their names.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is your proposal and so you're the one with a case to make. Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, if you think WP:NOT applies then you need to explain how and why. What I'm seeing there is WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Given this, the size of the list is not currently a problem nor is it likely to be. Andrew ( talk) 10:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It is also not a fansite. If this article's purpose is to record fancy baby names, there are other wikis out there for it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no reason to make such a list.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- A speedy keep in this case is inappropriate for a lot of reasons. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It is also not a fansite. If this article's purpose is to record fancy baby names, there are other wikis out there for it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no reason to make such a list.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- But the author only meant controversial names, while you have changed the nature of the article itself (without hearing his opinion on it, I might add). If we really cover all celebrity baby names from all over the world, the list should run into the thousands. Can you prove that this is not in violation of
WP:NOT? We may have to include ancient celebrities if we want to avoid
WP:Recentism. While most celebrities are
WP:Notable for Wikipedia, their babies are not per se, leave alone their names.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since someone other than me recommended(through their !vote) that the page be deleted, clearly speedy keep is void. The whole idea of a controversial baby name is biased, so Wikipedia saying in its own voice that these names are controversial is unacceptable. We can discuss somewhere about societal attitudes towards baby names and celebrities flouting them, but listing out self-judged 'controversial' names as a separate article is the height of triviality.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Firstly there is a serious WP:BLP problem here. Controversial babies, anyone? Secondly, it is the articles in the press which are notable, not the subject matter. So a list of articles that mention the names of the children might be notable, but an extrapolation of that information is WP:SYNTH, as per this article, and is not acceptable. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Extrapolation? Synthesis? What is the synthetic proposition which the sources do not state? Andrew ( talk) 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. If you don't understand me you should read (and understand) the guideline WP:SYNTH! Now the article has been been renamed I trust you are not going to omit any celebrity baby names, Andrew? Sean? Zak? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're ducking the question and so your objection is still just a vague wave: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Andrew ( talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to duck the question, I am trying to avoid repeating myself. But as you insist on me supplying an analysis of the content of
WP:SYNTH in the hope I will either go away, or better still, change my mind, here goes :-
- The taking to two concepts and merging them into a thought, an article or a list (as in this case) is original thought. I have no doubt that there are lists of "celebrities who give their children extraordinary names" and I have chuckled at them myself, but to take the "concept" of a list and to create an article is a stage too far. Even the supporters of this article agree with me when they need to ask "Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name" If the question needs to be asked then there is a complete failure of a number of policies and guidelines including OR, Synth, opinion and probably others.
- Of course you knew this before and the vague wave is yours. Cheers. I have no need to respond again. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postcript comment. If my argument wasn't going to carry much weight at the closure of the AfD, why ask me to improve it if you are on the opposing side? (rhetorical question, no need to respond). -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The general point to be aware of is that WP:SYN is a quite narrow and specific complaint, not some general catch-all which can be used againts any list that you don't happen to like. Please see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not for more details. Andrew ( talk) 08:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Query - Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Beats me. I have the same question about "Apple", "Justice" and "Cruz". They may all be unusual but here, the trouble is 'controversial'. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've been working down the list and hadn't got to Ford yet. There's some coverage out there for this baby's name, which is Robert Ford, in full. This discusses why the name was chosen and how popular it is but there's no indication that it is thought to be especially bizarre or weird. Apple, on the other hand, shows up in just about every list of strange celebrity baby names and that's why the entry now has six citations and counting. So, this is easily addressed by by ordinary editing - Apple stays in and Ford comes out. We have to do this kind of maintenance for every list of any size. It's not a reason to delete. Andrew ( talk) 07:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If reliable sources cover and comment on the strange names, then its notable. The article should be titled "unusual" baby names, not controversial. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adjectives like 'strange' violate
WP:NPOV.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not it doesn't. Look at the references. "The most unusual celebrity baby names", "Some of the oddest celebrity baby names", "Notorious Celebrity Baby Names", "The best of the unique", "Bold Baby Names", "whacky names". If reliable sources use these names, so can we. Dream Focus 02:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adjectives like 'strange' violate
WP:NPOV.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Delete a collection of povs and numerous personal opinions. A cited one, perhaps, but not a suitable article. All the issues of a list like worst films without the superlative that gives a discretional ability and the notability of an actual ranking system. The exact same arguments being used here could be used for lists of celebrities with bad plastic surgery or ugly tattoos -- just because something has articles about it does not mean it is suitable for an article .-- Yaksar (let's chat) 03:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is a noted and familiar phenomenon as evidenced by social commentary in reliable sources of which Wikipedia keeps track. Wikipedia editors have discretion on what to include or not based on the criteria, disagreement over individual entries can be worked out on the talk page. -- Green C 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- keep -- the sources make it clear that notability is not in question. What's needed is a more developed intro that expands on the phenomenon itself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Sourced, discussed, can have reliable objective criteria, thus notable and good to stay.-- cyclopia speak! 09:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Plenty of secondary sources, also - not "self-explanatory" at all. Zambelo; talk 10:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on the phenomenon of certain celebrities choosing unusual names for their children would be supportable, but not this list. The people listed in this article are private individuals and should be granted a presumption of privacy; it is not the job of an encyclopedia to point and laugh at them for a characteristic they did not choose. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well put! Jayakumar RG ( talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete: Per WP:IINFO. Another one of these lists with "unusual" or "controversial" in the title that needs to die. What is "unusual" or "controversial" is subjective and open to disagreement. If a list has an adjective in its title, it should be something like "first", "longest", etc. p b p 14:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Superlatives (biggest, longest) are also inherently subjective. How do you define the length of a bridge? The part over water, the part over land+water, etc.. there is disagreement about this. How one defines things determines how things are measured and very often there is disagreement and subjective opinion. We simply report what sources say, we don't determine on our own which bridge is longest. The same here, we report what sources say and don't worry that they are subjective, because they always are. If you seek absolute truth with no subjectivity in the sources then most of human culture (and much else besides) would be excluded from Wikipedia. --
Green
C
16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:IINFO specifically relates to fiction/lyrics/stats/software versions. It is not a catch-all for anything that one doesn't happen to like or disapproves of. Andrew ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cardamon, the subjectivity of this list is nothing like the subjectivity (of which there really isn't any) of bridges lists. If there are 3 or 4 different ways of measuring a bridge, you can just have different lists for each way to measure a bridge, or you can combine the 3 or 4 different ways to measure a bridge into a sortable wikitable. You can't do that with this list. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Superlatives (biggest, longest) are also inherently subjective. How do you define the length of a bridge? The part over water, the part over land+water, etc.. there is disagreement about this. How one defines things determines how things are measured and very often there is disagreement and subjective opinion. We simply report what sources say, we don't determine on our own which bridge is longest. The same here, we report what sources say and don't worry that they are subjective, because they always are. If you seek absolute truth with no subjectivity in the sources then most of human culture (and much else besides) would be excluded from Wikipedia. --
Green
C
16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with 2/0 and other delete arguments. The list can do more harm than good, in my opinion, there are other sources more suitable than Wikipedia for readers interested in that kind of information. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- This information is covered in numerous other sources, as the references show. The fact that the information is reported elsewhere is exactly what makes it notable and so that's a reason to keep it, not to delete it. Andrew ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- you misunderstand me, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient argument on its own for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many things that can be read in multiple sources and still should not be included in an encyclopedia. In my personal opinion this classifies as a clear example, specially since it could be potentially damaging to people involved. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: It is obvious the creator of the article, User:FordNixon, is trolling us. Now, please, don't tell me "AGF"; because its painfully obvious. He's dragged good and well-meaning editors into it as a result. I'm sure Ford is a consummate gentleman, you may peruse his diligent offerings since he joined us earlier this month. This is the kind of list certain to create drama, because you have the intersection of "reliable sources" pumping out puff pieces on this very topic vs. the fact that such lists are super silly. Should we really have stupid lists? No. Can it be hard to draw the line between stupid and worthy of keeping. Yes. Add drama and stir.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think ForNixon is a troll. Are you a troll? --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. The joke about "Ford" above tells you I'm not alone in my thinking.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- What joke? The user in question is User:FordDixon not FordNixon. Their other contributions such as 2005 Rally Japan seem quite sedate. Compare this with dog daycare, List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure or Pizza cheese. Milowent used to be proud of such whimsical topics. What happened? Andrew ( talk) 08:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm proud of all those! Claudius Gele which he also created was very inspired, but I'm not sure how intentionally. There's a difference between those notable creations I have worked on and subjects and List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants. The subject has to be definable.-- Milowent • has spoken 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. The joke about "Ford" above tells you I'm not alone in my thinking.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think ForNixon is a troll. Are you a troll? --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note - I assume that we're all going to be more than happy about the fact that Barack Obama needs to be included on this list since apparently multiple reliable sources calling a name "funny" is enough to justify a list like this. And yes, his father counts as a notable figure. Or that foreign names like Krishna or Indio must be counted as weird because, hey, sources refer to them as strange, and we therefore absolutely must have an article.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Barack's name would obviously be silly. If some insisted we would have a discussion on the talk page, and we would work out by consensus if the name should be included or not. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is under editorial control, there is no automatic inclusion. --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was kidding about Obama, but totally serious about the racist issues this article is going to suffer from (and all articles that are nothing more than a synthesis of non notable opinions on non notable people will suffer from). When numerous sources call a bridge the longest in the world, or a building the tallest, or a celebrity a catholic, a discussion on inclusion would be actually based on sources. In this case, it would simply be nothing but "I don't like it's".-- Yaksar (let's chat) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Barack's name would obviously be silly. If some insisted we would have a discussion on the talk page, and we would work out by consensus if the name should be included or not. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is under editorial control, there is no automatic inclusion. --
Green
C
17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question Aren't most of these items violations of WP:BLPNAME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and therefore need to be removed? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - As a general rule, list articles on Wikipedia are lists of links to Wikipedia articles, and given WP:NOTINHERITED, those who are merely children of the famous generally do not get articles. Some of the supposedly unusual names here aren't unusual; more than one in a thousand baby girls in the US are being named Brooklyn putting it in the top 30 baby names, about one in four thousand boys are being named Romeo, relatively the same for Cruz; if someone deems them strange, that would be an opinion, and something that should not be in Wikipedia's voice. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are defining a disambiguation page, there is nor requirement for lists to have links,a dn ayway there are links to the parents. There are several lists of mayors of townships, ceos of companies, where no one is notable, but the topic is notable. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete the fact that these childrens' parents have made naming decisions we don't like doesn't mean we can drag them through the mud. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified. We have better things to do. We also should not be listing celebrity's children's names: there is no reason to do so. Drmies ( talk) 00:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - For multiple reasons. Yes, celebrities give their children odd names with some frequency, but I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's job to catalog them in alphabetical order. The biggest problem is the subjective nature of what constitutes an "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" name for a child. Opinions will differ. At another level, I believe there is a
WP:NPOV violation for the inclusion of any name that is not characterized as "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" in the mainstream media, and compiling such a list borders on original research per
WP:OR. Then there's Dr. Mies' non-policy reason given immediately above: "Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified." I agree with that, too.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
00:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be policy. (Incidentally, I just noticed that WP:HOTTIE was deleted...) Drmies ( talk) 05:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete for almost to many reasons to list them all; everyone else has done so above. Serious WP:BLP issues; unless public figures in their own right, these children have a right to privacy. List is indiscriminate; the world is filled with lists of things based on the authors own criteria; that these lists exists doesn't mean we need to repeat these lists here. Wikipedia does not benefit for this list; if people need to read lists like this, I see no reason to stop them from finding them elsewhere. -- Jayron 32 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as calling violating the general rule about not mentioning the names of children who can not "inherit notability" in the first place, and where we deprecate using such names in BLPs. Secondly, as requiring a valuation essentially in Wikipedia's voice that the names are "controversial." For example, why would "Apple" be controversial"? It may be unusual, but "controversial? Nope. Sorry -- the list criteria are arbitrary at best, thus the list fails. Collect ( talk) 01:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The page in question doesn't use the word "controversial" and so this indicates that the !voter hasn't read it. What we have now is a flurry of censorious comments which have arisen since the matter was canvassed on the BLP noticeboard. The fact that entire books are written about the topic is ignored and personal, kneejerk opinions are deployed without any reference to the evidence. Andrew ( talk) 08:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The title contained the word 'controversial', so you just went and removed that word from the title. But the contents of the page remained as such. If I had known that there was such a simple solution for the problem, I would have tried it too! Jayakumar RG ( talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)It did until you removed it on 20 Sep at 21:55. 15 hours after this AfD was started, and the redirect using "controversial" is still in full force and vigour. I take it that you feel Wikipedia's voice for saying "unusual, odd, notorious, unique, whacky, bold, or other such terminology" cured the problem? It doesn't - "notorious" and "whacky" are fully as "controversial" as one might wish. By the way, attacking other opinions as "kneejerk opinions" rarely makes the closer value your opinions more highly here.
Collect (
talk)
11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The words such as unusual and odd are taken from independent external sources and so are not a Wikipedia invention. Other words, such as stupid and trolling, are used here by the nay-sayers expressing their personal opinions. This is the essential difference - what do the sources say? Andrew ( talk) 12:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – This is an indiscriminate list of unrelated information stitched together with no clear definition. Academically, there is no study of this information, and presenting it as a meaningful whole is weirdly misleading OR. It drains credibility from the project to host such a weed garden of embarrassingly weak sources. Delete, and salt. SteveStrummer ( talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The WP:AFD page clearly states:
- While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
Collect (
talk)
11:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not prohibited because it's not a problem. There used to be some technical issues but Uncle G and other veteran admins fixed them many years ago.
Andrew (
talk)
12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We spent a lot of time and effort explaining to people that they couldn't do it, back in the years where it broke the notice, and a fair amount of effort getting rid of the technical problem that prevented it. I don't want to go back to the times when I had to explain over and over to people who just wanted to edit like they normally could, addressing points raised in discussion with action, that an AFD nomination imposes restrictions whose technicalities they have to understand. We managed to get the restrictions down to, in effect, don't do anything that would remove/hide the AFD notice or that would make cleaning up copyright licence problems at the close of discussion harder, and that was a good thing.
— Uncle G, 17 November 2010
- It's not prohibited because it's not a problem. There used to be some technical issues but Uncle G and other veteran admins fixed them many years ago.
Andrew (
talk)
12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
Collect (
talk)
11:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, the vast majority of items will need to be removed per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - very few babies are 'celebrities', and I can see no evidence that more than a small minority of those listed meet Wikipedia notability criteria (notability not being inherited). Of those that are notable, their notability has nothing to do with their name. An unencyclopeadic list of vacuous trivia selected by arbitrary criteria, mostly concerning individuals that WP:BLP policy (and notability policy in general) says we shouldn't be discussing at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - "strange" or "unusual" is not the same thing as "controversial". According to whom? A random gossip "journalist" who decided to name her children Steven, Simon and Samuel instead? Some of them aren't even "uncommon" let alone "unusual" or "controversial" (which, as I say, is a significant step further). Banjo? Lennox? Rhiannon and Romeo? The new title, " List of celebrity baby names" just turns this into a list of children of notable people, few of whom are notable in their own right which just creates a WP:BLP issue. St★lwart 111 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but possibly rename, as suggested above, per WP:ODD. At this moment, the list is self-limiting. Bearian ( talk) 13:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sure there are names that are controversial. This is a BLP disaster though. Ladyof Shalott 14:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep! And here's why. I thought that since there are lists on people from Newfoundland, people of Korean descent and people who disappeared mysteriously, I thought it was a good idea to make an article on people who have been given controversial names by celebrities. I still think it was a good idea. Some of the problems listed in the discussion have been fixed by other users (such as the citation of the sources), while I've added a link to Celebrity to solve the orphan problem. FordDixon ( talk) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you see, 'controversial' is no longer in the picture.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- That may be so, but the original page still redirects to the current version. Maybe we could rename the page "List of notable celebrity baby names?" It still shows that the names that are controversial without using the word "controversial."
FordDixon (
talk)
15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the article title doesn't alter the fact that it violates WP:BLP policy by listing non-notable individuals. And violates WP:NPOV policy by asserting as fact that these individuals have 'controversial' names based on opinions expressed in particular sources clearly cherry-picked for this specific opinion (or rather, for an opinion which our article decides fits self-invented criteria as 'controversial'). Incidentally, the title is also entirely inappropriate in that it describes adults as 'babies'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- That may be so, but the original page still redirects to the current version. Maybe we could rename the page "List of notable celebrity baby names?" It still shows that the names that are controversial without using the word "controversial."
FordDixon (
talk)
15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you see, 'controversial' is no longer in the picture.
Jayakumar RG (
talk)
14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Most of these items on this list are violations of WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, most of it will need to be cut out leaving it just a stub. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep notable by every standard, only a BLP problem if we have biographical information in the list, and there is none. We do not give their age or date of birth or where they were born, all the things that private people need to keep private. Change to "List of unusual celebrity baby names". -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unusual is still something that generally reflects an opinion, rather than an actual factual analysis (and "odd" would be even more so). It is not a claim we should be making in Wikipedia voice, any more than we should have a list of shitty movies or list of people with nice haircuts... only to even a greater degree, as this list is largely a ridiculing of specific children. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would note that we do actually have a page at
List of films considered the worst. However, this is a page with a clearly stated requirement that multiple movie critics, whose opinions we consider notable in determining a film's reception, have called a specific film the "worst" of all time. There's actually very little subjective interpretation here, unlike this article, which would be more like an article just called "List of bad movies" or "List of weird movies".--
Yaksar
(let's chat)
17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- As explained above, just about everything in human affairs is subjective. A better precedent for unusual is the list of unusual deaths. External media have praised the page as one of Wikipedia's finest and so it has withstood numerous AFDs. This case seems quite similar in that we have numerous external sources which enable us to determine what is or isn't considered unusual. Andrew ( talk) 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those sources deserve no space in this project at all. They are throwaway pablum, as could only be expected from such a juvenile "topic". SteveStrummer ( talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- We should only cover highbrow topics like Suzy Saxon and the Anglos, eh? de gustibus non est disputandum Andrew ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- They're not as good as The Anemic Boyfriends, but at least they are a definable entity.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would note that we do actually have a page at
List of films considered the worst. However, this is a page with a clearly stated requirement that multiple movie critics, whose opinions we consider notable in determining a film's reception, have called a specific film the "worst" of all time. There's actually very little subjective interpretation here, unlike this article, which would be more like an article just called "List of bad movies" or "List of weird movies".--
Yaksar
(let's chat)
17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, as Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Andrew have argued, this has as much merit as other lists of unusual whatever. BLP issues can be avoided. And yes, rename it to "unusual", not "controversial". Edwardx ( talk) 21:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete- What makes a name "unusual" or "controversial" is a subjective opinion, making this list inherently fail the WP:NPOV and [WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] policies. Where sources are cited, these are generally pretty crappy; someone above me called "throwaway pabulum", which is a fitting description. No source treats the topic as a topic, as opposed to just listing some alleged examples. Finally, I think some weight has to be given to WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE arguments. Reyk YO! 22:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a list, not a narrative topic, and fully satisfies the guidance of WP:LISTN. But if we want some more detailed analysis, there are good sources which for that too. For example, A Matter of Taste develops a theory of fashion from the study of names and naturally includes the influence of celebrity naming in this. Papers such as Identifying the Presence and Cause of Fashion Cycles in the Choice of Given Names then build on this. Andrew ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Eh? WP:LISTN says that the topic needs to be covered as a group in reliable sources, which is exactly my point. Whether it's a narrative article or not does not enter into it. Reyk YO! 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The name that the reliable sources use can be "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre", break out your thesaurus. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
00:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sources cited may possibly be 'reliable'. They are however specifically selected to promote a particular opinion - that the names of these largely non-notable individuals are "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre". Cherry-picking sources to promote a particular opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and listing non-notable individuals because a cherry-picked sources consider their names as "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre" is a violation of WP:BLP policy.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Performing a Google search is cherry-picking? Then every search for every fact is cherry picking. While "unusual" and "best" and "worst" are subjective opinions, we can have a consensus of opinions. We have
List of films considered the best and
List of films considered the worst. Both are top read articles. While the list may not seem encyclopedic, we aren't just an encyclopedia, we are a reference work. We are a biographical dictionary, an almanac, and a gazetteer, all in one. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'A consensus of opinions'? The only 'consensus' that the article demonstrates is that cherry-picked sources sometimes agree with each other - which is unsurprising, since they were selected for their POV. And as for your suggestion as to what else Wikipedia is other than an encyclopaedia, it is not only a questionable assertion (you cite no policy or guideline), but is also utterly irrelevant, since such publications don't include facile opinionated lists concerning the names of the offspring of 'celebrities.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- An example of explicitly encyclopedic coverage has already been provided above - the Encyclopedia of Motherhood. Other sources provided include the quality press and academic works. It seems clear that the matter is well covered across a variety and number of sources. In trying to deny this you seem to be representing your own personal opinion, unsupported by fact or evidence. This does not seem to be a neutral position and, with insults such as facile, seems both uncivil and contrary to policy. As for cherry-picking, if you think there's some large body of coverage about the topic which has not been represented in a proportionate way, then again we need to see some evidence of this. Your personal opinion is insufficient because this is not a vote. Andrew ( talk) 13:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The ' explicitly encyclopedic coverage' you cite is a piece criticising 'celebrity mothers' for multiple supposed transgressions, which mentions in passing "outlandish, often embarrassing" names given to children, and gives a few examples of such (without surnames). It is absolutely not an encyclopaedia article on the topic of 'celebrity baby names', and therefore cannot be cited as evidence that an encyclopaedia should include a list of 'List of unusual celebrity baby names'. And yes the list under discussion in this AfD is facile and unencyclopaedic, and I am expressing my opinion that Wikipedia should not include facile unencyclopaedic content - if the people promoting such facile unencyclopaedic content chose to see my advocacy of the stated objectives of an online encyclopaedia as a 'personal attack' that is their problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- That encyclopedia presents the matter in the context of a wider topic - celebrity motherhood. It is not a passing mention in the sense of being tangential because naming the child is a proper part of the larger topic and so satisfies WP:SIGCOV. If we were to follow their example, then we would expand the topic to cover celebrity motherhood or celebrity parenthood and notice that these are both red links. Such development is the proper way forward, per our editing policy; deletion is not. Andrew ( talk) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a single sentence. As for an article on 'celebrity parenthood', that is not the topic of this AfD, and accordingly our opinions on the merits of such an article are irrelevant - I can see nothing in Wikipedia policy that suggests that a hypothetical claim that an article could be expanded to cover another topic entirely would be a legitimate reason not to delete otherwise unacceptable content. If you want to create such an article, feel free to do so - assuming you can find the necessary sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'A consensus of opinions'? The only 'consensus' that the article demonstrates is that cherry-picked sources sometimes agree with each other - which is unsurprising, since they were selected for their POV. And as for your suggestion as to what else Wikipedia is other than an encyclopaedia, it is not only a questionable assertion (you cite no policy or guideline), but is also utterly irrelevant, since such publications don't include facile opinionated lists concerning the names of the offspring of 'celebrities.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Performing a Google search is cherry-picking? Then every search for every fact is cherry picking. While "unusual" and "best" and "worst" are subjective opinions, we can have a consensus of opinions. We have
List of films considered the best and
List of films considered the worst. Both are top read articles. While the list may not seem encyclopedic, we aren't just an encyclopedia, we are a reference work. We are a biographical dictionary, an almanac, and a gazetteer, all in one. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sources cited may possibly be 'reliable'. They are however specifically selected to promote a particular opinion - that the names of these largely non-notable individuals are "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre". Cherry-picking sources to promote a particular opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and listing non-notable individuals because a cherry-picked sources consider their names as "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre" is a violation of WP:BLP policy.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. -- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Although it is quite interesting, it isn't very objective or a suitable item for inclusion. Looks more like Buzzfeed than Wikipedia.. Shritwod ( talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Indiscriminate list of trivia with no objective criteria and also a BLP landmine. I can't see lists of this nature having any sort of encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:23, 26 September 2014 (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 Redirect to Sun TV Network. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Surya Music ( | 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 no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to Sun TV Network. Cult of Green ( talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sun TV Network. No sources to assert notability by itself. Not every service or product a company sells is notable. -- Alexf (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect - as @ Alexf: suggested. — CutestPenguin Hangout 13:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:36, 20 September 2014 (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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Zhang Peng (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Chinese)
Appears to be a Chinese artist. Tagged for unclear notability for over six years.Sources are not independent. Google produces primarily his social media. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep notable individual showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources (see references). The Saatchi Gallery (one of the top private galleries in London) owns works by Zhang and he has featured in exhibitions across the world per WP:ARTIST. Quite why the nominator thinks that the sources are not independent is puzzling to say the least. Philg88 ♦ talk 08:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Thanks for locating his Chinese name! WP:ARTIST seems to be met. However, I'm not able to find more Chinese sources for this artist. One problem is that the name "張鵬" is too common. I try to add some definitions, but nothing useful turns up. ( [44] [45]) Ref 4 in the article says he has held a exhibition at the Museum Of Contemporary Art in Shanghai. As a Shanghainese, I've never heard of that. Further more, this search gives nothing.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:ARTIST he is in the permanent collections of the Saatchi Gallery, London and the Klein Sun Gallery, New York. Philg88 ♦ talk 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦ talk 09:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:33, 20 September 2014 (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. G12 Ronhjones (Talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Foysol Hussain Choudhury ( | 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 article is essentially a press release for local figure wit no elected positions. MBE is not sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Copyvio from http://www.linkedin.com/pub/foysol-choudhury-mbe/59/872/803. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:24, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ladi Ajiboye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, Ajiboye has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources; the coverage that has been found relates to his suspension from the team for a marijuana infraction which raises BLP1E issues. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy specific notability guidelines for college football players per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), nor professional players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in the NFL or other major pro league). Analysis under the general notability guidelines is a closer call, but my review of 230+ Google results suggests the overwhelming majority of coverage is discounted because it's not independent (teams, leagues, etc.), not reliable/professional (blogs, fan sites, reader-contributed material), trivial or WP:ROUTINE or otherwise heavily discounted (usual post-game coverage, transactions, recruiting, etc.). As noted by Cbl63 above, the only thing resembling "significant coverage" arose from his suspension for getting caught buying marijuana, and we can safely ignore that per the one-event rule of WP:BLP1E. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:46, 27 September 2014 (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 Redirect to Clayhill. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Ted Barnes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · (2nd_nomination) Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (I think). All links seem to point to simple fact that he wrote 3 songs for Beth Orton, which seems to be only primary claim of notability, which I don't think is enough. scope_creep 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- As the nom created this on the first afd page - I've had to set up this page so apologies if i've messed anything up or missed anything off of here, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Second time nomination for delete. Now looking for a WP:SALT. scope_creep talk 11:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment -about the Ted Barnes article - I started it because I heard a couple of pieces on radio and thought them good, that's all really - the presenter said he worked with beth Orton and such and I thought he sounded notable -I didn't realize there was an article called Clayhill (when I first had the inspiration I mean, to create the article) either that covers much of the notable work - so if it is deleted I think that's probably right after all. I haven't quite the heart to vote delete however as I don't think the article is too utterly preposterous and undue to include on its own. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Clayhill for now. That article doesn't really show much evidence of notability either, but if the band is notable, redirecting the members that are not individually notable thereto is reasonable. I'd also support a "delete and redirect" to clarify that we should not have an article on Barnes himself if something should happen to the Clayhill article. Huon ( talk) 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:08, 20 September 2014 (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 redirect to By2 discography. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- NC 16 (By2 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)
Fails WP:MUSIC. No references. Blocked editor. scope_creep talk 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. If the nom had followed WP:BEFORE -- something he seems to ignore, generally -- he'd have seen that this is an album from a notable band, from which five singles made the top ten of a national chart, something that's a prima facie pass on WP:MUSIC. The article is unsourced, but that should've been handled with tagging to start, and I wonder what steps the nom took to source it, as WP:BEFORE requires be done before a nomination is made. From someone who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this level of omission is inexplicable. Ravenswing 10:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to By2 discography. This is nothing more than a track list. There's no such thing as prima facie pass without reliable sources. WP:MUSIC criteria is regarding music artists not albums. Chart information is much more succintly covered in the discography already. If actual coverage of the album itself (production, reviews, etc.) can be found and added into the article for an actual stub and not just a track list, it would be very easy to do so. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to By2 discography. Lack of coverage, lack of content. Ravenswing did not choose to tell as which charts or which songs either here or in the article, but the discography which has more information on the album than this article, shows that it was the Gaon Korean chart, although none made #1. Taiwan and other charts are not listed. The citation given for the Gaon Korean chart is a deadlink. The article indicates that the Goan webpage was accessed 14 February 2012, that date was not archived, but the archive for 19 Jan 2012 and 8 April 2012 do not list either the album or the band or any of the singles. Since the singles were released April–July 2008 why would they chart only briefly in Feb. 2012, and not January or April? Anyway, lacking access to the old chart, I was unable to verify the single charting. lastly, even if notable, there is no reason to duplicate the By2 discography article, so a redirect is appropriate. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Stefan Junestrand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Page has been copied verbatim from supposed cv, majority of sources are damaged. No evidence presented that the man is recognized expert. Can't find anything on Google Sweden. scope_creep 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you can't find anything on Google Sweden because he works in Spain, see the sources here ( Radio Nacional de España among others). -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The references are deceptive because they are references, for example, to the University he attended, not to any resources about him. The only resource that I see that might be significant is an article in a trade magazine. However, that would not be enough to establish notability, IMO. The various interviews and recorded panel discussion (a total of 4 on the media page, including a 2.5 minute Youtube videa) do not establish notability. LaMona ( talk) 02:09, 26 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Bjarni Salvarsson ( | 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 fictional character that is unsure how he is notable if all. Wgolf ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:02, 20 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dan Sebring ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sebring is now in his fourth campaign for Congress, yet there is almost no coverage of him in reliable sources. Of the 9 references listed on his page at the moment, 3 are links to lists of candidates or election results; one is to the Leadership Institute PAC, which isn't a reliable source; one is to the blog straightforwardwisconsin, which is also not a reliable source; one is behind a paywall; and the final three offer routine coverage - one for each of his last three runs. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as an unelected candidate who has received nothing more than the most routine of coverage - 4 sources for his 4 campaigns over the last six years.
Although the article has already been nominated for deletion and was closed as "keep", the arguments used in favour of keeping the page were faulty. For example, "I'm sure that more reliable sources exist" (they don't) and "Anyone notable enough to by a major party candidate in a two-party system for a national office such as a seat in the US House of Representatives) should be consider suitable for an article". WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted". Tiller54 ( talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with nominator. I tried to do some work on this article in the past, but did not find any "notable" coverage, as nominator describes. * Seen a Mike * 00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Under WP:NPOL, unelected candidates for office do not get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just for being candidates. Rather, with rare exceptions for a candidate who busts way outside of the WP:ROUTINE level of local media coverage that is expected for all candidates in an election ( Christine O'Donnell being the canonical example that I always point to of how this is possible), a candidate who was not already notable enough to pass a different inclusion standard before he became a candidate does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election — and nothing written or sourced here demonstrates that he's passed the high bar necessary to qualify for the exception. As written, this is effectively just a campaign brochure — which is exactly the kind of content that our notability standards for politicians, as well as policies like WP:NOTADVERTISING, are designed to weed out of Wikipedia. He'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, certainly, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not-notable candidate with trivial coverage. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (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. Deor ( talk) 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- SAE Agricultural Machinery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small Italian company ( 12 employees) not relevant due to the production of common products. Likely product promotional page. НУРшЯGIO( beware of the moose) 21:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 12. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 21:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company of no evident notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, this is an ad, not an encyclopædia article. Fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adrián Cubas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From what I can tell-has yet to play a full season so does not go into wiki soccer status yet
Wgolf (
talk)
04:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This confirms that he has made three appearances in the Argentine First Division, meaning the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - per Sir Sputnik. Footballers don't necessarily have to play a full season. The fact that he already made three appearances in the Argentine Primera Division means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and just needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael ( talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn-I really got this wrong-I was thinking based off the page that he was not even a pro player yet. Userfy is needed then. Wgolf ( talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quotaism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure neologism used by South African white activists and pushed here by a tiny handful of s.p.a.s. whose NPOV is conspicuously absent. Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Surely the origins of the contributor should not be the grounds for deletion. I believe the facts are accurate and rational. DV76 ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete My numerous newspaper and magazine searches, US, internationally, India, and elsewhere, don't turn up any sources discussing the term in depth. There are a few scattered mentions on the web, but my sense is the term is not crystal clear, and is really a rather awkward vague way of saying "a quota-based system" or somesuch. In searches of Google books, there are some mentions, but not in depth. If we search for even a dictionary definition of 'quotaism', we're redirect to 'quota'. The lack of reliable references here suggests the article is mostly
original research, and should either be deleted or else redirected to
quota.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
12:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will concede the English references are short & sweet (but still clear enough). In SA its mainly referred to as “Proportional representation” or “Absolute representation”, but I couldn’t find any good English references. It’s mainly the Afrikaans media reporting on this. Redirecting to
Quota would void it of all meaning (to wide), renaming would be a better option. Any suggesting?
DV76 (
talk)
14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes if the term is popular in South Africa, find South African newspapers, magazines and news sources (TV & radio). Next, assemble them into a search string like this (but with S.African news sources of course) -- (site:theguardian.com OR site:france24.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:cnn.com/world OR site:chinadaily.com OR site:canada.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:iht.com OR site:theage.com.au OR site:iol.co.za/the-star OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:jpost.com OR site:irishtimes.com OR site:economist.com). So into your browser put Quotaism followed by the search string (which acts as a filter). So you'll have a long search string to put into your browser bar. That might lead you to good sources. If found, rewrite the article but only using the sourced content -- remove any non-RS sources (blogs, promotional sites etc). If you need my help let me know.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-
A rose by any other name ... – Sadly, it seems the media don’t use the text book term Quotaism directly, then again I am hopeful the textbooks resources trumps news articles. I added a few more reference from reputable news sites for support. - Half the problem it’s a new social phenomenon. The Textbook refs are from the 80’s and 90’s and the supporting news article are only starting to emerge in the last 10 years.
DV76 (
talk)
00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you'd like the article to stay, consider removing references which are not considered reliable, and especially remove ones which don't use the exact word 'Quotaism' in it, since what happens when Wikipedians, having to slog through non-references, get annoyed and bored and are more likely to vote 'delete'. Consider removing article content which is not referenced, in the sense of less is more. If you fix up the article I may change my vote but right now I have other stuff I'm interested in working on.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Quotaism and “Absolute representation” are the same subject matter, interchangeable term if you like (depending on the audience). Would adding the line: “Quotaism is often referred to as ‘Absolute representation’ “ help.
DV76 (
talk)
10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish the article to try to stay, fix it first as I suggested in the previous paragraph. Trying to link a non-notable term such as Quotaism to another term such as Absolute representation, well, is that a term in use either? A quick search of selected newspapers internationally
here suggests the term is not used much. If you find sources for Quotaism and fix the article, I'll change my vote to keep, but my guess is that such an effort is likely to be unproductive.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct. I tried myself. - The subject matter is still evolving and will take a while before it penetrates the international media. I hear the trade unions are planning to take their case to the UN, maybe then we will have good solid sources. - For now, striping it back to the basic definition may be the best cause of action. - Many thanks for your assistants. DV76 ( talk) 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish the article to try to stay, fix it first as I suggested in the previous paragraph. Trying to link a non-notable term such as Quotaism to another term such as Absolute representation, well, is that a term in use either? A quick search of selected newspapers internationally
here suggests the term is not used much. If you find sources for Quotaism and fix the article, I'll change my vote to keep, but my guess is that such an effort is likely to be unproductive.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Quotaism and “Absolute representation” are the same subject matter, interchangeable term if you like (depending on the audience). Would adding the line: “Quotaism is often referred to as ‘Absolute representation’ “ help.
DV76 (
talk)
10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you'd like the article to stay, consider removing references which are not considered reliable, and especially remove ones which don't use the exact word 'Quotaism' in it, since what happens when Wikipedians, having to slog through non-references, get annoyed and bored and are more likely to vote 'delete'. Consider removing article content which is not referenced, in the sense of less is more. If you fix up the article I may change my vote but right now I have other stuff I'm interested in working on.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
-
A rose by any other name ... – Sadly, it seems the media don’t use the text book term Quotaism directly, then again I am hopeful the textbooks resources trumps news articles. I added a few more reference from reputable news sites for support. - Half the problem it’s a new social phenomenon. The Textbook refs are from the 80’s and 90’s and the supporting news article are only starting to emerge in the last 10 years.
DV76 (
talk)
00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes if the term is popular in South Africa, find South African newspapers, magazines and news sources (TV & radio). Next, assemble them into a search string like this (but with S.African news sources of course) -- (site:theguardian.com OR site:france24.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:cnn.com/world OR site:chinadaily.com OR site:canada.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:iht.com OR site:theage.com.au OR site:iol.co.za/the-star OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:jpost.com OR site:irishtimes.com OR site:economist.com). So into your browser put Quotaism followed by the search string (which acts as a filter). So you'll have a long search string to put into your browser bar. That might lead you to good sources. If found, rewrite the article but only using the sourced content -- remove any non-RS sources (blogs, promotional sites etc). If you need my help let me know.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep & define more thoroughly.-- Deletapedia ( talk) 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is neither a neologism nor especially associated with South Africa. For example, here's a source defining and discussing it near;ly 40 years ago: Jennings, Hertel (1975),
Inquiring about freedom, p. 206,
quotaism (kwo'te iz em). The use of predetermined percentages, or quotas, to discriminate ...
Andrew ( talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Switching to weak keep from delete, as per comments from other users. Problem is, the article, particularly the lede paragraphs, could be better written; if the article stays, I'll try to fix it up.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is worth a Wikipedia entry. -- Michael ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Morgan Val Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor who has 2 issues-first only 2 roles and 2nd, notable for being a grandson to someone famous. Wgolf ( talk) 03:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:33, 20 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- CollinPotato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about the owner of Minetime, a Minecraft server. There are no sources on this outside of a personal blog and the Minetime server website, and I was unable to find any reliable sources during a Google search. This article therefore fails WP:N. (The article was previously deproded and does not appear to meet any of the requirements for speedy deletion). Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Delete. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable, no sources independent of person. KylieTastic ( talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Checking for refs shows nothing other than various Minecraft-centered sites, none of which is very notable. Searching "Collin Love" doesn't help any, either. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:13, 22 September 2014 (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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Johann Harmse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with an amazing ONE performance! Nothing notable about it either! I would say too soon but it even says he wont be acting any more (who knows how true that is anyway), but still either way either redirect or delete. Wgolf ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as fails WP:NACTOR. – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tye Harper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with VERY few unotable roles. Wgolf ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete fails GNG DocumentError ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, has appeared in notable television programmes, but in roles that are essentially just extras/background characters. Does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:09, 27 September 2014 (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. Michig ( talk) 07:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Linda Tally Smith ( | 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 woman is a local elected politician in the US state of Kentucky, but she simply doesn't measure up to our inclusion standards for biographies. Her elected position (a local prosecutor for two of Kentucky's 120 counties, and the first woman in the position for these counties) doesn't help her to pass the inclusion standards for politicians and unelected officeholders, since the only Kentuckians who automatically qualify are national and state politicians (e.g. Kentucky General Assemblymen, members of Governor Brashear's cabinet, and Kentucky Supreme Court justices), not local prosecutors. Of course, local prosecutors can qualify for inclusion if they get substantial coverage in secondary sources, but as far as I can tell, everything's just news coverage, which is a kind of primary source and not enough to qualify her for inclusion because it's not chronologically independent of the subject: we need books, academic journals, and government websites, or we need news articles that look back at her activities years after they occurred. If any of these get provided, I'll happily withdraw, but until we can find evidence that they exist, it's unverifiable speculation to say that she's going to get coverage in the solid secondary sources upon which encyclopedia articles are written. Nyttend ( talk) 01:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per Nyttend. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that the article's subject is notable. Being the first female Commonwealth's Attorney in Boone county doesn't meet notability guidelines (the county population is about 120,000 and there is only one Commonwealth's Attorney} and I see nothing else. The article seems to be a WP:COATRACK on which to hang coverage of the Willa Blanc case. Meters ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- She also covers Gallatin County, but given Warsaw's small size and Gallatin County's distinction as the tiniest county in the state, that shouldn't have a substantial effect. Even the Jefferson County Commonwealth's Attorney won't qualify for an article solely on the basis of holding that office. Nyttend ( talk) 18:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Help me out here. Although not particularly important, I can't find a non-self-published source that says she is the attorney for Gallatin County, only Boone. This source doesn't even mention her.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's from Gallatin County, Montana; I'll check on Gallatin County, Kentucky. Location ( talk) 20:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here's one: [46]. Location ( talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Location. Think of me as a comedy of errors. In addition to the Montana thing, when I did my search I didn't spell Smith's middle name properly. The only thing I can plead is sleep deprivation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep She's notable because she's interesting. I had other cases she worked on, but I was told those didn't matter. I think she's notable because the Commonwealth Attorney's positions is very important. I'm having trouble finding the Commonwealth Attorney's districts, I've found them before, so I know what I'm talking about, but the Commonwealth Attorney is above the County Attorney, and usually, there's 3 or so counties that's including in their district. Not only does she cover Gallatin and Boone, for sure, but there may be another county that I left off. Nyttend offers a mean smackdown for this article, so I won't be fighting very hard for this. I do appreciate Nyttend's approach, however, and now that I know that all state wide officials are fair game, that gives me something to work on. Being from Kentucky, I had to learn Civics on my own, and I'd guestimate that 90% of Kentuckians do not even know what a Commonwealth Attorney is, or who there representatives are. Maybe I can work on just the Civics side of it, here on wikipedia.
- And on the argument that this is a Coathanger, it's not. Willa Blanc is actually a coathanger for Linda Tally Smith. You got it backwards. Linda Tally Smith was the main article I was trying to write. There's also like a dozen murder cases she's tried, but, hey, one citizen shooting another citizen. That's not up to wikipedia's standards. I understand this now. They have to be important people, or be a case that makes national headlines, or changes public policy, etc.
- It would be beneficial for Jefferson County to get their Judges there sorted out, because they've got about dozen of them, and the Circuit Court Judges, and up, they're making over a $1 million in their 8 year terms. They have power, and money, and few Kentuckians even know who any of them are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sarahrosemc (
talk •
contribs)
19:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Subjective personal assessments of whether the subject is "interesting" or not have nothing to do with our inclusion rules — please see
WP:INTERESTING, which is a subsection of a Wikipedia guideline called "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Either a person meets one or more of our inclusion rules on purely objective fact, or they don't.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:INTERESTING is an essay, not a guideline. WP:BIO, which is a guideline, begins with a definition of notability that refers to a person who is interesting enough to deserve attention. James500 ( talk) 02:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sarahrosemc, if you want to write articles about Kentucky politicians, you may do best to concentrate on current and former General Assemblymen. WP:POLITICIAN, the page describing our inclusion criteria for politicians and unelected officeholders, unambiguously permits articles about all state legislators. Category:Members of the Kentucky House of Representatives has only about 400 articles (including numerous long-past members such as Ninian Edwards and Abraham Jonas), and we similarly have few articles about senators, so if you can find reasonable sourcing for previous assemblymen, you should be able to write hundreds of articles. You can write on other people, of course; I simply think the previous assemblymen would be easiest. Nyttend ( talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Subjective personal assessments of whether the subject is "interesting" or not have nothing to do with our inclusion rules — please see
WP:INTERESTING, which is a subsection of a Wikipedia guideline called "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Either a person meets one or more of our inclusion rules on purely objective fact, or they don't.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. There are plenty of sources from 2000 to 2014 (mostly local, some national, a few international) that refer to Smith working in her official capacity, but this is to be expected in her position. I found three pieces in which she is actually the subject (i.e. magazine, newspaper, and book). Other than that, and possibly the Murder of Walter Sartory case, I'm not sure that there is a distinct "claim to fame". Location ( talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- While it might certainly be possible to write an article about her that's substantial and well-sourced enough to get her over WP:GNG, this article as written ain't it. Userfy in creator's sandbox for improvement, without prejudice against moving back into articlespace if and when it's in much better shape than this — but as written, it's not making or sourcing sufficient notability to warrant an encyclopedia article about her, and should be deleted from articlespace. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable local official. Nyttend's suggestion about creating articles on Kentucky statewide officials is a good one. Mini apolis 22:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Local officials at this level are not notable. There is no substantial coverage about her, and the efforts to drag in the Sartory case seem like a last desperate effort to manufacture notability where none exists. I echo the many other editors on this: write about Kentucky's commonwealth-wide officials, and her legislators past and present, who do meet our standards for notability. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. She's a prosecutor and prosecutes cases. That's about it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, having nominated this page for speedy deletion A7, I felt that the page did not meet notability requirements. From what I can tell from the article, it seems the only thing she did so far is be an attorney. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are on attorneys but I'm sure that only those who worked on cases like OJ Simpson's would probably get an article. Given the evidence given in this discussion, I think it's time to snow this discussion. Aerospeed ( Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is far from a Snow, as there are many invalid or weak arguments here, like proposing that only attorney's who have worked on cases like the OJ Simpson trial merit articles, arguments from WP:ATA such as "per nom", that newspapers cannot be used to identify notability, and that this article was an attempt to coatrack a murder case. Unscintillating ( talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete county DAs can sometimes be notable, but not in a semi-rural county of 120,000 (Boone) & 8,000 (Gallatin), unless there are special factors. Routine casss are not such special factors. This has been a consistent criterion for local attorneys and judges. Conceivably we might want to change of practices, and expand our coverage to include them, but the consensus has been consistently against it for many years, and I certainly am not suggesting it. I see no reason to make an exception here. (But it's not snow, and should run the whole time, to make our guidelines clear. Snow in afds like this will leave the editors of an opposite opinion unsatisfied that their case has been properly considered.) DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm, Boone County, Kentucky is part of the Cincinnati metro area, and includes the Cincinnati international airport. It is the fourth largest county in Kentucky by population. Calling this metro area semi-rural is I think a bit like calling San Bernardino County, California mostly a desert. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Call the county partially rural then, if you prefer. Either way it has no bearing on the question of whether this article demonstrates the notability of its subject. She graduated form law school, she's the first female Commonwealth's Attorney for Boone County, she's married to a judge, and she prosecuted a locally-known trial (which wasn't sufficiently notable to survive as an article). That's all we have, all we are likely to get now, and it is not enough. Meters ( talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and Userfy per Bearcat. I've perused this new contributor's work, and I think she has the chops to write a lot of interesting articles (that we will gleefully keep), and as she learns the wiki-ropes, she may well be able to make this into a keep-able article. Let's not bite this new contributor too hard, peeps! :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I too hope the editor will not be discouraged, but there is no point in userifying an article that describes a career that will never be considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Electric Century ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that was previously deleted per prod. A rock group that has no notability....yet. Now eventually it will I'm sure. Wgolf ( talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep: By the weak standards we seem to keep around here, I believe they meet General Notability Guidelines. They have two legitimate references; they've actually produced something that's been covered in the press; two of the members come from notable bands (one of them very notable) and one is notable in his own right. I agree, not very notable, yet, but notable enough. ubiquity ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Bringing articles to AfD should be a last resort after other alternatives have at least been considered. Even if you don't think this merits a standalone article, the obvious thing would be a merge to Mikey Way. This MTV article in addition to what's already in the article probably gives the band a pass of WP:GNG/ WP:NBAND. It's a keep or a merge - either way it shouldn't have been brought here. -- Michig ( talk) 14:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-I thought that you bring up AFD's though when someone does delete the prod template also though. Wgolf ( talk) 04:26, 21 September 2014 (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. this might be a case of TOOSOON as an academic and otherwise is ONEEVENT - willing to move to draft or userfy on request Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Walter Sartory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearcut case of WP:BLP1E NeilN talk to me 01:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- And yes, I know he's dead but all coverage is about his murder and murderer. -- NeilN talk to me 01:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. With the additions by other authors, Walter Sartory's article is no longer just about his murder. Sartory was a major player in the development of new inventions, including work on separating blood cells, and nuclear reactors. He has 2 patents mentioned, but 2 other major patents have yet to be declassified, but one would suspect they were classified for specific special reasons, such as their importance, or the subject material, nuclear bombs, they are dealing with. While his murder was heinous, it ended the life of a very valuable man in our society. A successful scientist. A notable life, and a notable death. I vote keep. Sarahrosemc ( talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
He was a huge millionaire, and the details of the murder are gruesome. Hollywood gruesome. He also did important work for the government on nuclear projects. A few topics are mentioned in the articles. He also had 3 patents. Does any of that matter? Sarahrosemc ( talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- His being a millionaire doesn't matter. The fact that his murder was gruesome doesn't matter. You don't mention working for the government in the article. That might matter. The patents matter only to the extent they were actually used for something and received coverage from secondary sources. You kind of lumped all of the sources together, so without reading them all, it's hard to tell what source supports what material in the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Most of coverage appears to be regional centered around
Boone County, Kentucky around the times of the murder and trial. In accordance with
WP:EVENT, I think notability needs to be demonstrated by coverage outside the local area spanning a longer period of time. The Los Angeles Times did give non-trivial coverage in 2010 (i.e.
[47]) as did The New Zealand Herald (i.e.
[48]) and The Independent (i.e.
[49]). Additional overseas coverage in The Telegraph (i.e.
[50]). Cincinnati Magazine would be local coverage, but it certainly devoted more attention to it than the average murder (i.e.
[51]).
Location (
talk)
03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I suggested this to Bbb23 - what should be done is a creation of a "Murder of Walter Sartory" article and this article redirected to that one. -- NeilN talk to me 03:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Any secondary sources, anyone? We need sources that are independent, and news stories about the event are by definition not independent. Any academic journals cover the guy or the event? Any books? Any media stories that refer to it and analyse the primary sources? Let's not engage in unverifiable speculation by saying basically "the incident got non-trivial coverage, so of course it's going to get secondary source coverage". Most such incidents get forgotten. Nyttend ( talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This article is mostly a
WP:coatrack for the murder, so renaming it makes sense, but only if the murder itself is notable. We already have three articles; the prosecutor
Linda Tally Smith, speedied and now at AFD; this article about the victim, PRODed and now at AFD; and the murderer
Willa Blanc, speedied, that largely consist of just the links for this case. Lets not add another one. If the murder case is notable then we can rename this article and rework it. We have no evidence of the notability of the man, and so far only short term coverage of the murder.
Meters (
talk)
18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- With the changes to the article it is no longer a coatrack for the murder, but all of the refs in the article are actually still about his murder. Everything we have about him other than the murder (his patents, work history, etc.) is just background from the murder coverage refs. In effect, we don't have independent sources, we just have multiple sources writing about the same event ( WP:ONEEVENT). We can't determine notability on potentially-notable but classified work. I'm still not seeing independent sources to show his notability so I'm not changing my "Delete". Meters ( talk) 00:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
KeepI'm talking to Americans, so I assumed his millionaire status meant something. It definitely meant something when he was alive. It's also what got him killed. His patents I do not know about, just that he had 3 of them, and I wouldn't even know where to even begin to look for them, and lastly, Sartory working for the government, all that he knew, is probably gone with him too. He worked on nuclear reactors. He was paranoid that the CIA was out to get him, so either, he's crazy, or maybe he knew too much. Either way, his work on nuclear reactors hasn't been much publicized, since, it's nuclear weapons. The government probably wants to keep a lid on that kind of information. The "Murder of Walter Sartory" I would not be against, and would work on it, but the threshold seems to be really high for notability, and frankly, I just do not care about any of these people. The case is interesting, and people's lives are important, but I can see how, from an ivory tower, this could look meaningless. Sarahrosemc ( talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)- Just a note to say that this is the English Wikipedia for the over a billion people who understand English. There are about 12 million millionaires in the world so that means little. You might want to check out WP:NOTNEWS. -- NeilN talk to me 20:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep This article piqued my interest, so I started digging a little to see if it could be saved. Per WP:ACADEMIC, notability can be established by "[receiving] a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; the IR-100 Award might qualify. Also, the opinions of his colleagues, as cited in the Drogin article, seem to indicate that he "made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", although this is unlikely to be verifiable in reliable sources for a while, since it is apparently classified. I think you can make a case to keep. I'll continue digging, as I have time, as long as the discussion is open. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing here that supports notability. Being paranoid, a millionaire, or murdered is not sufficient to show notability. Coverage is focused on his murder, but that seems like WP:NOTNEWS. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Acdixon. He's notable for being an inventor and being recognized as such. As his classified activities are eventually declassified, my hunch is that this kind of recognition will only grow. Also, I'll highlight the development of this article since it was nominated, and it no longer focuses on the subject's murder. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. If information is declassified in the future which makes his notability clearer, then of course we can restore the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
- Keep Publishing pioneering papers on reactor design and medical centrifuges, which facts are supported by reliable secondary sources, not just primary sources, qualifies him under WP:ACADEMIC even before his classified work is released. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- E.Stonji ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Musician with no notability at all. Wgolf ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 01:42, 20 September 2014 (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.