The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:ANYBIO. This person is a beekeeper in Chicago. The references cited interview him because he does this very unique thing in the middle of an urban area, but he is not notable, his accomplishments seem not notable, and writing for "Thing Magazine" is equally not notable.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I hear you. But just because he has a unique hobby, and the press likes to write about his unique hobby, doesn't make HIM notable. Where he went to school, and the entire non-notable aspects of his life outside of beekeeping are documented. But the only truly "notable" aspect of his life is his hobby, which thousands of other non-notable people also do, though not in urban areas. No offense to this guy, and he sounds like a decent person, but in strict Wiki-speak, HE is entirely non-notable. Maybe this info could be added to a beekeeping article?
Magnolia677 (
talk)
02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Not sure that making judgements based on the kind of work the subject does is really helpful here. Even if it's a hobby and thousands of other people do it is not really relevant to his notability; that his work and biographical details have been covered in notable sources including
the Chicago Tribune, the
Times of Northwest Indiana (second-largest newspaper in Indiana), along with some coverage in a handful of lesser publications (
[1],
[2],
[3]) is much more important.
I, JethroBTdrop me a line07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I have added an infobox along with some more bits of information to the article along with two new references. Also a Wikilink to
urban beekeeping. I will try to further improve it, as in my view, it's still weak but should not be deleted.--
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I believe the article ought to be left intact as its reference list obviously gives reliable sources, such as BBC and Reuters. The article itself is largely accurate and supported by documentation, and the significance of the event lies beyond its apparent factual content. It is an example of a lost presumed-to-be tracked flight in modern times, much like Flight 19 almost 70 years later.
Delete. I think the presumption has to be against notability for general aviation accidents like this. (Even if someone notable was on board, the accident probably belongs in the article of the notable person, not as an independent article.) Some accidents might be an exception to this presumption, but it is too soon to judge whether this will be one of the exceptions. (Commercial aviation accidents, especially those with mass fatalities, the opposite presumption applies; both because of the number of fatalities, and also because of the greater potential for commercial or regulatory impacts.)
SJK (
talk)
04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. An accident with a regretfully common cause (cabin depressurisation is not rare); no Wikinotable people involved; not a scheduled flight. May be worthy of mention in the TBM900 article at some point, but doesn't come close to the standard for a standalone article -
The BushrangerOne ping only08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Small plane crashes, and cabin depressurizations for that matter, occur very often. This, along with the minimal casualty count justifies the deletion of this article. It is all too easy to fall into believing that something is notable when there is extensive short term coverage of the event.
Wikipedia:Notability (events) explains this well. —
Harpsichord246 (
talk)
08:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The TBM 900 is a new entry in a rapidly growing category of pressurized single engine aircraft. Accidental depressurization during cruise is an important new class of accident. There may be an important lesson for private pilots here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.212.103.44 (
talk)
TBM-900 is merely a variant of the TBM-700, in fact it is the TBM-700N re-designated. Not new at all seeing as the first flight was in 1983--
Petebutt (
talk)
01:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete- nn accident, hypoxia not proven as NTSB have only just begun their investigation. FWIW, the Payne Stewart Learjet crash would have been nn had he not been on board.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep No One Notable On Board! Oh my goodness, I thought we were all "Notable"! This case is going to be far reaching. Not only for the unusual circumstances, but that the aircraft in question was "BRAND NEW" - 2014 Model. Unless pilot error is found, this could be a game changer for the manufacture of these type of aircraft. And I personally sought Wikipedia out for information on this exact accident. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.60.194.234 (
talk)
17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or Re-direct - not notable general aviation accident. At best a paragraph or entry in the aircraft article / Accidents of 2014 article.--
Petebutt (
talk)
00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - For now, at least. It meets
WP:GNG in having significant media coverage in reliable sources, and is likely to be continuing coverage as there are many unanswered questions about the circumstances of crash, especially the apparently-denied request to descend to a lower altitude. If it should prove to be non-notable once the investigation has finished, unlikely though that seems at this time, then it can be merged to the aircraft article. -
BilCat (
talk)
07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents (where it was described immediately after the story started to receive coverage). At this time, not so notable (and not enough is known) as to require its own article. The existence of mystery is not sufficient to establish notability. DwpaulTalk 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep This incident is notable for its unusual circumstances, rather than for its casualty count or any physical damage/destruction inflicted. Another disappearance of an aircraft which was tracked and its location presumed to be known. The failure to locate the wreckage as of today, 8 September, places this incident in the "curious" category at the very least, if not in the "extremely unusual" one. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yavorpenchev (
talk •
contribs)
20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: This incident received much news focus, and this kind of incident, with hypoxia causing a plane to be out of control, is unusual enough to be noteworthy. --
AEMoreira042281 (
talk)
14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It's pretty clear now that this plane crash has become notable with the continued in-depth coverage. I added about four recent sources and it is receiving sustained coverage.
I am One of Many (
talk)
05:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Think he fails
WP:POLITICIAN. Could be wrong, but references, seem to point to this.
This is his duties:
Member of Orumieh Intelligence Unit, responsible for managing staff, Chief city of Maku, West Azarbaijan Governor's Deputy General Manager and General Manager of Security Police.
Comment You will need to show some evidence that he is elected. I couldn't find any. At the moment, the article looks like he's is an senior official running the police service, which is not notable.
scope_creeptalk 10:43 8 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 article,
World Spiritual Foundation, created by
User_talk:Lordmehershivpuri is essentially a mirror of a website
here. The only references are to that website. No indication is given of what kind of legal entity this is, such as Trust, Corporation, etc. The editor who created the page, Lordmehershivpuri (the name of the company plus its town) has created the same article in the past, along with articles about its said-founder, both of which were found to not be notable. Looking on the internet only lands on the website, one blog, and YouTube pages. There are no secondary sources for its notability.
Tajudin69 (
talk)
21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:BIO. Simply not notable. Group hospital administrator and owner of said hospitals, but not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. Seems to be adviser in Pakistan government for oil and gas, but also on that fails
WP:POLITICIAN.
scope_creeptalk21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Change of Vote I change my vote to KEEP. Frankly at first I thought there was a name resemblance only, but after looking at the pictures I understand we are only facing an article which is not up-to-date. Sorry. --
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
12:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. I strongly suggest that the nom review and take to heart
WP:BEFORE. From a nom who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this level of carelessness is inexcusable.
Ravenswing 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article which was rejected at wp:afc reason:no sources. Seems to be encyclopedic though. It's useful information. scope_creep 21:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - A type of list which doesn't need it's own article. You could merge the info to the Disney Channel page but the redirect should not be kept.
Aerospeed (
Talk)
22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Zero sources and absurd
WP:MADEUP numbers (no, 470 million people didn't watch a Miley/Jonas crossover of Hannah Montana, considering that's much more than the population of the US and Canada). At that, article creator was blocked and is probably one of many 'fantasy TV vandal' socks. Nate•(
chatter)02:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment You can see Hannah Montana abroad, here in the UK and Europe, where the kids love her. So I think that is possibly an aggregate figure covering the world. Where the figures came from, however, is another matter. If they were sources, it might be worth keeping, or the info merged into the appropriate article. I couldn't find any figures regarding it, and I was all over the shop.
scope_creeptalk 15:48 6 September 2014 (UTC
CommentNo, they're complete nonsense figures. The top episode of HM got only ten million viewers in the United States, so it's doubtful they managed to get 460 million viewers in the rest of the world, and 210 million for a basic sitcom like The Suite Life would have given the cast more than Friends/Big Bang Theory money for a figure like that alone. Look at the article history (which somehow started as a 'top iTunes app store downloads' article) and its bounce from AFC to article space; this was someone trying to either hoax us or not understanding what we are.Nate•(
chatter)15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Extended Now I see what the intention was;
this edit made it seem like they were adding together cumulative viewership for each of the series, so throughout its run HM had 470 million viewers. Still though, we can't use CV as a metric since that's duplicating each viewer and each of the shows had different episode runs, making side-by-side comparisons impossible without some kind of wide margin of error. Nate•(
chatter)15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This completely unsourced article documents something of only local interest. If the Tacna courthouse is worth documenting, it could be better done in the article on Tacna.
ubiquity (
talk)
20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - I can understand the nom's dislike for this article in the state during the start of AfD
[7], but AfDing of an article that claims such historic significance in only about an hour is not the best way of dealing with such articles.. The historic location where the treaty to transfer a region from one country to another was finalized has great interest to not only both entire nations, but to historians in general. I liken this to
Campo de Cahuenga where the
Treaty of Cahuenga was signed. Just as historic, but sources are much more easily available to English WP editors.--
Oakshade (
talk)
04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The "history" section has almost nothing to do with the topic. Sentences like "special thanks to..." read more like an official site than an encyclopaedia. But even if these problems are taken care of, notability is still in question, #1 it is an orphan, #2 none of the references works any more, and even if they did, are not independent, secondary sources. This is primarily an ethnic intramural league played mostly by US graduate students from China (as can be seen from its links) and not a single notable athlete that could be even considered semi-pro, and in my opinion fails
WP:NSPORTS.
Timmyshin (
talk)
20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - The applicable notability guideline for sports clubs, teams and organization is not WP:NSPORTS; it is
WP:ORG. According to NSPORTS: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." WP:ORG is very similar, if not identical, to the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable amateur basketball league, apparently composed of Chinese and Chinese-American students in the northeast United States. My Google search reveals 45 results, the majority of which are Wikipedia mirror articles (never a good sign), with a healthy dose of Linked In, Facebook and blog pages. In addition to obvious notability issues, the article has numerous other problems. Bottom line: there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources per the specific notability guideline of
WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment-Ha ha ironic, I just put up a AFD on a singer for this band saying a redirect or a merge be the best. Anyway since I'm not a expert in dark music, I'm guessing a merge with those 2 for now. But it does sound like a Borderline delete.
Wgolf (
talk)
20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Biography of non-notable person. Promotional tone. Originally written by user "Choi.pak.hei" leading me to suspect he wrote this article about himself. Article was
WP:PRODed in the past due to not having any references but this was removed after references were added.
Gccwang (
talk)
17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Merge - The case with the CIA chiefs in Pakistan is relevant, but I think the 2010 removal doesn't need an article of its own. There is still a court case going up to this day against the CIA chiefs in Pakistan and it makes headlines every now and then
[8]. I would prefer a general article on the Pakistan CIA chiefs, but since there is none, I suggest merging this particular text into
Drone attacks in Pakistan, together with a single sentence on the source I provided above, in a new short header for that page "Criminal cases against CIA station chiefs". Or if someone has time, update it into a more complete seperate article, with a different name that covers the entire topic. If necessary I can help with a merge if asked. --
Taketa (
talk)
08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge to
CIA activities in Pakistan. The topic of the article is better covered within the context of the CIA Activities in Pakistan article. As for the sources, everything in the article and everything I was able to find through Google searches were news articles which were all released around the same day. This seems to be a pretty clear case of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Noting that this is a BLP article, and that there has been substantial and obvious socking and/or meatpuppeting to inflate the "Keep" side of the argument.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
This BLP subject is notable only for her arrest. While it attracted some attention in RS, it is still just a BLP1E. There are some issues with the article's editing history that suggest the subject or someone close to the subject may be editing the article to push a different narrative than how the article currently reads. Since it is "one event" I suggest we IAR and deleteTwo kinds of pork (
talk)
05:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Without wishing to comment on the general notability of Susan Lindauer, this use of the Patriot Act certainly is notable and so if it is decided to delete this article I'd like to suggest the full contents be included in the
Patriot Act article which currently references it under "Controversies". While understanding that there is a heated debate over the facts and that her notability or otherwise is inextricable from this debate, I certainly found it interesting and informative.
Right-Wing Hippy (
talk)
20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That might solve things, however I'm afraid we would have the same sort of editor delirium occurring at that article as we have at this one; that Lindauer was working undercover for the USGOVT as an agent for peace.
Two kinds of pork (
talk)
20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I just read the article for the Patriot Act, then did some research on Lindauer. I cannot find anything in any reliable third-party source that talks about her arrest in the context of the Patriot Act. The charges she faced had nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and the most serious charge was for working as an unregistered lobbyist. Most of her court case focused on her fitness to stand trial. All standard stuff. There is no Patriot Act component verified by a reliable source, so including her in the Patriot Act article is not appropriate.
SpringandFall (
talk)
13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree. #2 is quite satisfied. Lindauer, is extremely likely to remain a low profile individual. Considering the circumstances, any serious source will be unlikely to give her any coverage.
Two kinds of pork (
talk)
14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
delete - i dont see significant coverage outside of the arrest incident and there is no indication that the individual is likely ever to be taken more seriously on their claims in the future than they have been to date. and if this were relevant aspect of the Patriot act there would be significant coverage and analysis of it - which there aint. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom19:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. I disagree. There is a substantial following from her on You Tube and in blogs and therefore on many FaceBook posts. therefore many people are looking for a complete story and background on Ms Landauer. This is one of the core services of Wikipedia. If this is removed then people can not find this information. —
Pursuing Truth (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
thats rather circular reasoning: that the article needs to be kept so that some non reliable blogosphere conspiracy theorist can find information to keep churning until their conspiracy theory is noticed and covered by reliable sources. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that the conditions for deletion have been met. I see no convincing evidence that Lindauer was a CIA asset other than her own self-published assertions. There is no objective independent source or objective evidence that supports this narrative, and I think there would need to be to keep this article, or even to discuss the subject under the Patriot Act. I also agree with statements others have made that it appears there are some biased editors involved, possibly the subject herself.
SpringandFall (
talk)
19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keepit is true. If she is a charlatan then Wikipedia is a valuable resource to expose her. If the editing seems suspect then it should be proven. I for one would look to add more information if I find it that supports her assertions. CIA by its very nature clearly clandestine. Prooving a relationship is not easy. Particularly if what she is claiming is accurate then it would be even more clear that any link to CIA would removed to maintain the narrative that she is just a nut case. Removing the wikipedia listing will simple fortify the concept that she is telling the truth. Is this not obvious? —
SpringandFall (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete - Other than
irrelevant inherited "notability", this notability appears to relate
one event - the subject's trial. All references relate to her trial. The trial itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant the independent article.--
Rpclod (
talk)
20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to
Susan Lindauer arrest. This is more properly an event concerning a living person, not a biography. If the subject arguably fails BLP1E, the 1E certainly meets GNG and IMHO has demonstrated it passes all criteria for
WP:EVENT. Sources presented clearly demonstrate meeting GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, PERSISTENCE, and INDEPTH. A reasonable case could be met that the event meets EFFECT, given the legal sources already applied to the page.
BusterD (
talk)
12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment and question First, the socking/SPAing certainly is not helping either case on this process page. Second, there is a
brief discussion on the nominator's talk page which seems to indicate there's a valid OTRS request from the subject to delete this pagespace. If true, why wasn't that concern presented during nomination?
BusterD (
talk)
13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:BLP1E fits (and says we "should generally avoid having an article"), although I could see a slight argument that point #2 doesn't 100% fit. However, we have
WP:PERP which is an exact fit. The subject of the BLP was not convicted (and will not be), the victim is not a notable figure (as in person(s)), nothing all that unusual about motivation (alleged mental illness), and it has certainly not met "historic significance [as] indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role".
Tgeairn (
talk)
03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This fictional timeline appears to be almost entirely original research. It is largely an attempt to use dates stated during various episodes of the TV show to construct a fictional timeline. Little notability either as this topic has not, to my knowledge, been covered by any sources outside of Star Trek products.
Daniel(talk)16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is notable being documented in sources such as:
Keep But clean up drastically. It does meet notability standards but we don't need to go into the gritty details. A broad picture of how the time line between the major shows, and key events that define the universe, but we should no way try to be reconciling the inconsistencies of the time line. --
MASEM (
t)
03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
No evidence of any special notability and none claimed. Lacks any significant sources and appears to be just another modelling tool. VelellaVelella Talk 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
HydroGeoSphere is an extremely important numerical model used by the hydrology community. It has a long set of publications
http://www.aquanty.com/publication/ and is the current state-of-the-art numerical model. HGS started in 2000 and is still being developed by several research teams. I will add more citations in the upcoming week
JhdavisonJhdavison (
talk)
23:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's well known in the research community, well-referenced in academic literature, and used throughout the world. +
mt03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Google book search gives 109 results and Google scholar gives it 757. Are there any textbooks or scientific publications on university websites(other than those that created it) that mention it?
DreamFocus06:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Here are some articles:
Brunner, Philip; Simmons, Craig T. (2012). "HydroGeoSphere: A Fully Integrated, Physically Based Hydrological Model". Groundwater. 50 (2): 170–176.
doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00882.x.
Cornelissen, Thomas; Diekkrüger, Bernd; Bogena, Heye (2013). "Using HydroGeoSphere in a Forested Catchment: How does Spatial Resolution Influence the Simulation of Spatio-temporal Soil Moisture Variability?". Procedia Environmental Sciences. 19: 198–207.
doi:
10.1016/j.proenv.2013.06.022.
Also there are additional citations to FRAC3DVS, which is the same software before being renamed (and oddly not mentioned in the article).+
mt00:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 would be easy to close as "no consensus"; but on careful review of the opinions here, I think the advocates of deletion have the more policy-compliant arguments. The single bit of independet coverage adduced by the keep proponents—the 2012 article in GizMag—is not, by itself, enough to put the article over the notability hump.
Deor (
talk)
14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Non-notable particle, where most of the "publications" are really arxiv preprints by a small group of people, which have been refuted by the COMPASS collaboration (
arXiv:
1204.2349) as generally shoddy science (see also
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/my_take_wouldbe_particle_38_mev-93256). Some arxiv preprints were even withdrawn from the arxiv (
arXiv:
1208.3829). The article ontains utterly sensationalistic nonsense, like suggestion that this could be the Higgs. Even in 2012, this would have been laughable. It's even more laughable now. The alledged discovery has had some coverage in press, but that's mostly ZOMG NEW PARTICLE MAYBE IT'S THE HIGGS!? kind of coverage, more than anything actually establishing notability. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
keep and edit to show the status. If it has general press coverage, it's notable. People will see it, and come hereto find objective information. DGG (
talk )
01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per DGG and... nominator, who states that it had actual coverage in press. It thus passes
WP:GNG. There's lots of things with general press coverage. - Yeah. And these things are notable per our policies and guidelines.--
cyclopiaspeak!14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not an object, it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. The arxiv preprints are nothing but
WP:PRIMARY sources from the "discoverers", and the "media" coverage is by far and large media outlets bringing out the sensationalism machine because the discoverers made some bunk claims about it being the Higgs, all clustered in 2 or 3 weeks following "discovery", and even there you have to look really hard to find them. Googling E38 boson yields nearly zero results except this article and mirrors thereof, and the articles of van Beveren & Rupp. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
A boson -imaginary or not, real or not- is an object. The policies you cited above do not apply to objects, not even imaginary ones. They apply to people and events. To judge why media do report about this thing is not our business: our business is only to duly note that they did, and write an article accordingly. If it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. -then by all means let's write that in the article. We have articles on several notable hoaxes and false discoveries, and this is probably another one. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
DeleteThe discovery seems not established/controversial still, in the technical world; excuse the pun, the result is still too lightweight. The article could easily be merged into another article, e.g.,
Boson or
Standard Model, where a few sentences would suffice, really. Would justify its own article in time perhaps, if the discovery is confirmed in time - it would be a major discovery if confirmed.
Bdushaw (
talk)
08:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The article is supported by 6 references, five of which are essentially by E. van Beveren, and two of those are just websites. The sixth, that disputes the result, is an informal website that is not a reliable reference. A discovery of a particle like this would be a discovery of such magnitude that it would ordinarily appear on the front pages of the NY Times and spread like wildfire throughout the physics community. Based on the evidence that I see, this particle will likely come to nothing; it is most likely a fiction. So delete for now.
Bdushaw (
talk)
16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The first of these links is a report on the Higgs, rather than E(38). The second is a rather dubious blog-type report on the original paper, dated two years ago shortly after it appeared. I understand, as you say, that the thing itself is not required for notability, that the controversy can warrant an article. But this is not a
cold fusion type of situation - I do not see references that would sustain notability of even the controversy. Within weeks of the cold fusion announcement, there were teams working to confirm the result. With E(38), I see no report at all that anyone has worked to confirm or deny the report - its been a general shrug. The "controversy" is not notable either (for now). Its reported as a very low energy particle, hence it would be easy to verify - such a confirmation would have appeared right away in Phys Rev Lett, and likely garnered a Nobel Prize...
Bdushaw (
talk)
17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Whoops, you are right, the first is about the Higgs, I got fooled. However, again, all the discussion about the scientific validity of this announcement is irrelevant about the notability. What matter is that it has been discussed in some sources. We don't need
cold fusion-level controversy for it. --
cyclopiaspeak!14:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, but we DO need an actually notable controversy. A couple of blogs posts over the time of one or two months, a retracted preprint, and 30 papers by the same authors who failed to get the hint that no one cares or believes them fails to meet the threshold of notability set by
WP:N. Controversies and article on pathological science are fine, I mentioned a few above (
Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly,
Oops-Leon,
N rays,
Dean drive,
polywater, etc...) which are actually notable. These had an impact on science. This controversy is someone thinking a fart is evidence of a grenade. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You mistake "notability" for "having a huge impact". That's not what notability is on WP. Notability here means that we have the minimum requirements to create an article. Notable topics do not need to be major topics. --
cyclopiaspeak!09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Why relisted? To summarize: the three commenters above agree that the particle is a fiction, has not been supported by independent references. The argument above is over whether there is sufficient controversy to warrant notability to support the article. Two of us say no, the third says yes. But the proof is in the pudding, and there are no references to support any controversy. All three of us have looked for it, the article's editors have worked on this for two years, and there is still nothing. The fact that there are only three commenters (and I am here only because of what seemed like a desperate plea for more comments) straining to find any references should be an indication of no notability. We are all agreed, I believe, that E(38), if it existed, would be a MAJOR discovery, one that would turn particle physics on its ear. Yet the silence is deafening. Wikipedia should not have articles that lend credibility to nonsense. I daresay that attempting to edit articles such as
Standard model or
Boson to insert anything about E(38) would likely be deleted in a hurry; hence this article is orphaned. (All due respect and all manner of thanks to the Wikipedia administrators!)
Bdushaw (
talk)
21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. This thing doesn't exist, and there is insufficient coverage of the hypothesis to justify an article. Self-published sources on arxiv.org don't count. --
101.117.31.220 (
talk)
08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete- Given that erroneous hypotheses in science are common, I think we need more than a handful of self-published and non peer-reviewed sources to distinguish this one as notable.
ReykYO!22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak delete - this article was originally built around Kahn as an activist related to his attempt to marry his partner, which I voiced on the talk page at the time seemed a
WP:BLP1E matter. It was recently recast by someone with an apparent
conflict of interest to be about him as an architect, with links to several articles and claims of others (the article as it stands has been pared down a fair bit by me, due to strong
WP:PROMO and lack of sources). However, the articles linked to were passing mentions, or using Khan to comment on someone else. The New York Times piece now used as reference has about five sentences on him... without mentioning his activism or his architect status, so it just seems to be a random example local. Having said all that, he is credited as appearing on an episode of the DIY Network show Million Dollar Contractor, and I have not yet sought to check if there is significant material about him in the episode, or if he's just brought in in passing to comment on something else. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete - he was not a participant in any LGBT rights rallies, nor of the major litigation involving marriage equality in New York. Unless somebody can find and add reliable sources to such claims, he's just not notable. He is cited nowhere in
Same-sex marriage in New York or any of its sources. I have never heard of him.
Bearian (
talk)
21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Keep or move to the bilateral relations article that is appropriate to have, but does not yet currently exist. I am trying to remember specific similar past AFDs resolved this way. I think it seems to be the case that bilateral relationships are valid topics, so start that and redirect this. --
doncram22:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
And this leaves a redirect from the Embassy of Mexico, Prague topic, and mention that embassy in the article, or not. Develop a separate article again about the embassy if/when historic nature of the building or whatever comes to light. This is best resolution of an AFD once started, not to delete the contribution(s) and not to offend the contributor(s). IMHO the AFD was not necessary as this is a known better solution and one could move the article without requiring multiple editors' attention and all other costs involved in an AFD. --
doncram00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart11102:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Okay, i boldly moved the article to
Mexico-Czech relations and put in low effort to make it an article, including making the bland, meaningless assertion that relations between the two countries are "important". Importance is not defined. Sorry, Stalwart111, i expect this is less than what you want, but I think this resolves it, as a "target article" exists and is a valid topic. So, go ahead and tag the article as inadequate in various ways, but IMHO this resolves the AFD, which can be closed "KEEP" ratifying the current article. --
doncram13:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Really don't think this article is warranted considering there appears to only be two of them - linking the articles is done sufficiently via the See Also sections.
Sam Walton (
talk)
21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The vast amount of writing about Maxwell's demon stymies any Google search for details on notability, but I agree that there doesn't really seem to be any justification for this list. Without any context or easy way to validate that this satisfies
WP:LISTN, I'd say that deletion is the best option. If the list is notable, then someone can recreate it with a better demonstration of notability. In the meantime, I think any discussion of demons in thought experiments can go to
demon (thought experiment).
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails complete
WP:GNG and Notability for albums, the name 25 itself is
WP:OR, redirecting whole article to Adele was reverted. I'm notminating this for deletion or
merge it into articles for creation again, untill official confirmation comes from the singer or XL Recordings. ETA: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Adele's new upcoming album, and the assumption that it will be also named after her age, has been the subject of a huge amount of buzz. I tend to be pretty deletionist about music album articles, but this is an obvious keep.
Reventtalk14:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(comment) The links I gave there are just to show that the assumed name is not OR, that the assumption it will be named 25 is very widely made. Her 'upcoming album' has been widely talked about, under the various assumed title, for four years now, and will supposedly be released September 25th.
Reventtalk14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia does not work in that way and I assume you know about
WP:CRYSTAL. Also please read
WP:NALBUMS. There has been no ounce of information from Adele herself or XL Recordings at all about an album named 25, nor is there any official confirmation that it would be released on September 25, 2014. I'm just plain surprised that even after reading the sources, which all speculate, that you even try to stick up for keeping the article. The whole article, named as 25 (Adele album), itself is a violation of GNG. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No but the closest I've found is
[11] - lets be honest it's either going to released this year or January next, Despite Crystal & that I still see no point in deleting. –
Davey2010 •
(talk)16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I don't "know it". It is based on this quote "Bye bye 25, see you again later in the year,” the singer tweeted in May, on the eve of her 26th birthday, a message widely read as a first announcement of her new record." from a reliable source.
Philg88 ♦
talk05:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
How does that justify that the album will be called 25? And how does it look to you when the sources listed are speculating? I'm surprised that you cannot see how it violates CRYSTAL. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:CRYSTAL, really only deals with events or with speculation. I was legitimately wondering if you have any reason to believe that this album won't be a thing. I can see this being moved to drafts. But after doing a bit of searching around the net, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this. One small example is on
http://adele.wikia.com/wiki/25, under the references section, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this topic. There is a speculative nature to this article's topic, and there should definitely be a Crystal template added, but deleting it would be excessive.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikia is a fan site and you know it. That page also has lots of poor referencing like Perez Hilton, ATRL, Entertainmentwise, and dayoneadelefans.com. Snuggums (
talk /
edits)16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikia is a commercial wiki, it also has a broader scope than Wikipedia, and it does have better sourcing than this article. I don't care for pop-music, so I have no reason to "justify" keeping the article. It was not a "pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article", that's an exorbitant look at my statement, especially considering it wasn't entire basis of my argument. My speedy keep was in response to large amount of "Keep" votes proceeding my statement. Neither of you have clarified, as to whether or not, that you have any reason to believe this album won't exist. To be honest deleting this article, considering its just going to be back in a few months, is ridiculous. Keep or Move to Draftspace.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
XiuBouLin, obviously the AFD summary itself clarifies that all the sources refer to this project as being under development with no confirmed track list, or album release date, or confirmed name as 25. It does not matter what I think, that's not how
Wikipedia works. To be honest, creating an article in the first place, without any indication of passing
WP:NALBUMS or
WP:GNG is ridiculous. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's what I was asking. I don't care for Adele's music, and I honestly understand your frustration with there being a speculative album article. Yet, somehow, even the
The Guardian is now discussing this as an upcoming album,
[12]. Whether or not this is album in development, or not, it has
WP:SIGCOV and should be kept. But, if it is as you claim, to not be meeting
WP:GNG, then I think reasonably it should be moved to a draftspace.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Move to
WP:Drafts plausible search term, but fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER miserably- no confirmed release date or tracklist. It also is rather poorly sourced, and definitely NOT an "obvious keep" or "speedy keep". Snuggums (
talk /
edits)15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
But it fails
WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criteria for albums. WP:NALBUMS exists for a reason and should be put to use. WP:ONLYESSAY is also not a very convincing argument as it undervalues the insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (
talk /
edits)15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NALBUMS. Future albums are supposed to have a confirmed title, track listing, and release date. This article only has a confirmed title.EDIT: Move to
WP:Drafts per SNUGGUMS's suggestions.
Erick (
talk)
16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Given that the album's official name hasn't been confirmed by Adele or her record label, I'm changing my stance to delete once more.
Erick (
talk)
15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: per
WP:CRYSTAL. The guidance in
WP:NALBUMS to only create articles when there is a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data is extremely sound guidance. Passing the
WP:GNG is not an assurance that there should be a separate article, only the bare minimum threshold to be crossed in order to permit one. Our experience with premature album articles demonstrates exactly how unwise it is to have these articles.—
Kww(
talk)
17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Until track list, release dates etc are confirmed. By the way, who has confirmed it is even called 25? No one from what I can see in the article. Adele, her label not her management have confirmed that it is called 25. Further reason to redirect. —
₳aron18:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment
As I specifically said, those weren't sources I was citing to show the 'notability', just to show that the idea that the name was OR was laughable. OR means that the Wikipedia editor came up with something that sources don't say, which is obviously not the case here. But, since you insist....
Again, not even trying hard here. Yes, it's rumor and speculation, but it's not our speculation, and the rumor and speculation is obviously quite notable.
IndianBio, to address your apparent misconception about the way AfD is supposed to work... articles are not required to be perfect, or even good, to survive an AfD. If sources exist, the article should be improved, not deleted. AfD is about is the /topic/ is notable and worthy of an article, not about if the article is crap as it stands. There are many lousy articles about notable topics on Wikipedia, that do not do the subject justice...that does not mean they should be deleted. And yes, I did revert your attempt to shortcut any kind of deletion process by converting the article to a redirect without any discussion, because it showed a total disregard for the process and opinion of other editors. I have yet to see any statement by you or Kww that suggests you have made any attempt to research the notability of this topic. Instead, you simply seem to not like it.
To address some of the complaints being made here, specifically, since people are just quoting this and that essay or guideline, and not really making arguments.
"Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." See the above, and much, much, much more if you only bothered to look.
"For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." (my emphasis) Yes, the article was, as created, based only on lousy sources... but many, many, many reliable sources for the same information exist. It is not our place to speculate, and it is not our place to report on what is said on fansites, but it is our place to report on notable subjects, even if they haven't happened yet.
Notice the line in
WP:NALBUMS about three lines up from your quote: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. There is no need to have articles about gossip and speculation.—
Kww(
talk)
04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Revent, I also suggest that you note that the
WP:GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion: it is the bare minimum threshold a topic must breach to be considered for inclusion in a standalone article. All kinds of things that pass the GNG are deleted.—
Kww(
talk)
04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Revent:, you very well know what I have removed from the article. Unreliable blog sources like
Perez Hilton and PopCrush are not
reliable sources so please don't lecture me on the AFD process. I know very well how it works. And
it is not my burden to find out sources for an album which is all about speculations. All the sources you listed, I repeat all, are speculating on the album's title and supposedly release date. And that is a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL. So yeah, my nomination reasoning stands. You are trying to push something which basically has hypothetical existence, without any confirmation. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Really? Really?
WP:BEFORE, B, 2. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" D, 3 "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." Yes, it is your burden to attempt to do so, before you nominate an article for AFD.
Reventtalk07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes my dear, really. None of the sources searched gave any ounce of indication that the album has been confirmed as named 25, nor a release date. Sources base this on Adele's cryptic tweet "Bye bye 25.. see you later (blahblah)" and they even list it as an assumption. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nice way to ignore what I said about
WP:BEFORE, and your disregarding it. Her tweet was obviously seen as an indication that the album would be released this year, because she said she would see 25 again, as she has named her previous albums after her age. Whether the name has been confirmed or not, '25' obviously passes
WP:COMMONNAME as how the topic is referred to. Your 'the name is OR' claim is still laughable.
Reventtalk08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah right, read your own statements and see how it contradicts
WP:CRYSTAL. You are assuming something which Adele has done before, as something which she would do again in the future. And yes, I will delete any
WP:COPYVIO links to YouTube, unless from the official website. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm not assuming anything. The sources are, and we can discuss that. The 'speculation' is not unverifiable, it is widely reported in reliable sources. As far as the Youtube thing, it's quite telling that you're now trying to come up with new (and still invalid) reasons to remove it. For one thing, you used the wrong template, and reported the text that I readded as a copyright violation, instead of tagging the link as being to a potential copyvio, which is just wrong since it's text from a CC-BY-SA source. Also, the linked video (which is only about two minutes long) is not a copyright violation, it's brief enough to be reusable under fair use. That would have something to do with why YouTube, who does remove copyrighted material quite aggressively, has not removed it.
Reventtalk14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The source being used is not YouTube, it is an Entertainment Tonight interview. The link to YouTube is merely a convenience link, and perfectly allowable.
Reventtalk15:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm telling you that it's a convenience link, the material is sourced to a television interview, and that if you have a problem with the convenience link you remove the link, not the sourced, cited content. I'm also telling you that you need to read the directions before you use a template, and not flag text that is from a CC-BY-SA source attributed in the article if your problem is with a link. The text you flagged was patently not a copyright violation. I'm also telling you that before you remove something as an unreliable source you should actually look at it... a statement of what a person said in an interview, sourced to that interview, is not an unreliable source.
In the edit summary when I took off the {{copyright violation}} template, if you bothered to look at it before reverting, I specifically said the text you flagged is CC-BY-SA, that you probably meant to use {{copyvio link}}, and that I disagreed. Your revert was inane, if you wanted to flag the link you shouldn't have restored the wrong template, you should have added the right one.
Reventtalk19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
And herein you don't get the fact that Wikia content cannot be accepted by
Commons license for the same reason that they are not a copyright claimer. They have absolutely no right to that content they have released under the license. And convenience or not, you purposefully added a link with copyright claims, even going as far as to claim that it was YouTube's responsibility to see if it is copyrighted. As I said in your talk page, drop the
WP:IDHT please. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]19:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentWP:CRYSTAL addresses the issue of
unverifiable speculation, which the topic of this article is not—a significant number of
reliable sources agree that that Adele will release a new album this year and that it will in all liklihood be called "25". We, as editors, are permitted to record that according to
policy: "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." Turning to
WP:NALBUMS. "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects ..." 25 is such a project, given the feverish level of interest in the topic from sources far and wide.
Philg88 ♦
talk05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Philg88:, I get what you are saying, but looking at the recent contributions to the article, there is no indication of 25 being that of a high feverish project at all. So until and unless this is represented accurately, this is not on par with Chinese Democracy. And I remember G&R's CD era. They already had the album track list as well as the album coverart for the release, though it ended up getting delayed. For this one, there is only confirmation of Adele recording an album, but everything else is speculation and based on something (19, 21) which Adele has done already. The article name itself, 25 (Adele album) does not pass the threshold of
WP:CRYSTAL for this very same reason. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]05:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reasoned reply,
IndianBio. When we have a reliable source stating "which pretty much everyone in the world is certain will be called 25" I think that puts it well outside the realm of
WP:CRYSTAL. We are not speculating, merely reporting on what reliable sources have said. The source story I'm citing was published yesterday, indicating that it is a "hot" topic. Cheers,
Philg88 ♦
talk06:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be a notable convention. While it appears to have had a few notable guests over the years, with the likes of
Spike Spencer,
Steven Blum and
Wendee Lee attending, 1. actual attendance appears to be rather low for an anime convention, with a low of only 300 attendees during the first con, and a high of 2000 attendees during the 2014 event, 2. the only source given is AnimeCons.com, which is not reliable, and 3. There is a lack of independent coverage for this con. I couldn't even find significant coverage from Anime News Network.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article creator's username implies a COI; nevertheless, as the article is not written in a promotional tone, and there is a credible claim to notability (it is apparently the biggest anime convention in the Tri-State Area), I doubt either A7 or G11 apply.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - For what it's worth, IP user 67.149.211.187(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) added the convention to four different lists of convention articles, all of which have since been reverted. Of those, two appear to be plausible,
List of anime conventions and
List of gaming conventions; one is questionable,
List of comic book conventions, as there seems to be little emphasis on comics in either the article or the linked website; one is doubtful,
List of furry conventions, as I could not find any mention of furries or anthropomorphics in either place. Having said that, if reliable independent sources can be found covering the convention and the claimed attendance figures can be confirmed, it is probably worth keeping and re-adding to the two plausible lists of conventions.
mwalimu59 (
talk)
18:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - I did a quick lookup of media coverage and couldn't find anything. The onus is on the article creator to find it (if it exists) and add it as references to the article. If he can do that, my mind can be changed. I think attendance isn't very relevant, as I've seen very small conventions covered by the press.
Stevie is the man!Talk •
Work21:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I found nothing in Google books (nor in newspapers, scholar, or news). In Google web I'm seeing a body of Internet chatter, but no attention from reliable sources.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete did sweeps of Dutch/Netherlands news sources, world newspapers, US, entertainment-related publications, did not find any sources suggesting she meets the GNG.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
@
MichaelQSchmidt: Good work! I found nothing more than few odd yahoo questions when I searched (already mentioned by
Dave). But still I'm not totally convinced, half of the article is not yet referenced. I encourage you to find some more sources so that I can withdraw. JimCarter(from public cyber)09:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Jim Carter: Since the film can be watched for free, cast and production crew can be sourced directly to the film itself. And so while being listed there does nothing for notability, IMDB is generally acceptable for released films.... most specially when the
entire film has been posted by production so it can be watched by anyone.
What else do you think needs sourcing? Schmidt, Michael Q.11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Jim Carter: Check
WP:SELFSOURCE. Yes a film is not independent of itself but it is one of those instances where a primary sources speaking about itself is allowed per
MOS:FILM. As a coordinator of project film, I can assure you of this. The film as a primary sources does not count toward notability, no.... but it is allowed as
WP:V. As for sources for a no-budget indie film that never saw the inside of a theater, I will do more checking in some hours. But will for now remind that
WP:SIGCOV defines that in determining notability, a source must give us more-than-trivial commentary or analysis... it does not state that "multiple" means dozens, but definitely "multiple" sources mean more than one... so three just qualifies. Schmidt, Michael Q.12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hmm. Thanks
MichaelQSchmidt. I understand. Determining notability of a film is not a easy work. Okay I'm willing to withdraw. Now,
Davey2010 what do you think?? Speedy Keep #1 will work only if other participants also support keep. An afd can't be closed as withdrawn if other participants don't change their mind to keep. JimCarter(from public cyber)13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I completely agree with you both - Determining notability is very hard, Anyway I've voted Keep now :) (Apologies for not replying sooner -decided on mowing the garden before it belts it down!). –
Davey2010 •
(talk)13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a
WP:SYNTHesized list of ectoplasm claims by old spiritualist
mediums that are already covered in their own articles, or more generally, at
ectoplasm (paranormal). I say synthesized, because in the lingo of spiritualists, a medium who supposedly created ectoplasm was known as a "materializing medium", but the concept of materialization isn't actually discussed in the sources we've been given. Someone has
WP:ORed in a
miracle of
Jesus lacking any reliable source for their own opinion that he was performing paranormal materialization. Non-notable fringe claims already covered at
Sathya Sai Baba and
Swami Premananda have been tacked on to the list. What we don't have is any
reliable and
independent source that discusses the subject of "paranormal materialization" as a specific subject. How does it work, what's the mechanism, what's the history, where are the objective sources who've studied it exclusively, etc? Without anything like that to build the article on, we can only offer a dictionary entry (materialization is something spiritualists and two obscure gurus claimed to do) but not an encyclopedic article.
LuckyLouie (
talk)
12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: An odd mix of fringe OR and synth based entirely on unreliable sources or misuse of reliable ones. My own searches did not provide any evidence that the topic is not mentioned at all in reliable independent secondary sources. Frankly, it's a bunch of fringe blither that has no place on Wikipedia. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in it's entirety.
Dominus Vobisdu (
talk)
12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep We cover things which are religious beliefs and do not delete them as "fringe" when they have sourcing, even if the sources sometimes seek to disprove it. Far more than a dictionary definition and clearly notable. It can be pure bunk and fraud and still be notable. A very important part of 19th and 20th century "Spiritualism" was manifestations in which the departed would materialize in seances. They were often debunked by scientists who showed the tricks the medium played. It has been widely discussed in reliable sources. Arthur Conan Dole wrote in support and Houdini wrote in opposition, among many others. I removed the claims that Jesus "fishes and loaves" miracle and God's creation of the entire universe were "materialization" since it was unreferenced original research to tie those religious beliefs to the spiritualist medium's sort of materialization phenomena. Note that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and editing is a better idea than deletion when the subject is as notable as this one. The article is not just based on what some dictionary says: countless books pro and con on spiritualism discuss it.
Edison (
talk)
14:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@Edison. I completely agree WP covers notable bunk and fraud and mediums "materializing" things was an important part of 19th and 20th century Spiritualism. But it's all been already covered at another article:
ectoplasm (paranormal), rendering this article as completely
redundant. -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "How does it work, what's the mechanism..": What a twaddle. Let's delete the gravity article also then, for we do not know it's mechanism yet. Apart from that, this and other additional remarks in nominator's argumentation imply that as if we're after the truth but not verifiability; which would be the complete opposite of
WP:V. The topic in question is notable and well sourced. As I stated in article
talk page, materialization is a topic specific also to the false prophetism/prophecy, not only to the ectoplasms allegedly furnishing during seances. I'm sure there are enough coverages/mentions in theological scholarly publications. If you think that some of the material may belong to
ectoplasm (paranormal), then the thing you should have done was to ask the opinions of others and move the related content if there was any consensus; not to take the article to AFD.
Logos (
talk)
15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep subject is associated with several Indian gurus, not called
ectoplasm (paranormal) in this context, and extensively treated in several independent reliable sources by parapsychologist
Erlendur Haraldsson and psychologist
Richard Wiseman.
Comment So, what's the point, what do you expect? It's completely normal for fringe topics to be covered in allegedly fringe journals. These sources are for notability/verifiability, we do not need completely scientific/scholarly publications. Check past arbitration rulings, such as
Paranormal:3 layer cake,
paranormal tag,
adequate framing etc., and policies/guidelines to grasp how framing the subject determines the context.
Logos (
talk)
20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Goblin Face, could you please be more specific about your objections to the sources that user:Logos and I (user:Andries) listed? Please note that the listed sourced found two out the three Indian gurus treated fraudulent i.e. Swami Premananda and Gaytri Swami. Only in the case of the famous Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba the listed sources found no evidence of fraud.
Andries (
talk)
14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable to have an entire article to itself. The same content is found on the ectoplasm and mediumship articles, so no content would be lost.
Goblin Face (
talk)
17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
After ectoplasm, now comes apparition; perhaps you don't have sufficient expertise.. As stated in apparition article, there isn't any material involved. Above mentioned sources are reliable and differentiate materialization properly.
Logos (
talk)
20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That German article looks like a stub based on the English article. There is, however, a good reason to keep the different wikis in sync now that we have wikidata, because it is hard to develop an equivalence that is one-to-many there. At least, I've had a devil of a time when in that situation.
LaMona (
talk)
20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Unfortunately, the two articles have too much overlap, so the editors need to decide what is different between the two phenomena and edit the articles accordingly. It does make sense to me that materialization is the phenomenon and ectoplasm is the stuff of some materializations, but not all. The articles need to make the difference clear, and have less repetition between them.
LaMona (
talk)
20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep WP must include a discussion of this alleged phenomenon, because there is a large literature about it, and it doesn't matter for the purpose of having an article whether or not the phenomenon actually happens. The title is appropriate, for it is the normal English word for it. Wxtoplasm is I think used in a somewhat broader meaning,--it is considered sometimes to be the cause of materialization, but it is used in other senses also. DGG (
talk )
00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Speedy keep 4 valid entries plus valid see also. The see also is clearly more helpful to a reader than Template:Jackie Chan. The actor is the primary topic, but there is also a fictional character (not a fictionalised version of the actor's personality/life) who is called Jackie Chan and voiced by the actor, and a politician. Nothing to be gained from deletion. @
Tavatar:, the creator, seems not to have been informed of this AfD.
Boleyn (
talk)
17:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems like a valid dab page based on this criteria at
WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
PaintedCarpet (
talk)
20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Are you going to create the pages of these entries? If not, this page is just there to waste people's time. A user who types "Li Nan" trying to read about the table tennis player now needs to click two times, versus just one time before. China has a billion people and thousands of years of detailed documented history and with the way the 2- or 3- syllable names are romanized in English, I can easily find hundreds of "Li Nan"s or any Chinese names that have appeared in books, articles etc. The problem is, how many of them are truly notable? And if they are not, what's the point of listing them?
Timmyshin (
talk)
19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Please see
MOS:DABRL and
MOS:DABMENTION. If, after reading them, you believe that the skier and footballer in some way invalid entries, please say so. If you disagree with the guidelines, please discuss that at an appropriate venue. Here is a disambiguation page with 4 valid entries.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Of the three sources cited, #1 does not mention Guo Dongli at all, whereas #2 and #3 are from the same publication (Boxun) of questionable reliability. Even then, Boxun says Guo is just an "ordinary student".
Zanhe (
talk)
20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. There seen no reason to focus on he is an "ordinary student" or not. And the "no significant independent coverage" does not hold; in fact, lots of articles in Wiki also lack on this problem and only with one or two references. See the following sample
Kong Lingxi in Wikipedia.
Historysalon (
talk)
06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The #1 source did mention the establishment of Youth Solidarity Temporary Student Union (临时青年团结学生联盟), which Guo Dongli is the convener of it. See the following sources
[18],
[19],
[20]. 07:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.83.17.57 (
talk)
The #1 source is a blog article. Among the other three sources provided by 108.83.17.57, [1] does not mention Guo Dongli, and the other two are reprinted from Guo's own twitter.--
Huang Jinghai (
talk)
07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete article makes no claim of notability. Why does this person matter? Generally we assume that the question is answered by independent reliable sources when they (not just one or two) chose to do in-depth reporting on the subject, but a little common sense applies, too. Anyway, this doesn't pass
WP:GNG cuz it doesn't have that level of reporting. If there was an interview with VOA, then perhaps it should be published by VOA, wouldn't that be logical. It seems especially suspicious that the anonymous VOA reporter with whom the subject is suposedly doing an interview in one of the cited refs is unable to use correct English. I'm with above commenters, this appears to be little more than a detailed hoax of some sort.
WP:A7 applies -
Metal lunchbox(
talk)18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Consider keep actually, this article did clarify this person well, even can get expand justly. This person is relate to social activity, and in the new edition there had state very clear. Anyway, there are no hard evidence can overthrow the fact. In Google, Bing, or Yahoo, there are pretty much links can prove this either in Chinese or English. See
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25].comment added by
156.1.40.12 (
talk)
Note: 156.1.40.12 appears to be another sock of
User:國冬禮, whose named socks have been blocked, but still edits the article from IP's that geolocate to San Francisco. -
Zanhe (
talk)
07:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep/improve This article is meet the
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC since it has a big improve and more notable addition references to compare with the initial one. There has a selection of articles relate to Guo Dongli (references/significant independent coverage). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.102.74.3 (
talk)
23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep All, as per
WP:SK. The ease of merging elsewhere is not a rationale for deletion. It also makes good sense to have centralised orders of battle like this. The previous discussion doesn't seem to have taken account of the fact that merging all these articles is going to overwhelm the
Ottoman Navy or other articles.
Benea (
talk)
15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion are based on established guidelines, and these have not been dealt with by the arguments for keeping.
Michig (
talk)
08:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep -Although I found several leads to her, I really couldn't find much on her career points except for a few like this one here>
[26]. However, it would seem to me that being in the films she has been in that she would have achieved some form of notability just from her participation aspect. I am really on the fence with this one.--
Canyouhearmenow12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Non notable. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR. Her filmography is one supporting role and two bit parts in other films which don't show notability. My impression is that it's too soon for this article.
Cowlibob (
talk)
16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Someone who thinks winning a million from a ten pound bet is not significant is bizarre. This can be researched with Titanbet 100 million mania. Envy is not a reason to ask for a post deleted. Wikipedia needs to have facts not opinions.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mike1980McN (
talk •
contribs)
11:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Congratulations on your big win :-) Wikipedia does have rather strict
notability requirements, though. Nobody is doubting that you did win the money and that it was in the papers at the time, but that actually strengthens the original point, that the subject of the article is
known for one single event only - please have a look at that link. Many people win lots of money, but unless they are also notable for some other reason, that is probably not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please also read
this information. Thanks! --bonadeacontributionstalk11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the article should be redirected to Michael McNally (born 1980) as opposed to its current title.
Aerospeed (
Talk)
22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
DeleteMike -
bonadea is correct. A single event does not establish notability. Hopefully you've used that money to do something very good for humankind, and when that is completed, you may be considered notable.
LaMona (
talk)
20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Comment-also it seems to be a issue of him being a younger brother of someone else. Now I'm not sure how we handle people from vine though. Maybe someday he might become bigger. But not yet.
Wgolf (
talk)
21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete due to lack of significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Yes, his brother is likely notable, but his brother has gotten more coverage in reliable sources, and notability is not inheritable from a sibling. —C.Fred (
talk)
16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment-looks like this article might need a protection lock until this gets resolved considering constat vandalism that happens.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
An actor with just one film that was back in 2001. Now if he had attention for it and/or made more films then maybe he could be considered for an article. But for now-no.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Also looking at the history-this article has been around for 11(!) years with no changes at all. Now at the time it probably seemed like he could do more.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article kind of sounds like a hoax almost-though all of the links are in Russian, but I'm not sure if this is notable or what. Maybe a expert is needed.
Wgolf (
talk)
03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Several things that don't quite add up to notability: vice rector (rector would be good enough), deputy minister (minister would be good enough)... and the lack of sources is also a big problem. If someone with expertise in Georgian sources put the effort into digging up sources there's a fair chance this could be rescued, but as it is there's not much worth saving. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I am a Russian speaker, and the article does not contain a single link to an independent RS, which technically makes it an expired PROD. On the other hand, he may very well be notable according to
WP:PROF. In praticular, the article claims that he is an "Academician". If this means member of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia (which I do not know how to verify), he is automatically notable.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
09:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GNG (in particular
WP:Artist). The article shows no sign of significant coverage in RS. In addition to several points of concern:
The article has been tagged as copyvio by a bot
[27] and the tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor with no explanation
[28]
It has been nominated for speedy because of overtly promotional tone
[29], deletion tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor
[30]
Additionally, the sources present on the page do not discuss the subject's life/career in detail but are rather anecdotal. Google search yielded no coverage, and, of particular concern, no mentions on Moroccan media given that the subject is Moroccan.
Tachfin (
talk)
05:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Important please pay attention if
user:Maromania &
user:Fevrret aren't deleting/editing any votes/comments:
** Also, recommend you to
assume good faith for new contributors (as seen
Maromania is one of them). Stop accusing as we (
Maromania and
Fevrret just deleted any comment, because what I did was merging Maromania's comment as just one (which was keep). With the
WP:COI you have not proofs, I am just an editor and you made a direct offense to my being, myself. The non admin disclosure was discussed and I didn't know the existent
WP:NAC and reverted, and apologized to
Crow for this, which he assumed my enthusiasm is great, but I need to know the rules. I will report this case to the administrators for violating
WP:CONSPIRACY,
WP:AGF and
WP:COI without any proofs.
Fevrret (
talk)
19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I explained that the article was not promotional, and we discussed it over. Also other contributors expressed on the article as not being "promotional". Actually, an admin. The article is covered by major articles. The book
Through My Lens is a book authored by Achraf Baznani. You (Tachfin) do not have any statement to prove wrong. Is currently featured by magazines (hereinbefore mentioned).
Fevrret (
talk)
18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep the article meets
WP:BASIC and have encyclopedia importance. Is supported by third major magazines in English, Spanish, French, Arab. And has an arab wikipedia page approved by admins.
Fevrret (
talk)
18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no such thing as "an article approved by admins". I've repeatedly seen that argument being used by paid editors. If there are reliable sources that discuss the subject deeply enough to establish notability than please present them. Mearly anectdoctal mentions and promotional articles on shady websites/blogs does not implicate notability (c.f.
WP:Artist) --
Tachfin (
talk)
06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I saw this go by on RC, and thought it rang a bell. Sure enough, I have
Draft:Achraf Baznani on my w/l from August 30. It is identical to the initial version of the article now under discussion, which was created a day later by a different editor.
CrowTalk19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I never said that I created this article. I just modified it, taking by references the interviews which he is featured on. It's not identical, I modified it.
Fevrret (
talk)
23:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Of course, I'm not suggesting any impropriety, more to keep an eye out that there could be multiple copies floating around. If this article is kept, they should be merged into the live copy to avoid having multiple out-of-sync versions, and if this is deleted they should be looked at accordingly.
CrowTalk23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Change to deleteUser:Tachfin I was more impressed by the number of sources than I should have been. Suggest this now goes to a long redlink salt of all possible name variations. Also someone needs to make sure the Sockpuppet documentation for blocked user Fevrret is complete. Given the amount of damage that editor was doing incidentally with other edits we don't want a reoccurrence.
00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I looked at the suggested sources and all that I could see are blog posts (even the CNN one is, and it says: Not verified by CNN). I would suggest getting some more reliable sources. But I do not know what the decision should be about an article in @en.wikipedia if there are no such resources in English. Anyone?
LaMona (
talk)
15:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Notable individual showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources (see references). Artspace (one of the top galleries in New York, USA) owns works by Baznani and he has featured magazines and newspapers across the world.
WP:ARTIST. Quite why the nominator thinks that the sources are not independent.
The artist is moroccan, if you (Tachfin) are moroccan[14] then you can read some newspapers about him in arabic [15][16][17][18][19][20]
The content of this page [21] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0). You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission
Maromania (
talk)
09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
X is one of the greatest is exactly the type of wording that raises red flags here. Links you've provided either: 1. Do not meet Wikipedia definition of
WP:RS (anyone can create a website) 2. Are affiliated with the subject (e.g. Baznani.com) 3. Are anecdotal, insofar as they don't discuss the topic deeply enough. The only exception to this may be this:
al-Quds article but it doesn't discuss the subject's life, mearly an interview of some generic stuff about his work, still short of
WP:artist or even
WP:GNG --
Tachfin (
talk)
06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"Achraf Baznani did not realize that he was a born artist until he got a camera as a birthday gift in his teen ages. Like many other great people that have walked the earth, Achraf Baznani also had to know it from within and by chance that he was in fact an artist." "The surrealist inside him gave the bravery to direct the short film the way that it earned him the Best Director award in more than five different awarding." "The art where it shows him standing in the middle of a chess board is an amazing idea" "the photobook has summarized the human life in very impressive manner." Yep, promotion.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: As @
Duffbeerforme: noted,
Achraf Baznani has been deleted three times by three different sysops and slated to avoid recreation. There is actually no need to disambiguate the title as in "Achraf Baznani (photographer)" other than to avoid the scrutiny of new page patrolers and "quietly" recreate a 3X deleted article. (also note the existence of
Achraf baznani) --
Tachfin (
talk)
05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You
Tachfin, the first time you dont believe that the photographer Achraf Baznani is Moroccan! Now you believe it! and you dont wont that the page about him was created! May be your are Moroccan too! anyway the artist is very known in your country.
Maromania (
talk)
08:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: COI. In addition to the copyright problems which caused me to list this article at
WP:CP, there seems to be a
WP:COI problem here too:
User:Maromania has for some reason chosen as a username the name of the web host of Baznani's site,
Maromania
User:Fevrret is apparently well enough acquainted with Baznani to have taken
this photograph of him, in a style very reminiscent of that of the photographer himself.
I have asked for permission to Baznani itself in order to use this photo. Making this a neutral point of view, with permission to use the photo. --
Fevrret (
talk)
09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Shady behind-the-wiki whatevers aside, I looked through the sources listed. Removing the blogs, the promotional and self-published, and mirrors thereof, we're left with a small group of sources. For the most part, those contain numerous photographs, but only incidental coverage of the person. There are 2 that have the trappings of an interview, but again are superficial (just a question or 2 then a lot of photos). The sources unequivocally prove that A:he exists and B:he makes a lot of cool photographs. But little else to show notability to the level we need. Musee Magazine called him an "Emerging Artist". I think he needs to emerge a bit more to meet requirements here.
CrowTalk23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. With no great enthusiasm. Here we have a photographer whose work is in some ways similar to what the much celebrated
Slinkachu is doing, but in at least one way very different. It doesn't happen to be my thing (not that this matters at all), but it's non-negligible. Perhaps he's more notable (in the normal sense of the word) than is a photographer
whose article I was bemusedly working on just an hour or so ago (because I came across it while wanting to read about the distinctly notable
Alberto Schommer).
This source and
this one don't seem worthless. However, the boosterism here is persistent and repellent, and (copyright questions aside) the current article is a crude attempt to evade salting. So I wish
his Indiegogo appeal well; let him "emerge" (as suggested by
Crow above), and if/when this has happened a disinterested would-be article creator may contact
Anthony Bradbury (see
protection log) with clear evidence for the "emergence". --
Hoary (
talk)
01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Reluctant delete. I thought that the Arabic-language coverage would be enough to establish notability; but when I looked at the articles in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al Ahdath Al Maghribia, Al-Arab and Sayidaty (a Dubai women's magazine), all of which are proper publications, they all turned out to be substantially the same (and substantially the same as that in Al Bayane). My guess is they've all reprinted the press release for the book. The book doesn't seem to be in WorldCat, I get no VIAF hits for him.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
@
Hirolovesswords: Thanks for weighing in. While writing this, I solicited the opinions of two editors involved in prior deletions of this topic - they both reviewed the draft and encouraged me to post it to mainspace. You can read their opinions on
Kudpung's talk page.
For my part, I don't think
WP:BLP1E applies - all 3 conditions need to be met for this to count against an otherwise notable article, and I actually don't think any of them are. 1) In addition to the extensive 2014 election coverage,
Seth Moulton received substantial contemporaneous coverage for his commentary on the Iraq War (most notably the Boston Magazine article, but also reviews of No End In Sight) 2) During the Iraq war, the 6+ national NPR News interviews, several other media interviews, and prominent appearance in an Acadamy Award nominated documentary, all many years before the 2014 election really preclude him from being considered a "low-profile individual" outside the context of the election. 3) The 2014 election is significant and very well documented, as the many feature-level pieces in regional media, and at least one column by a prominent national political commentator in TIME magazine attest. There are also more brief mentions in a number of national media pieces on "most competitive" or "most significant" elections for the 2014 cycle.
As I discussed more extensively on
Kudpung's talk page, I think criteria 2 and 3 of
WP:POLITICIAN are satisfied in this case. While there is no question that many unelected primary challengers in congressional races will not satisfy notability criteria, the level of regional and national press coverage of
Seth Moulton I think makes this an exception. One other point which I did not mention in the article out of
WP:NPOV concerns is that Moulton has been endorsed by both the major Boston papers (the
Boston Globe and
Boston Herald), and most of the major papers in the 6th district - this is pretty unusual for a primary challenger, and the Globe endorsement has subsequently been noted by national political media, e.g. :
[34] and
[35].
RustavoTalk/
Contribs11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I find the political aspect of this article weak, but the military aspect strong. Being a failed politician is hardly notable, but it appears that this fellow was notable in his actions in Iraq. I would beef up that part of the article, and leave the political part as a "mention" until he actually gets elected. So it's a weak keep with a request to
Rustavo (which is pretty much the sole editor on this article) to give us more of the military history, if possible.
LaMona (
talk)
15:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I believe this is notable considering Streamup has been covered in
Variety (magazine) as one of just a handful of noteworthy
streaming media companies capable of reaching a presence as significant as
Twitch with their recent acquisition by
Amazon.com.[1] Respectfully, I understand your point that Wiki shouldn't contain insignificant articles, but there are only several significant
streaming media platforms left and this is one of them.
Kyledmichelson (
talk)
05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Yahoo! Sports article is a rehash of an SBNAtion.com user-submitted blog piece -- not a reliable source per
WP:RS. Yahoo often recycles user-submitted material from affiliated sports blogs because it's free content. Beware: not professional sports writers or journalists. If I'm using user-submitted blogs, I can find several sources that say every Division FBS game series is a "rivalry." Our standard is a little higher than that.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but agree with commenter: way too recentist. The history goes much, much further back. However, we have to start somewhere. Let's see if we can get this expanded before we delete. --
Esprqii (
talk)
14:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have not had the time to do the
WP:BEFORE due diligence required to determine the notability of the Stanford-USC game series as a rivalry, but per
WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep - whether it is fictional or not is not of primary concern here. Perhaps consider a merge with an appropriate Star Wars article.
PotassiBot (
talk)
01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)(Note: User has been blocked)reply
Delete- this is poorly sourced plot summary about fictional locations, written in an in-universe style. There is nothing to indicate real-world notability. I considered a merge, but rejected that idea because I could not identify a target article, or any sourced content in this one that can be merged. Not sure what basis there is for the speedy keep votes.
ReykYO!04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Almost entirely an in-universe description of fictional places. No sources. None of these places seem to have any notability outside of the fictional material from which they come.
Daniel(talk)01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Daughter of a notable person (
Jose Canseco), who happens to have appeared in a film about him and in a reality show focused on the ex-wives of celebrities called Hollywood Exes. (Can reality TV get any more depraved or useless?) In neither case was Josie Canseco the focus of the media, just an ancillary based on her relationship to others.
WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jose Canseco. I think he would be the more appropriate redirect, as he is more notable than his wife,
Jessica Canseco. Also, there currently is no mention of her on Jose Canseco's article, so she should be mentioned at the very least.
Upjav (
talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Edited
Upjav (
talk)
03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC))reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I am finding some evidence to suggest that this exists, such as the Japanese Wikipedia listing the book and
this Amazon page but then that's not exactly definitive. I'll try to see if I can find something that proves it beyond a doubt.
Comment-ha okay thanks. I was thinking when someone said a possible hoax about how odd that be given how long the article has been around followed by "dang that be some odd record". Well still not notable.
Wgolf (
talk)
03:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have reviewed this article and found it lacking notability. He has not been the subject of any published, non-trivial secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This athlete has had trivial coverage by a secondary source consisting of a listing in a data-base-type website with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, most likely compiled by a fan or loose association. Youtube and facebook gave the most returns on google. The sport of darts does not even appear on the WP: Notability (sports) article.
bpage (
talk)
00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable competition darts player. There is no specific notability guideline for darts players per
WP:NSPORTS, so darts players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG for inclusion. In this case, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
13:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:ANYBIO. This person is a beekeeper in Chicago. The references cited interview him because he does this very unique thing in the middle of an urban area, but he is not notable, his accomplishments seem not notable, and writing for "Thing Magazine" is equally not notable.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I hear you. But just because he has a unique hobby, and the press likes to write about his unique hobby, doesn't make HIM notable. Where he went to school, and the entire non-notable aspects of his life outside of beekeeping are documented. But the only truly "notable" aspect of his life is his hobby, which thousands of other non-notable people also do, though not in urban areas. No offense to this guy, and he sounds like a decent person, but in strict Wiki-speak, HE is entirely non-notable. Maybe this info could be added to a beekeeping article?
Magnolia677 (
talk)
02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Not sure that making judgements based on the kind of work the subject does is really helpful here. Even if it's a hobby and thousands of other people do it is not really relevant to his notability; that his work and biographical details have been covered in notable sources including
the Chicago Tribune, the
Times of Northwest Indiana (second-largest newspaper in Indiana), along with some coverage in a handful of lesser publications (
[1],
[2],
[3]) is much more important.
I, JethroBTdrop me a line07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I have added an infobox along with some more bits of information to the article along with two new references. Also a Wikilink to
urban beekeeping. I will try to further improve it, as in my view, it's still weak but should not be deleted.--
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I believe the article ought to be left intact as its reference list obviously gives reliable sources, such as BBC and Reuters. The article itself is largely accurate and supported by documentation, and the significance of the event lies beyond its apparent factual content. It is an example of a lost presumed-to-be tracked flight in modern times, much like Flight 19 almost 70 years later.
Delete. I think the presumption has to be against notability for general aviation accidents like this. (Even if someone notable was on board, the accident probably belongs in the article of the notable person, not as an independent article.) Some accidents might be an exception to this presumption, but it is too soon to judge whether this will be one of the exceptions. (Commercial aviation accidents, especially those with mass fatalities, the opposite presumption applies; both because of the number of fatalities, and also because of the greater potential for commercial or regulatory impacts.)
SJK (
talk)
04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. An accident with a regretfully common cause (cabin depressurisation is not rare); no Wikinotable people involved; not a scheduled flight. May be worthy of mention in the TBM900 article at some point, but doesn't come close to the standard for a standalone article -
The BushrangerOne ping only08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Small plane crashes, and cabin depressurizations for that matter, occur very often. This, along with the minimal casualty count justifies the deletion of this article. It is all too easy to fall into believing that something is notable when there is extensive short term coverage of the event.
Wikipedia:Notability (events) explains this well. —
Harpsichord246 (
talk)
08:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The TBM 900 is a new entry in a rapidly growing category of pressurized single engine aircraft. Accidental depressurization during cruise is an important new class of accident. There may be an important lesson for private pilots here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.212.103.44 (
talk)
TBM-900 is merely a variant of the TBM-700, in fact it is the TBM-700N re-designated. Not new at all seeing as the first flight was in 1983--
Petebutt (
talk)
01:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete- nn accident, hypoxia not proven as NTSB have only just begun their investigation. FWIW, the Payne Stewart Learjet crash would have been nn had he not been on board.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep No One Notable On Board! Oh my goodness, I thought we were all "Notable"! This case is going to be far reaching. Not only for the unusual circumstances, but that the aircraft in question was "BRAND NEW" - 2014 Model. Unless pilot error is found, this could be a game changer for the manufacture of these type of aircraft. And I personally sought Wikipedia out for information on this exact accident. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.60.194.234 (
talk)
17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or Re-direct - not notable general aviation accident. At best a paragraph or entry in the aircraft article / Accidents of 2014 article.--
Petebutt (
talk)
00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - For now, at least. It meets
WP:GNG in having significant media coverage in reliable sources, and is likely to be continuing coverage as there are many unanswered questions about the circumstances of crash, especially the apparently-denied request to descend to a lower altitude. If it should prove to be non-notable once the investigation has finished, unlikely though that seems at this time, then it can be merged to the aircraft article. -
BilCat (
talk)
07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents (where it was described immediately after the story started to receive coverage). At this time, not so notable (and not enough is known) as to require its own article. The existence of mystery is not sufficient to establish notability. DwpaulTalk 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep This incident is notable for its unusual circumstances, rather than for its casualty count or any physical damage/destruction inflicted. Another disappearance of an aircraft which was tracked and its location presumed to be known. The failure to locate the wreckage as of today, 8 September, places this incident in the "curious" category at the very least, if not in the "extremely unusual" one. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yavorpenchev (
talk •
contribs)
20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: This incident received much news focus, and this kind of incident, with hypoxia causing a plane to be out of control, is unusual enough to be noteworthy. --
AEMoreira042281 (
talk)
14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It's pretty clear now that this plane crash has become notable with the continued in-depth coverage. I added about four recent sources and it is receiving sustained coverage.
I am One of Many (
talk)
05:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Think he fails
WP:POLITICIAN. Could be wrong, but references, seem to point to this.
This is his duties:
Member of Orumieh Intelligence Unit, responsible for managing staff, Chief city of Maku, West Azarbaijan Governor's Deputy General Manager and General Manager of Security Police.
Comment You will need to show some evidence that he is elected. I couldn't find any. At the moment, the article looks like he's is an senior official running the police service, which is not notable.
scope_creeptalk 10:43 8 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 article,
World Spiritual Foundation, created by
User_talk:Lordmehershivpuri is essentially a mirror of a website
here. The only references are to that website. No indication is given of what kind of legal entity this is, such as Trust, Corporation, etc. The editor who created the page, Lordmehershivpuri (the name of the company plus its town) has created the same article in the past, along with articles about its said-founder, both of which were found to not be notable. Looking on the internet only lands on the website, one blog, and YouTube pages. There are no secondary sources for its notability.
Tajudin69 (
talk)
21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:BIO. Simply not notable. Group hospital administrator and owner of said hospitals, but not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. Seems to be adviser in Pakistan government for oil and gas, but also on that fails
WP:POLITICIAN.
scope_creeptalk21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Change of Vote I change my vote to KEEP. Frankly at first I thought there was a name resemblance only, but after looking at the pictures I understand we are only facing an article which is not up-to-date. Sorry. --
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
12:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. I strongly suggest that the nom review and take to heart
WP:BEFORE. From a nom who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this level of carelessness is inexcusable.
Ravenswing 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article which was rejected at wp:afc reason:no sources. Seems to be encyclopedic though. It's useful information. scope_creep 21:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - A type of list which doesn't need it's own article. You could merge the info to the Disney Channel page but the redirect should not be kept.
Aerospeed (
Talk)
22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Zero sources and absurd
WP:MADEUP numbers (no, 470 million people didn't watch a Miley/Jonas crossover of Hannah Montana, considering that's much more than the population of the US and Canada). At that, article creator was blocked and is probably one of many 'fantasy TV vandal' socks. Nate•(
chatter)02:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment You can see Hannah Montana abroad, here in the UK and Europe, where the kids love her. So I think that is possibly an aggregate figure covering the world. Where the figures came from, however, is another matter. If they were sources, it might be worth keeping, or the info merged into the appropriate article. I couldn't find any figures regarding it, and I was all over the shop.
scope_creeptalk 15:48 6 September 2014 (UTC
CommentNo, they're complete nonsense figures. The top episode of HM got only ten million viewers in the United States, so it's doubtful they managed to get 460 million viewers in the rest of the world, and 210 million for a basic sitcom like The Suite Life would have given the cast more than Friends/Big Bang Theory money for a figure like that alone. Look at the article history (which somehow started as a 'top iTunes app store downloads' article) and its bounce from AFC to article space; this was someone trying to either hoax us or not understanding what we are.Nate•(
chatter)15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Extended Now I see what the intention was;
this edit made it seem like they were adding together cumulative viewership for each of the series, so throughout its run HM had 470 million viewers. Still though, we can't use CV as a metric since that's duplicating each viewer and each of the shows had different episode runs, making side-by-side comparisons impossible without some kind of wide margin of error. Nate•(
chatter)15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This completely unsourced article documents something of only local interest. If the Tacna courthouse is worth documenting, it could be better done in the article on Tacna.
ubiquity (
talk)
20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - I can understand the nom's dislike for this article in the state during the start of AfD
[7], but AfDing of an article that claims such historic significance in only about an hour is not the best way of dealing with such articles.. The historic location where the treaty to transfer a region from one country to another was finalized has great interest to not only both entire nations, but to historians in general. I liken this to
Campo de Cahuenga where the
Treaty of Cahuenga was signed. Just as historic, but sources are much more easily available to English WP editors.--
Oakshade (
talk)
04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The "history" section has almost nothing to do with the topic. Sentences like "special thanks to..." read more like an official site than an encyclopaedia. But even if these problems are taken care of, notability is still in question, #1 it is an orphan, #2 none of the references works any more, and even if they did, are not independent, secondary sources. This is primarily an ethnic intramural league played mostly by US graduate students from China (as can be seen from its links) and not a single notable athlete that could be even considered semi-pro, and in my opinion fails
WP:NSPORTS.
Timmyshin (
talk)
20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - The applicable notability guideline for sports clubs, teams and organization is not WP:NSPORTS; it is
WP:ORG. According to NSPORTS: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." WP:ORG is very similar, if not identical, to the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable amateur basketball league, apparently composed of Chinese and Chinese-American students in the northeast United States. My Google search reveals 45 results, the majority of which are Wikipedia mirror articles (never a good sign), with a healthy dose of Linked In, Facebook and blog pages. In addition to obvious notability issues, the article has numerous other problems. Bottom line: there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources per the specific notability guideline of
WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment-Ha ha ironic, I just put up a AFD on a singer for this band saying a redirect or a merge be the best. Anyway since I'm not a expert in dark music, I'm guessing a merge with those 2 for now. But it does sound like a Borderline delete.
Wgolf (
talk)
20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Biography of non-notable person. Promotional tone. Originally written by user "Choi.pak.hei" leading me to suspect he wrote this article about himself. Article was
WP:PRODed in the past due to not having any references but this was removed after references were added.
Gccwang (
talk)
17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Merge - The case with the CIA chiefs in Pakistan is relevant, but I think the 2010 removal doesn't need an article of its own. There is still a court case going up to this day against the CIA chiefs in Pakistan and it makes headlines every now and then
[8]. I would prefer a general article on the Pakistan CIA chiefs, but since there is none, I suggest merging this particular text into
Drone attacks in Pakistan, together with a single sentence on the source I provided above, in a new short header for that page "Criminal cases against CIA station chiefs". Or if someone has time, update it into a more complete seperate article, with a different name that covers the entire topic. If necessary I can help with a merge if asked. --
Taketa (
talk)
08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge to
CIA activities in Pakistan. The topic of the article is better covered within the context of the CIA Activities in Pakistan article. As for the sources, everything in the article and everything I was able to find through Google searches were news articles which were all released around the same day. This seems to be a pretty clear case of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk)
00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Noting that this is a BLP article, and that there has been substantial and obvious socking and/or meatpuppeting to inflate the "Keep" side of the argument.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
This BLP subject is notable only for her arrest. While it attracted some attention in RS, it is still just a BLP1E. There are some issues with the article's editing history that suggest the subject or someone close to the subject may be editing the article to push a different narrative than how the article currently reads. Since it is "one event" I suggest we IAR and deleteTwo kinds of pork (
talk)
05:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Without wishing to comment on the general notability of Susan Lindauer, this use of the Patriot Act certainly is notable and so if it is decided to delete this article I'd like to suggest the full contents be included in the
Patriot Act article which currently references it under "Controversies". While understanding that there is a heated debate over the facts and that her notability or otherwise is inextricable from this debate, I certainly found it interesting and informative.
Right-Wing Hippy (
talk)
20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That might solve things, however I'm afraid we would have the same sort of editor delirium occurring at that article as we have at this one; that Lindauer was working undercover for the USGOVT as an agent for peace.
Two kinds of pork (
talk)
20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I just read the article for the Patriot Act, then did some research on Lindauer. I cannot find anything in any reliable third-party source that talks about her arrest in the context of the Patriot Act. The charges she faced had nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and the most serious charge was for working as an unregistered lobbyist. Most of her court case focused on her fitness to stand trial. All standard stuff. There is no Patriot Act component verified by a reliable source, so including her in the Patriot Act article is not appropriate.
SpringandFall (
talk)
13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree. #2 is quite satisfied. Lindauer, is extremely likely to remain a low profile individual. Considering the circumstances, any serious source will be unlikely to give her any coverage.
Two kinds of pork (
talk)
14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
delete - i dont see significant coverage outside of the arrest incident and there is no indication that the individual is likely ever to be taken more seriously on their claims in the future than they have been to date. and if this were relevant aspect of the Patriot act there would be significant coverage and analysis of it - which there aint. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom19:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. I disagree. There is a substantial following from her on You Tube and in blogs and therefore on many FaceBook posts. therefore many people are looking for a complete story and background on Ms Landauer. This is one of the core services of Wikipedia. If this is removed then people can not find this information. —
Pursuing Truth (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
thats rather circular reasoning: that the article needs to be kept so that some non reliable blogosphere conspiracy theorist can find information to keep churning until their conspiracy theory is noticed and covered by reliable sources. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that the conditions for deletion have been met. I see no convincing evidence that Lindauer was a CIA asset other than her own self-published assertions. There is no objective independent source or objective evidence that supports this narrative, and I think there would need to be to keep this article, or even to discuss the subject under the Patriot Act. I also agree with statements others have made that it appears there are some biased editors involved, possibly the subject herself.
SpringandFall (
talk)
19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keepit is true. If she is a charlatan then Wikipedia is a valuable resource to expose her. If the editing seems suspect then it should be proven. I for one would look to add more information if I find it that supports her assertions. CIA by its very nature clearly clandestine. Prooving a relationship is not easy. Particularly if what she is claiming is accurate then it would be even more clear that any link to CIA would removed to maintain the narrative that she is just a nut case. Removing the wikipedia listing will simple fortify the concept that she is telling the truth. Is this not obvious? —
SpringandFall (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete - Other than
irrelevant inherited "notability", this notability appears to relate
one event - the subject's trial. All references relate to her trial. The trial itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant the independent article.--
Rpclod (
talk)
20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to
Susan Lindauer arrest. This is more properly an event concerning a living person, not a biography. If the subject arguably fails BLP1E, the 1E certainly meets GNG and IMHO has demonstrated it passes all criteria for
WP:EVENT. Sources presented clearly demonstrate meeting GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, PERSISTENCE, and INDEPTH. A reasonable case could be met that the event meets EFFECT, given the legal sources already applied to the page.
BusterD (
talk)
12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment and question First, the socking/SPAing certainly is not helping either case on this process page. Second, there is a
brief discussion on the nominator's talk page which seems to indicate there's a valid OTRS request from the subject to delete this pagespace. If true, why wasn't that concern presented during nomination?
BusterD (
talk)
13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:BLP1E fits (and says we "should generally avoid having an article"), although I could see a slight argument that point #2 doesn't 100% fit. However, we have
WP:PERP which is an exact fit. The subject of the BLP was not convicted (and will not be), the victim is not a notable figure (as in person(s)), nothing all that unusual about motivation (alleged mental illness), and it has certainly not met "historic significance [as] indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role".
Tgeairn (
talk)
03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This fictional timeline appears to be almost entirely original research. It is largely an attempt to use dates stated during various episodes of the TV show to construct a fictional timeline. Little notability either as this topic has not, to my knowledge, been covered by any sources outside of Star Trek products.
Daniel(talk)16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is notable being documented in sources such as:
Keep But clean up drastically. It does meet notability standards but we don't need to go into the gritty details. A broad picture of how the time line between the major shows, and key events that define the universe, but we should no way try to be reconciling the inconsistencies of the time line. --
MASEM (
t)
03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
No evidence of any special notability and none claimed. Lacks any significant sources and appears to be just another modelling tool. VelellaVelella Talk 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
HydroGeoSphere is an extremely important numerical model used by the hydrology community. It has a long set of publications
http://www.aquanty.com/publication/ and is the current state-of-the-art numerical model. HGS started in 2000 and is still being developed by several research teams. I will add more citations in the upcoming week
JhdavisonJhdavison (
talk)
23:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's well known in the research community, well-referenced in academic literature, and used throughout the world. +
mt03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Google book search gives 109 results and Google scholar gives it 757. Are there any textbooks or scientific publications on university websites(other than those that created it) that mention it?
DreamFocus06:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Here are some articles:
Brunner, Philip; Simmons, Craig T. (2012). "HydroGeoSphere: A Fully Integrated, Physically Based Hydrological Model". Groundwater. 50 (2): 170–176.
doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00882.x.
Cornelissen, Thomas; Diekkrüger, Bernd; Bogena, Heye (2013). "Using HydroGeoSphere in a Forested Catchment: How does Spatial Resolution Influence the Simulation of Spatio-temporal Soil Moisture Variability?". Procedia Environmental Sciences. 19: 198–207.
doi:
10.1016/j.proenv.2013.06.022.
Also there are additional citations to FRAC3DVS, which is the same software before being renamed (and oddly not mentioned in the article).+
mt00:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 would be easy to close as "no consensus"; but on careful review of the opinions here, I think the advocates of deletion have the more policy-compliant arguments. The single bit of independet coverage adduced by the keep proponents—the 2012 article in GizMag—is not, by itself, enough to put the article over the notability hump.
Deor (
talk)
14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Non-notable particle, where most of the "publications" are really arxiv preprints by a small group of people, which have been refuted by the COMPASS collaboration (
arXiv:
1204.2349) as generally shoddy science (see also
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/my_take_wouldbe_particle_38_mev-93256). Some arxiv preprints were even withdrawn from the arxiv (
arXiv:
1208.3829). The article ontains utterly sensationalistic nonsense, like suggestion that this could be the Higgs. Even in 2012, this would have been laughable. It's even more laughable now. The alledged discovery has had some coverage in press, but that's mostly ZOMG NEW PARTICLE MAYBE IT'S THE HIGGS!? kind of coverage, more than anything actually establishing notability. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
keep and edit to show the status. If it has general press coverage, it's notable. People will see it, and come hereto find objective information. DGG (
talk )
01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per DGG and... nominator, who states that it had actual coverage in press. It thus passes
WP:GNG. There's lots of things with general press coverage. - Yeah. And these things are notable per our policies and guidelines.--
cyclopiaspeak!14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not an object, it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. The arxiv preprints are nothing but
WP:PRIMARY sources from the "discoverers", and the "media" coverage is by far and large media outlets bringing out the sensationalism machine because the discoverers made some bunk claims about it being the Higgs, all clustered in 2 or 3 weeks following "discovery", and even there you have to look really hard to find them. Googling E38 boson yields nearly zero results except this article and mirrors thereof, and the articles of van Beveren & Rupp. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
A boson -imaginary or not, real or not- is an object. The policies you cited above do not apply to objects, not even imaginary ones. They apply to people and events. To judge why media do report about this thing is not our business: our business is only to duly note that they did, and write an article accordingly. If it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. -then by all means let's write that in the article. We have articles on several notable hoaxes and false discoveries, and this is probably another one. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
DeleteThe discovery seems not established/controversial still, in the technical world; excuse the pun, the result is still too lightweight. The article could easily be merged into another article, e.g.,
Boson or
Standard Model, where a few sentences would suffice, really. Would justify its own article in time perhaps, if the discovery is confirmed in time - it would be a major discovery if confirmed.
Bdushaw (
talk)
08:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The article is supported by 6 references, five of which are essentially by E. van Beveren, and two of those are just websites. The sixth, that disputes the result, is an informal website that is not a reliable reference. A discovery of a particle like this would be a discovery of such magnitude that it would ordinarily appear on the front pages of the NY Times and spread like wildfire throughout the physics community. Based on the evidence that I see, this particle will likely come to nothing; it is most likely a fiction. So delete for now.
Bdushaw (
talk)
16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The first of these links is a report on the Higgs, rather than E(38). The second is a rather dubious blog-type report on the original paper, dated two years ago shortly after it appeared. I understand, as you say, that the thing itself is not required for notability, that the controversy can warrant an article. But this is not a
cold fusion type of situation - I do not see references that would sustain notability of even the controversy. Within weeks of the cold fusion announcement, there were teams working to confirm the result. With E(38), I see no report at all that anyone has worked to confirm or deny the report - its been a general shrug. The "controversy" is not notable either (for now). Its reported as a very low energy particle, hence it would be easy to verify - such a confirmation would have appeared right away in Phys Rev Lett, and likely garnered a Nobel Prize...
Bdushaw (
talk)
17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Whoops, you are right, the first is about the Higgs, I got fooled. However, again, all the discussion about the scientific validity of this announcement is irrelevant about the notability. What matter is that it has been discussed in some sources. We don't need
cold fusion-level controversy for it. --
cyclopiaspeak!14:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, but we DO need an actually notable controversy. A couple of blogs posts over the time of one or two months, a retracted preprint, and 30 papers by the same authors who failed to get the hint that no one cares or believes them fails to meet the threshold of notability set by
WP:N. Controversies and article on pathological science are fine, I mentioned a few above (
Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly,
Oops-Leon,
N rays,
Dean drive,
polywater, etc...) which are actually notable. These had an impact on science. This controversy is someone thinking a fart is evidence of a grenade. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You mistake "notability" for "having a huge impact". That's not what notability is on WP. Notability here means that we have the minimum requirements to create an article. Notable topics do not need to be major topics. --
cyclopiaspeak!09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Why relisted? To summarize: the three commenters above agree that the particle is a fiction, has not been supported by independent references. The argument above is over whether there is sufficient controversy to warrant notability to support the article. Two of us say no, the third says yes. But the proof is in the pudding, and there are no references to support any controversy. All three of us have looked for it, the article's editors have worked on this for two years, and there is still nothing. The fact that there are only three commenters (and I am here only because of what seemed like a desperate plea for more comments) straining to find any references should be an indication of no notability. We are all agreed, I believe, that E(38), if it existed, would be a MAJOR discovery, one that would turn particle physics on its ear. Yet the silence is deafening. Wikipedia should not have articles that lend credibility to nonsense. I daresay that attempting to edit articles such as
Standard model or
Boson to insert anything about E(38) would likely be deleted in a hurry; hence this article is orphaned. (All due respect and all manner of thanks to the Wikipedia administrators!)
Bdushaw (
talk)
21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. This thing doesn't exist, and there is insufficient coverage of the hypothesis to justify an article. Self-published sources on arxiv.org don't count. --
101.117.31.220 (
talk)
08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete- Given that erroneous hypotheses in science are common, I think we need more than a handful of self-published and non peer-reviewed sources to distinguish this one as notable.
ReykYO!22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak delete - this article was originally built around Kahn as an activist related to his attempt to marry his partner, which I voiced on the talk page at the time seemed a
WP:BLP1E matter. It was recently recast by someone with an apparent
conflict of interest to be about him as an architect, with links to several articles and claims of others (the article as it stands has been pared down a fair bit by me, due to strong
WP:PROMO and lack of sources). However, the articles linked to were passing mentions, or using Khan to comment on someone else. The New York Times piece now used as reference has about five sentences on him... without mentioning his activism or his architect status, so it just seems to be a random example local. Having said all that, he is credited as appearing on an episode of the DIY Network show Million Dollar Contractor, and I have not yet sought to check if there is significant material about him in the episode, or if he's just brought in in passing to comment on something else. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete - he was not a participant in any LGBT rights rallies, nor of the major litigation involving marriage equality in New York. Unless somebody can find and add reliable sources to such claims, he's just not notable. He is cited nowhere in
Same-sex marriage in New York or any of its sources. I have never heard of him.
Bearian (
talk)
21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Keep or move to the bilateral relations article that is appropriate to have, but does not yet currently exist. I am trying to remember specific similar past AFDs resolved this way. I think it seems to be the case that bilateral relationships are valid topics, so start that and redirect this. --
doncram22:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
And this leaves a redirect from the Embassy of Mexico, Prague topic, and mention that embassy in the article, or not. Develop a separate article again about the embassy if/when historic nature of the building or whatever comes to light. This is best resolution of an AFD once started, not to delete the contribution(s) and not to offend the contributor(s). IMHO the AFD was not necessary as this is a known better solution and one could move the article without requiring multiple editors' attention and all other costs involved in an AFD. --
doncram00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart11102:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Okay, i boldly moved the article to
Mexico-Czech relations and put in low effort to make it an article, including making the bland, meaningless assertion that relations between the two countries are "important". Importance is not defined. Sorry, Stalwart111, i expect this is less than what you want, but I think this resolves it, as a "target article" exists and is a valid topic. So, go ahead and tag the article as inadequate in various ways, but IMHO this resolves the AFD, which can be closed "KEEP" ratifying the current article. --
doncram13:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Really don't think this article is warranted considering there appears to only be two of them - linking the articles is done sufficiently via the See Also sections.
Sam Walton (
talk)
21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The vast amount of writing about Maxwell's demon stymies any Google search for details on notability, but I agree that there doesn't really seem to be any justification for this list. Without any context or easy way to validate that this satisfies
WP:LISTN, I'd say that deletion is the best option. If the list is notable, then someone can recreate it with a better demonstration of notability. In the meantime, I think any discussion of demons in thought experiments can go to
demon (thought experiment).
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails complete
WP:GNG and Notability for albums, the name 25 itself is
WP:OR, redirecting whole article to Adele was reverted. I'm notminating this for deletion or
merge it into articles for creation again, untill official confirmation comes from the singer or XL Recordings. ETA: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Adele's new upcoming album, and the assumption that it will be also named after her age, has been the subject of a huge amount of buzz. I tend to be pretty deletionist about music album articles, but this is an obvious keep.
Reventtalk14:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(comment) The links I gave there are just to show that the assumed name is not OR, that the assumption it will be named 25 is very widely made. Her 'upcoming album' has been widely talked about, under the various assumed title, for four years now, and will supposedly be released September 25th.
Reventtalk14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia does not work in that way and I assume you know about
WP:CRYSTAL. Also please read
WP:NALBUMS. There has been no ounce of information from Adele herself or XL Recordings at all about an album named 25, nor is there any official confirmation that it would be released on September 25, 2014. I'm just plain surprised that even after reading the sources, which all speculate, that you even try to stick up for keeping the article. The whole article, named as 25 (Adele album), itself is a violation of GNG. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No but the closest I've found is
[11] - lets be honest it's either going to released this year or January next, Despite Crystal & that I still see no point in deleting. –
Davey2010 •
(talk)16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I don't "know it". It is based on this quote "Bye bye 25, see you again later in the year,” the singer tweeted in May, on the eve of her 26th birthday, a message widely read as a first announcement of her new record." from a reliable source.
Philg88 ♦
talk05:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
How does that justify that the album will be called 25? And how does it look to you when the sources listed are speculating? I'm surprised that you cannot see how it violates CRYSTAL. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:CRYSTAL, really only deals with events or with speculation. I was legitimately wondering if you have any reason to believe that this album won't be a thing. I can see this being moved to drafts. But after doing a bit of searching around the net, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this. One small example is on
http://adele.wikia.com/wiki/25, under the references section, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this topic. There is a speculative nature to this article's topic, and there should definitely be a Crystal template added, but deleting it would be excessive.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikia is a fan site and you know it. That page also has lots of poor referencing like Perez Hilton, ATRL, Entertainmentwise, and dayoneadelefans.com. Snuggums (
talk /
edits)16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikia is a commercial wiki, it also has a broader scope than Wikipedia, and it does have better sourcing than this article. I don't care for pop-music, so I have no reason to "justify" keeping the article. It was not a "pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article", that's an exorbitant look at my statement, especially considering it wasn't entire basis of my argument. My speedy keep was in response to large amount of "Keep" votes proceeding my statement. Neither of you have clarified, as to whether or not, that you have any reason to believe this album won't exist. To be honest deleting this article, considering its just going to be back in a few months, is ridiculous. Keep or Move to Draftspace.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
XiuBouLin, obviously the AFD summary itself clarifies that all the sources refer to this project as being under development with no confirmed track list, or album release date, or confirmed name as 25. It does not matter what I think, that's not how
Wikipedia works. To be honest, creating an article in the first place, without any indication of passing
WP:NALBUMS or
WP:GNG is ridiculous. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's what I was asking. I don't care for Adele's music, and I honestly understand your frustration with there being a speculative album article. Yet, somehow, even the
The Guardian is now discussing this as an upcoming album,
[12]. Whether or not this is album in development, or not, it has
WP:SIGCOV and should be kept. But, if it is as you claim, to not be meeting
WP:GNG, then I think reasonably it should be moved to a draftspace.
XiuBouLin (
talk)
10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Move to
WP:Drafts plausible search term, but fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER miserably- no confirmed release date or tracklist. It also is rather poorly sourced, and definitely NOT an "obvious keep" or "speedy keep". Snuggums (
talk /
edits)15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
But it fails
WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criteria for albums. WP:NALBUMS exists for a reason and should be put to use. WP:ONLYESSAY is also not a very convincing argument as it undervalues the insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (
talk /
edits)15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NALBUMS. Future albums are supposed to have a confirmed title, track listing, and release date. This article only has a confirmed title.EDIT: Move to
WP:Drafts per SNUGGUMS's suggestions.
Erick (
talk)
16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Given that the album's official name hasn't been confirmed by Adele or her record label, I'm changing my stance to delete once more.
Erick (
talk)
15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: per
WP:CRYSTAL. The guidance in
WP:NALBUMS to only create articles when there is a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data is extremely sound guidance. Passing the
WP:GNG is not an assurance that there should be a separate article, only the bare minimum threshold to be crossed in order to permit one. Our experience with premature album articles demonstrates exactly how unwise it is to have these articles.—
Kww(
talk)
17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Until track list, release dates etc are confirmed. By the way, who has confirmed it is even called 25? No one from what I can see in the article. Adele, her label not her management have confirmed that it is called 25. Further reason to redirect. —
₳aron18:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment
As I specifically said, those weren't sources I was citing to show the 'notability', just to show that the idea that the name was OR was laughable. OR means that the Wikipedia editor came up with something that sources don't say, which is obviously not the case here. But, since you insist....
Again, not even trying hard here. Yes, it's rumor and speculation, but it's not our speculation, and the rumor and speculation is obviously quite notable.
IndianBio, to address your apparent misconception about the way AfD is supposed to work... articles are not required to be perfect, or even good, to survive an AfD. If sources exist, the article should be improved, not deleted. AfD is about is the /topic/ is notable and worthy of an article, not about if the article is crap as it stands. There are many lousy articles about notable topics on Wikipedia, that do not do the subject justice...that does not mean they should be deleted. And yes, I did revert your attempt to shortcut any kind of deletion process by converting the article to a redirect without any discussion, because it showed a total disregard for the process and opinion of other editors. I have yet to see any statement by you or Kww that suggests you have made any attempt to research the notability of this topic. Instead, you simply seem to not like it.
To address some of the complaints being made here, specifically, since people are just quoting this and that essay or guideline, and not really making arguments.
"Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." See the above, and much, much, much more if you only bothered to look.
"For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." (my emphasis) Yes, the article was, as created, based only on lousy sources... but many, many, many reliable sources for the same information exist. It is not our place to speculate, and it is not our place to report on what is said on fansites, but it is our place to report on notable subjects, even if they haven't happened yet.
Notice the line in
WP:NALBUMS about three lines up from your quote: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. There is no need to have articles about gossip and speculation.—
Kww(
talk)
04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Revent, I also suggest that you note that the
WP:GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion: it is the bare minimum threshold a topic must breach to be considered for inclusion in a standalone article. All kinds of things that pass the GNG are deleted.—
Kww(
talk)
04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Revent:, you very well know what I have removed from the article. Unreliable blog sources like
Perez Hilton and PopCrush are not
reliable sources so please don't lecture me on the AFD process. I know very well how it works. And
it is not my burden to find out sources for an album which is all about speculations. All the sources you listed, I repeat all, are speculating on the album's title and supposedly release date. And that is a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL. So yeah, my nomination reasoning stands. You are trying to push something which basically has hypothetical existence, without any confirmation. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Really? Really?
WP:BEFORE, B, 2. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" D, 3 "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." Yes, it is your burden to attempt to do so, before you nominate an article for AFD.
Reventtalk07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes my dear, really. None of the sources searched gave any ounce of indication that the album has been confirmed as named 25, nor a release date. Sources base this on Adele's cryptic tweet "Bye bye 25.. see you later (blahblah)" and they even list it as an assumption. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nice way to ignore what I said about
WP:BEFORE, and your disregarding it. Her tweet was obviously seen as an indication that the album would be released this year, because she said she would see 25 again, as she has named her previous albums after her age. Whether the name has been confirmed or not, '25' obviously passes
WP:COMMONNAME as how the topic is referred to. Your 'the name is OR' claim is still laughable.
Reventtalk08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah right, read your own statements and see how it contradicts
WP:CRYSTAL. You are assuming something which Adele has done before, as something which she would do again in the future. And yes, I will delete any
WP:COPYVIO links to YouTube, unless from the official website. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm not assuming anything. The sources are, and we can discuss that. The 'speculation' is not unverifiable, it is widely reported in reliable sources. As far as the Youtube thing, it's quite telling that you're now trying to come up with new (and still invalid) reasons to remove it. For one thing, you used the wrong template, and reported the text that I readded as a copyright violation, instead of tagging the link as being to a potential copyvio, which is just wrong since it's text from a CC-BY-SA source. Also, the linked video (which is only about two minutes long) is not a copyright violation, it's brief enough to be reusable under fair use. That would have something to do with why YouTube, who does remove copyrighted material quite aggressively, has not removed it.
Reventtalk14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The source being used is not YouTube, it is an Entertainment Tonight interview. The link to YouTube is merely a convenience link, and perfectly allowable.
Reventtalk15:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
No, I'm telling you that it's a convenience link, the material is sourced to a television interview, and that if you have a problem with the convenience link you remove the link, not the sourced, cited content. I'm also telling you that you need to read the directions before you use a template, and not flag text that is from a CC-BY-SA source attributed in the article if your problem is with a link. The text you flagged was patently not a copyright violation. I'm also telling you that before you remove something as an unreliable source you should actually look at it... a statement of what a person said in an interview, sourced to that interview, is not an unreliable source.
In the edit summary when I took off the {{copyright violation}} template, if you bothered to look at it before reverting, I specifically said the text you flagged is CC-BY-SA, that you probably meant to use {{copyvio link}}, and that I disagreed. Your revert was inane, if you wanted to flag the link you shouldn't have restored the wrong template, you should have added the right one.
Reventtalk19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
And herein you don't get the fact that Wikia content cannot be accepted by
Commons license for the same reason that they are not a copyright claimer. They have absolutely no right to that content they have released under the license. And convenience or not, you purposefully added a link with copyright claims, even going as far as to claim that it was YouTube's responsibility to see if it is copyrighted. As I said in your talk page, drop the
WP:IDHT please. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]19:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentWP:CRYSTAL addresses the issue of
unverifiable speculation, which the topic of this article is not—a significant number of
reliable sources agree that that Adele will release a new album this year and that it will in all liklihood be called "25". We, as editors, are permitted to record that according to
policy: "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." Turning to
WP:NALBUMS. "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects ..." 25 is such a project, given the feverish level of interest in the topic from sources far and wide.
Philg88 ♦
talk05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Philg88:, I get what you are saying, but looking at the recent contributions to the article, there is no indication of 25 being that of a high feverish project at all. So until and unless this is represented accurately, this is not on par with Chinese Democracy. And I remember G&R's CD era. They already had the album track list as well as the album coverart for the release, though it ended up getting delayed. For this one, there is only confirmation of Adele recording an album, but everything else is speculation and based on something (19, 21) which Adele has done already. The article name itself, 25 (Adele album) does not pass the threshold of
WP:CRYSTAL for this very same reason. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]05:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reasoned reply,
IndianBio. When we have a reliable source stating "which pretty much everyone in the world is certain will be called 25" I think that puts it well outside the realm of
WP:CRYSTAL. We are not speculating, merely reporting on what reliable sources have said. The source story I'm citing was published yesterday, indicating that it is a "hot" topic. Cheers,
Philg88 ♦
talk06:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be a notable convention. While it appears to have had a few notable guests over the years, with the likes of
Spike Spencer,
Steven Blum and
Wendee Lee attending, 1. actual attendance appears to be rather low for an anime convention, with a low of only 300 attendees during the first con, and a high of 2000 attendees during the 2014 event, 2. the only source given is AnimeCons.com, which is not reliable, and 3. There is a lack of independent coverage for this con. I couldn't even find significant coverage from Anime News Network.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article creator's username implies a COI; nevertheless, as the article is not written in a promotional tone, and there is a credible claim to notability (it is apparently the biggest anime convention in the Tri-State Area), I doubt either A7 or G11 apply.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - For what it's worth, IP user 67.149.211.187(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) added the convention to four different lists of convention articles, all of which have since been reverted. Of those, two appear to be plausible,
List of anime conventions and
List of gaming conventions; one is questionable,
List of comic book conventions, as there seems to be little emphasis on comics in either the article or the linked website; one is doubtful,
List of furry conventions, as I could not find any mention of furries or anthropomorphics in either place. Having said that, if reliable independent sources can be found covering the convention and the claimed attendance figures can be confirmed, it is probably worth keeping and re-adding to the two plausible lists of conventions.
mwalimu59 (
talk)
18:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - I did a quick lookup of media coverage and couldn't find anything. The onus is on the article creator to find it (if it exists) and add it as references to the article. If he can do that, my mind can be changed. I think attendance isn't very relevant, as I've seen very small conventions covered by the press.
Stevie is the man!Talk •
Work21:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I found nothing in Google books (nor in newspapers, scholar, or news). In Google web I'm seeing a body of Internet chatter, but no attention from reliable sources.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete did sweeps of Dutch/Netherlands news sources, world newspapers, US, entertainment-related publications, did not find any sources suggesting she meets the GNG.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
@
MichaelQSchmidt: Good work! I found nothing more than few odd yahoo questions when I searched (already mentioned by
Dave). But still I'm not totally convinced, half of the article is not yet referenced. I encourage you to find some more sources so that I can withdraw. JimCarter(from public cyber)09:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Jim Carter: Since the film can be watched for free, cast and production crew can be sourced directly to the film itself. And so while being listed there does nothing for notability, IMDB is generally acceptable for released films.... most specially when the
entire film has been posted by production so it can be watched by anyone.
What else do you think needs sourcing? Schmidt, Michael Q.11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Jim Carter: Check
WP:SELFSOURCE. Yes a film is not independent of itself but it is one of those instances where a primary sources speaking about itself is allowed per
MOS:FILM. As a coordinator of project film, I can assure you of this. The film as a primary sources does not count toward notability, no.... but it is allowed as
WP:V. As for sources for a no-budget indie film that never saw the inside of a theater, I will do more checking in some hours. But will for now remind that
WP:SIGCOV defines that in determining notability, a source must give us more-than-trivial commentary or analysis... it does not state that "multiple" means dozens, but definitely "multiple" sources mean more than one... so three just qualifies. Schmidt, Michael Q.12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hmm. Thanks
MichaelQSchmidt. I understand. Determining notability of a film is not a easy work. Okay I'm willing to withdraw. Now,
Davey2010 what do you think?? Speedy Keep #1 will work only if other participants also support keep. An afd can't be closed as withdrawn if other participants don't change their mind to keep. JimCarter(from public cyber)13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I completely agree with you both - Determining notability is very hard, Anyway I've voted Keep now :) (Apologies for not replying sooner -decided on mowing the garden before it belts it down!). –
Davey2010 •
(talk)13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a
WP:SYNTHesized list of ectoplasm claims by old spiritualist
mediums that are already covered in their own articles, or more generally, at
ectoplasm (paranormal). I say synthesized, because in the lingo of spiritualists, a medium who supposedly created ectoplasm was known as a "materializing medium", but the concept of materialization isn't actually discussed in the sources we've been given. Someone has
WP:ORed in a
miracle of
Jesus lacking any reliable source for their own opinion that he was performing paranormal materialization. Non-notable fringe claims already covered at
Sathya Sai Baba and
Swami Premananda have been tacked on to the list. What we don't have is any
reliable and
independent source that discusses the subject of "paranormal materialization" as a specific subject. How does it work, what's the mechanism, what's the history, where are the objective sources who've studied it exclusively, etc? Without anything like that to build the article on, we can only offer a dictionary entry (materialization is something spiritualists and two obscure gurus claimed to do) but not an encyclopedic article.
LuckyLouie (
talk)
12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: An odd mix of fringe OR and synth based entirely on unreliable sources or misuse of reliable ones. My own searches did not provide any evidence that the topic is not mentioned at all in reliable independent secondary sources. Frankly, it's a bunch of fringe blither that has no place on Wikipedia. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in it's entirety.
Dominus Vobisdu (
talk)
12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep We cover things which are religious beliefs and do not delete them as "fringe" when they have sourcing, even if the sources sometimes seek to disprove it. Far more than a dictionary definition and clearly notable. It can be pure bunk and fraud and still be notable. A very important part of 19th and 20th century "Spiritualism" was manifestations in which the departed would materialize in seances. They were often debunked by scientists who showed the tricks the medium played. It has been widely discussed in reliable sources. Arthur Conan Dole wrote in support and Houdini wrote in opposition, among many others. I removed the claims that Jesus "fishes and loaves" miracle and God's creation of the entire universe were "materialization" since it was unreferenced original research to tie those religious beliefs to the spiritualist medium's sort of materialization phenomena. Note that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and editing is a better idea than deletion when the subject is as notable as this one. The article is not just based on what some dictionary says: countless books pro and con on spiritualism discuss it.
Edison (
talk)
14:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@Edison. I completely agree WP covers notable bunk and fraud and mediums "materializing" things was an important part of 19th and 20th century Spiritualism. But it's all been already covered at another article:
ectoplasm (paranormal), rendering this article as completely
redundant. -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "How does it work, what's the mechanism..": What a twaddle. Let's delete the gravity article also then, for we do not know it's mechanism yet. Apart from that, this and other additional remarks in nominator's argumentation imply that as if we're after the truth but not verifiability; which would be the complete opposite of
WP:V. The topic in question is notable and well sourced. As I stated in article
talk page, materialization is a topic specific also to the false prophetism/prophecy, not only to the ectoplasms allegedly furnishing during seances. I'm sure there are enough coverages/mentions in theological scholarly publications. If you think that some of the material may belong to
ectoplasm (paranormal), then the thing you should have done was to ask the opinions of others and move the related content if there was any consensus; not to take the article to AFD.
Logos (
talk)
15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep subject is associated with several Indian gurus, not called
ectoplasm (paranormal) in this context, and extensively treated in several independent reliable sources by parapsychologist
Erlendur Haraldsson and psychologist
Richard Wiseman.
Comment So, what's the point, what do you expect? It's completely normal for fringe topics to be covered in allegedly fringe journals. These sources are for notability/verifiability, we do not need completely scientific/scholarly publications. Check past arbitration rulings, such as
Paranormal:3 layer cake,
paranormal tag,
adequate framing etc., and policies/guidelines to grasp how framing the subject determines the context.
Logos (
talk)
20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Goblin Face, could you please be more specific about your objections to the sources that user:Logos and I (user:Andries) listed? Please note that the listed sourced found two out the three Indian gurus treated fraudulent i.e. Swami Premananda and Gaytri Swami. Only in the case of the famous Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba the listed sources found no evidence of fraud.
Andries (
talk)
14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable to have an entire article to itself. The same content is found on the ectoplasm and mediumship articles, so no content would be lost.
Goblin Face (
talk)
17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
After ectoplasm, now comes apparition; perhaps you don't have sufficient expertise.. As stated in apparition article, there isn't any material involved. Above mentioned sources are reliable and differentiate materialization properly.
Logos (
talk)
20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That German article looks like a stub based on the English article. There is, however, a good reason to keep the different wikis in sync now that we have wikidata, because it is hard to develop an equivalence that is one-to-many there. At least, I've had a devil of a time when in that situation.
LaMona (
talk)
20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Unfortunately, the two articles have too much overlap, so the editors need to decide what is different between the two phenomena and edit the articles accordingly. It does make sense to me that materialization is the phenomenon and ectoplasm is the stuff of some materializations, but not all. The articles need to make the difference clear, and have less repetition between them.
LaMona (
talk)
20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep WP must include a discussion of this alleged phenomenon, because there is a large literature about it, and it doesn't matter for the purpose of having an article whether or not the phenomenon actually happens. The title is appropriate, for it is the normal English word for it. Wxtoplasm is I think used in a somewhat broader meaning,--it is considered sometimes to be the cause of materialization, but it is used in other senses also. DGG (
talk )
00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Speedy keep 4 valid entries plus valid see also. The see also is clearly more helpful to a reader than Template:Jackie Chan. The actor is the primary topic, but there is also a fictional character (not a fictionalised version of the actor's personality/life) who is called Jackie Chan and voiced by the actor, and a politician. Nothing to be gained from deletion. @
Tavatar:, the creator, seems not to have been informed of this AfD.
Boleyn (
talk)
17:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems like a valid dab page based on this criteria at
WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
PaintedCarpet (
talk)
20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Are you going to create the pages of these entries? If not, this page is just there to waste people's time. A user who types "Li Nan" trying to read about the table tennis player now needs to click two times, versus just one time before. China has a billion people and thousands of years of detailed documented history and with the way the 2- or 3- syllable names are romanized in English, I can easily find hundreds of "Li Nan"s or any Chinese names that have appeared in books, articles etc. The problem is, how many of them are truly notable? And if they are not, what's the point of listing them?
Timmyshin (
talk)
19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Please see
MOS:DABRL and
MOS:DABMENTION. If, after reading them, you believe that the skier and footballer in some way invalid entries, please say so. If you disagree with the guidelines, please discuss that at an appropriate venue. Here is a disambiguation page with 4 valid entries.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Of the three sources cited, #1 does not mention Guo Dongli at all, whereas #2 and #3 are from the same publication (Boxun) of questionable reliability. Even then, Boxun says Guo is just an "ordinary student".
Zanhe (
talk)
20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. There seen no reason to focus on he is an "ordinary student" or not. And the "no significant independent coverage" does not hold; in fact, lots of articles in Wiki also lack on this problem and only with one or two references. See the following sample
Kong Lingxi in Wikipedia.
Historysalon (
talk)
06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The #1 source did mention the establishment of Youth Solidarity Temporary Student Union (临时青年团结学生联盟), which Guo Dongli is the convener of it. See the following sources
[18],
[19],
[20]. 07:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.83.17.57 (
talk)
The #1 source is a blog article. Among the other three sources provided by 108.83.17.57, [1] does not mention Guo Dongli, and the other two are reprinted from Guo's own twitter.--
Huang Jinghai (
talk)
07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete article makes no claim of notability. Why does this person matter? Generally we assume that the question is answered by independent reliable sources when they (not just one or two) chose to do in-depth reporting on the subject, but a little common sense applies, too. Anyway, this doesn't pass
WP:GNG cuz it doesn't have that level of reporting. If there was an interview with VOA, then perhaps it should be published by VOA, wouldn't that be logical. It seems especially suspicious that the anonymous VOA reporter with whom the subject is suposedly doing an interview in one of the cited refs is unable to use correct English. I'm with above commenters, this appears to be little more than a detailed hoax of some sort.
WP:A7 applies -
Metal lunchbox(
talk)18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Consider keep actually, this article did clarify this person well, even can get expand justly. This person is relate to social activity, and in the new edition there had state very clear. Anyway, there are no hard evidence can overthrow the fact. In Google, Bing, or Yahoo, there are pretty much links can prove this either in Chinese or English. See
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25].comment added by
156.1.40.12 (
talk)
Note: 156.1.40.12 appears to be another sock of
User:國冬禮, whose named socks have been blocked, but still edits the article from IP's that geolocate to San Francisco. -
Zanhe (
talk)
07:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep/improve This article is meet the
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC since it has a big improve and more notable addition references to compare with the initial one. There has a selection of articles relate to Guo Dongli (references/significant independent coverage). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.102.74.3 (
talk)
23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep All, as per
WP:SK. The ease of merging elsewhere is not a rationale for deletion. It also makes good sense to have centralised orders of battle like this. The previous discussion doesn't seem to have taken account of the fact that merging all these articles is going to overwhelm the
Ottoman Navy or other articles.
Benea (
talk)
15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion are based on established guidelines, and these have not been dealt with by the arguments for keeping.
Michig (
talk)
08:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep -Although I found several leads to her, I really couldn't find much on her career points except for a few like this one here>
[26]. However, it would seem to me that being in the films she has been in that she would have achieved some form of notability just from her participation aspect. I am really on the fence with this one.--
Canyouhearmenow12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Non notable. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR. Her filmography is one supporting role and two bit parts in other films which don't show notability. My impression is that it's too soon for this article.
Cowlibob (
talk)
16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Someone who thinks winning a million from a ten pound bet is not significant is bizarre. This can be researched with Titanbet 100 million mania. Envy is not a reason to ask for a post deleted. Wikipedia needs to have facts not opinions.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mike1980McN (
talk •
contribs)
11:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Congratulations on your big win :-) Wikipedia does have rather strict
notability requirements, though. Nobody is doubting that you did win the money and that it was in the papers at the time, but that actually strengthens the original point, that the subject of the article is
known for one single event only - please have a look at that link. Many people win lots of money, but unless they are also notable for some other reason, that is probably not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please also read
this information. Thanks! --bonadeacontributionstalk11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the article should be redirected to Michael McNally (born 1980) as opposed to its current title.
Aerospeed (
Talk)
22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
DeleteMike -
bonadea is correct. A single event does not establish notability. Hopefully you've used that money to do something very good for humankind, and when that is completed, you may be considered notable.
LaMona (
talk)
20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Comment-also it seems to be a issue of him being a younger brother of someone else. Now I'm not sure how we handle people from vine though. Maybe someday he might become bigger. But not yet.
Wgolf (
talk)
21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete due to lack of significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Yes, his brother is likely notable, but his brother has gotten more coverage in reliable sources, and notability is not inheritable from a sibling. —C.Fred (
talk)
16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment-looks like this article might need a protection lock until this gets resolved considering constat vandalism that happens.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
An actor with just one film that was back in 2001. Now if he had attention for it and/or made more films then maybe he could be considered for an article. But for now-no.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Also looking at the history-this article has been around for 11(!) years with no changes at all. Now at the time it probably seemed like he could do more.
Wgolf (
talk)
04:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article kind of sounds like a hoax almost-though all of the links are in Russian, but I'm not sure if this is notable or what. Maybe a expert is needed.
Wgolf (
talk)
03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Several things that don't quite add up to notability: vice rector (rector would be good enough), deputy minister (minister would be good enough)... and the lack of sources is also a big problem. If someone with expertise in Georgian sources put the effort into digging up sources there's a fair chance this could be rescued, but as it is there's not much worth saving. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I am a Russian speaker, and the article does not contain a single link to an independent RS, which technically makes it an expired PROD. On the other hand, he may very well be notable according to
WP:PROF. In praticular, the article claims that he is an "Academician". If this means member of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia (which I do not know how to verify), he is automatically notable.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
09:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GNG (in particular
WP:Artist). The article shows no sign of significant coverage in RS. In addition to several points of concern:
The article has been tagged as copyvio by a bot
[27] and the tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor with no explanation
[28]
It has been nominated for speedy because of overtly promotional tone
[29], deletion tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor
[30]
Additionally, the sources present on the page do not discuss the subject's life/career in detail but are rather anecdotal. Google search yielded no coverage, and, of particular concern, no mentions on Moroccan media given that the subject is Moroccan.
Tachfin (
talk)
05:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Important please pay attention if
user:Maromania &
user:Fevrret aren't deleting/editing any votes/comments:
** Also, recommend you to
assume good faith for new contributors (as seen
Maromania is one of them). Stop accusing as we (
Maromania and
Fevrret just deleted any comment, because what I did was merging Maromania's comment as just one (which was keep). With the
WP:COI you have not proofs, I am just an editor and you made a direct offense to my being, myself. The non admin disclosure was discussed and I didn't know the existent
WP:NAC and reverted, and apologized to
Crow for this, which he assumed my enthusiasm is great, but I need to know the rules. I will report this case to the administrators for violating
WP:CONSPIRACY,
WP:AGF and
WP:COI without any proofs.
Fevrret (
talk)
19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I explained that the article was not promotional, and we discussed it over. Also other contributors expressed on the article as not being "promotional". Actually, an admin. The article is covered by major articles. The book
Through My Lens is a book authored by Achraf Baznani. You (Tachfin) do not have any statement to prove wrong. Is currently featured by magazines (hereinbefore mentioned).
Fevrret (
talk)
18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep the article meets
WP:BASIC and have encyclopedia importance. Is supported by third major magazines in English, Spanish, French, Arab. And has an arab wikipedia page approved by admins.
Fevrret (
talk)
18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no such thing as "an article approved by admins". I've repeatedly seen that argument being used by paid editors. If there are reliable sources that discuss the subject deeply enough to establish notability than please present them. Mearly anectdoctal mentions and promotional articles on shady websites/blogs does not implicate notability (c.f.
WP:Artist) --
Tachfin (
talk)
06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I saw this go by on RC, and thought it rang a bell. Sure enough, I have
Draft:Achraf Baznani on my w/l from August 30. It is identical to the initial version of the article now under discussion, which was created a day later by a different editor.
CrowTalk19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I never said that I created this article. I just modified it, taking by references the interviews which he is featured on. It's not identical, I modified it.
Fevrret (
talk)
23:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Of course, I'm not suggesting any impropriety, more to keep an eye out that there could be multiple copies floating around. If this article is kept, they should be merged into the live copy to avoid having multiple out-of-sync versions, and if this is deleted they should be looked at accordingly.
CrowTalk23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Change to deleteUser:Tachfin I was more impressed by the number of sources than I should have been. Suggest this now goes to a long redlink salt of all possible name variations. Also someone needs to make sure the Sockpuppet documentation for blocked user Fevrret is complete. Given the amount of damage that editor was doing incidentally with other edits we don't want a reoccurrence.
00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I looked at the suggested sources and all that I could see are blog posts (even the CNN one is, and it says: Not verified by CNN). I would suggest getting some more reliable sources. But I do not know what the decision should be about an article in @en.wikipedia if there are no such resources in English. Anyone?
LaMona (
talk)
15:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Notable individual showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources (see references). Artspace (one of the top galleries in New York, USA) owns works by Baznani and he has featured magazines and newspapers across the world.
WP:ARTIST. Quite why the nominator thinks that the sources are not independent.
The artist is moroccan, if you (Tachfin) are moroccan[14] then you can read some newspapers about him in arabic [15][16][17][18][19][20]
The content of this page [21] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0). You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission
Maromania (
talk)
09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
X is one of the greatest is exactly the type of wording that raises red flags here. Links you've provided either: 1. Do not meet Wikipedia definition of
WP:RS (anyone can create a website) 2. Are affiliated with the subject (e.g. Baznani.com) 3. Are anecdotal, insofar as they don't discuss the topic deeply enough. The only exception to this may be this:
al-Quds article but it doesn't discuss the subject's life, mearly an interview of some generic stuff about his work, still short of
WP:artist or even
WP:GNG --
Tachfin (
talk)
06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
"Achraf Baznani did not realize that he was a born artist until he got a camera as a birthday gift in his teen ages. Like many other great people that have walked the earth, Achraf Baznani also had to know it from within and by chance that he was in fact an artist." "The surrealist inside him gave the bravery to direct the short film the way that it earned him the Best Director award in more than five different awarding." "The art where it shows him standing in the middle of a chess board is an amazing idea" "the photobook has summarized the human life in very impressive manner." Yep, promotion.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: As @
Duffbeerforme: noted,
Achraf Baznani has been deleted three times by three different sysops and slated to avoid recreation. There is actually no need to disambiguate the title as in "Achraf Baznani (photographer)" other than to avoid the scrutiny of new page patrolers and "quietly" recreate a 3X deleted article. (also note the existence of
Achraf baznani) --
Tachfin (
talk)
05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
You
Tachfin, the first time you dont believe that the photographer Achraf Baznani is Moroccan! Now you believe it! and you dont wont that the page about him was created! May be your are Moroccan too! anyway the artist is very known in your country.
Maromania (
talk)
08:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: COI. In addition to the copyright problems which caused me to list this article at
WP:CP, there seems to be a
WP:COI problem here too:
User:Maromania has for some reason chosen as a username the name of the web host of Baznani's site,
Maromania
User:Fevrret is apparently well enough acquainted with Baznani to have taken
this photograph of him, in a style very reminiscent of that of the photographer himself.
I have asked for permission to Baznani itself in order to use this photo. Making this a neutral point of view, with permission to use the photo. --
Fevrret (
talk)
09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Shady behind-the-wiki whatevers aside, I looked through the sources listed. Removing the blogs, the promotional and self-published, and mirrors thereof, we're left with a small group of sources. For the most part, those contain numerous photographs, but only incidental coverage of the person. There are 2 that have the trappings of an interview, but again are superficial (just a question or 2 then a lot of photos). The sources unequivocally prove that A:he exists and B:he makes a lot of cool photographs. But little else to show notability to the level we need. Musee Magazine called him an "Emerging Artist". I think he needs to emerge a bit more to meet requirements here.
CrowTalk23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. With no great enthusiasm. Here we have a photographer whose work is in some ways similar to what the much celebrated
Slinkachu is doing, but in at least one way very different. It doesn't happen to be my thing (not that this matters at all), but it's non-negligible. Perhaps he's more notable (in the normal sense of the word) than is a photographer
whose article I was bemusedly working on just an hour or so ago (because I came across it while wanting to read about the distinctly notable
Alberto Schommer).
This source and
this one don't seem worthless. However, the boosterism here is persistent and repellent, and (copyright questions aside) the current article is a crude attempt to evade salting. So I wish
his Indiegogo appeal well; let him "emerge" (as suggested by
Crow above), and if/when this has happened a disinterested would-be article creator may contact
Anthony Bradbury (see
protection log) with clear evidence for the "emergence". --
Hoary (
talk)
01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Reluctant delete. I thought that the Arabic-language coverage would be enough to establish notability; but when I looked at the articles in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al Ahdath Al Maghribia, Al-Arab and Sayidaty (a Dubai women's magazine), all of which are proper publications, they all turned out to be substantially the same (and substantially the same as that in Al Bayane). My guess is they've all reprinted the press release for the book. The book doesn't seem to be in WorldCat, I get no VIAF hits for him.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
@
Hirolovesswords: Thanks for weighing in. While writing this, I solicited the opinions of two editors involved in prior deletions of this topic - they both reviewed the draft and encouraged me to post it to mainspace. You can read their opinions on
Kudpung's talk page.
For my part, I don't think
WP:BLP1E applies - all 3 conditions need to be met for this to count against an otherwise notable article, and I actually don't think any of them are. 1) In addition to the extensive 2014 election coverage,
Seth Moulton received substantial contemporaneous coverage for his commentary on the Iraq War (most notably the Boston Magazine article, but also reviews of No End In Sight) 2) During the Iraq war, the 6+ national NPR News interviews, several other media interviews, and prominent appearance in an Acadamy Award nominated documentary, all many years before the 2014 election really preclude him from being considered a "low-profile individual" outside the context of the election. 3) The 2014 election is significant and very well documented, as the many feature-level pieces in regional media, and at least one column by a prominent national political commentator in TIME magazine attest. There are also more brief mentions in a number of national media pieces on "most competitive" or "most significant" elections for the 2014 cycle.
As I discussed more extensively on
Kudpung's talk page, I think criteria 2 and 3 of
WP:POLITICIAN are satisfied in this case. While there is no question that many unelected primary challengers in congressional races will not satisfy notability criteria, the level of regional and national press coverage of
Seth Moulton I think makes this an exception. One other point which I did not mention in the article out of
WP:NPOV concerns is that Moulton has been endorsed by both the major Boston papers (the
Boston Globe and
Boston Herald), and most of the major papers in the 6th district - this is pretty unusual for a primary challenger, and the Globe endorsement has subsequently been noted by national political media, e.g. :
[34] and
[35].
RustavoTalk/
Contribs11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I find the political aspect of this article weak, but the military aspect strong. Being a failed politician is hardly notable, but it appears that this fellow was notable in his actions in Iraq. I would beef up that part of the article, and leave the political part as a "mention" until he actually gets elected. So it's a weak keep with a request to
Rustavo (which is pretty much the sole editor on this article) to give us more of the military history, if possible.
LaMona (
talk)
15:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I believe this is notable considering Streamup has been covered in
Variety (magazine) as one of just a handful of noteworthy
streaming media companies capable of reaching a presence as significant as
Twitch with their recent acquisition by
Amazon.com.[1] Respectfully, I understand your point that Wiki shouldn't contain insignificant articles, but there are only several significant
streaming media platforms left and this is one of them.
Kyledmichelson (
talk)
05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Yahoo! Sports article is a rehash of an SBNAtion.com user-submitted blog piece -- not a reliable source per
WP:RS. Yahoo often recycles user-submitted material from affiliated sports blogs because it's free content. Beware: not professional sports writers or journalists. If I'm using user-submitted blogs, I can find several sources that say every Division FBS game series is a "rivalry." Our standard is a little higher than that.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but agree with commenter: way too recentist. The history goes much, much further back. However, we have to start somewhere. Let's see if we can get this expanded before we delete. --
Esprqii (
talk)
14:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have not had the time to do the
WP:BEFORE due diligence required to determine the notability of the Stanford-USC game series as a rivalry, but per
WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep - whether it is fictional or not is not of primary concern here. Perhaps consider a merge with an appropriate Star Wars article.
PotassiBot (
talk)
01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)(Note: User has been blocked)reply
Delete- this is poorly sourced plot summary about fictional locations, written in an in-universe style. There is nothing to indicate real-world notability. I considered a merge, but rejected that idea because I could not identify a target article, or any sourced content in this one that can be merged. Not sure what basis there is for the speedy keep votes.
ReykYO!04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Almost entirely an in-universe description of fictional places. No sources. None of these places seem to have any notability outside of the fictional material from which they come.
Daniel(talk)01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Daughter of a notable person (
Jose Canseco), who happens to have appeared in a film about him and in a reality show focused on the ex-wives of celebrities called Hollywood Exes. (Can reality TV get any more depraved or useless?) In neither case was Josie Canseco the focus of the media, just an ancillary based on her relationship to others.
WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jose Canseco. I think he would be the more appropriate redirect, as he is more notable than his wife,
Jessica Canseco. Also, there currently is no mention of her on Jose Canseco's article, so she should be mentioned at the very least.
Upjav (
talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Edited
Upjav (
talk)
03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC))reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I am finding some evidence to suggest that this exists, such as the Japanese Wikipedia listing the book and
this Amazon page but then that's not exactly definitive. I'll try to see if I can find something that proves it beyond a doubt.
Comment-ha okay thanks. I was thinking when someone said a possible hoax about how odd that be given how long the article has been around followed by "dang that be some odd record". Well still not notable.
Wgolf (
talk)
03:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have reviewed this article and found it lacking notability. He has not been the subject of any published, non-trivial secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This athlete has had trivial coverage by a secondary source consisting of a listing in a data-base-type website with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, most likely compiled by a fan or loose association. Youtube and facebook gave the most returns on google. The sport of darts does not even appear on the WP: Notability (sports) article.
bpage (
talk)
00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable competition darts player. There is no specific notability guideline for darts players per
WP:NSPORTS, so darts players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per
WP:GNG for inclusion. In this case, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
13:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.