![]() |
The result was speedy delete as a test page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Test page by new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djembayz ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Completely unsourced puffpiece for non-notable entity. Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources discuss this organization at length. Mentioned in the refs only casually. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My searches found nothing to suggest improvement (even minimal) and better notability, here, here, here and here. There's also no obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Citations are self-serving. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Granted this is Greek and before the widespread use of Internet but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from various browser links (YouTube, social media, forums, etc). Summarily, I'm seeing anything to suggest improvement this article that has not been heavily edited since December 2006. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
After several source searches, the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus after receiving no participation. North America 1000 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to L-1 Identity Solutions. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't find any coverage beyond press releases for this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't find any reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was snow close per my comments below. I'll e-mail a copy of this to whomever wants one, just let me know on my talk page. The content here is potentially a BLP issue (particularly with the Phillips addition), so this would need a lot of work and research before something like this could be in the mainspace - if it could ever be a mainspace article at all. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This list has both notability and original research issues, as well as a (theoretically curable) heavy dose of recentism, with all but one entry alive or recently-deceased (raising BLP issues). The inclusion criteria are arbitrarily vague and not based on reliable sources. When both participants in a supposed incestuous relationship are notable, only one is listed. With the exception of Patrick Stübing these people are not primarily known for incestuous relationships, and no source groups them together. In all, I see no indication that such a list would be encyclopedic in the first place, and if it were we could just as well start over and write a new list. Huon ( talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article does not make a case for subject's notability. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Although the author is represented by a small press, both of his books have received substantial recognition. In fact, his book about
Edward Snowden has been listed in the Wikipedia entry about Snowden under the Further Reading section. As for his novel, Nature's Housekeeper, the forward was written by Buddy Hufaker, the president of the
Aldo Leopold Foundation, an organization which was founded by the environmentalist's children in 1982. He has also received kudos from Survivorman Les Stroud and Ishmael author Daniel Quinn. In addition, several essays and articles penned by Mr. Gurnow have been used as source material for a variety of Wikipedia entries:
H.P. Lovecraft,
William S. Burroughs,
D. Harlan Wilson,
Roger Ebert,
Robinson Crusoe,
Waiting for Godot,
Existentialism,
Tor (anonymity network), and a handful of film write-ups.
BrocktonBomber (
talk)
17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Not sure why
User:Orangemike is objecting. As article's contents state, Gurnow's work has been referenced in the UC Davis Law Review
[1] and in a
Routledge anthology
[2]. Also contained within the article is mention that his writing has been publicly praised by
Pulitzer-winner
Roger Ebert
[3], million-copy selling author and
Oprah guest
Daniel Quinn
[4], and
Discovery Channel's
Les Stroud
[5]. He has been interviewed on various national radio stations by such Wiki-recognized names as
Mancow Muller
[2],
Howie Carr
[3], and
Jeff Crouere
[4], as well as by Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary
Fear of a Black Republican, for Politisite
[5]. Furthermore, his work is listed on the
EBSCO Information Services database
[6]. (As for
WorldCat holding libraries, his first book is in 115 collections worldwide
[7]). Lastly, Gurnow has been elected into
Poets & Writers
[8] (a writer must be elected into PW.org by a majority vote
[9]).
SnowdenFan |
Talk
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
E.M.Gregory Please do not violate Wiki policy of deleting external citations before entering into the deletion discussion in order to state there are no reliable sources.
Returning to your comments, 1) If the academic citations were "catch-all" overviews, you'd have a fine point, but they're not. They are exacting studies of the subject Gurnow wrote about, ie., a law professor (Kwoka) AND the Harvard of British presses, Routledge, deemed his first book worthy of including it in their research. 2) Wiki does not ask for volume but quality of sources. Gurnow's second book was applauded by a well-known television personality (Stroud) and a bestselling author who appeared on Oprah (Quinn). 3) Yet, going with "more is better," as stated in the original article (prior to your removal of sources), the introduction of his second book was written by the president of one of the largest conservationist/environmental non-profits in America, the Aldo Leopold Foundation,
Jennifer Pharr Davis also praised the work
[12], and the Wilderness Skills Institute positively reviewed the novel
[13]. 4) As for a lack of media coverage, why did you ignore my documented citations that Gurnow has been interviewed on numerous national radio programs about his writing? 5) Lastly, and returning to quality sources, not volume - Given that he won a Pulitzer, I don't see how Roger Ebert's statement that Gurnow's work in the field is "very admirable" is anything to sneeze at.
SnowdenFan (
talk)
Delete (a message from the subject of this article): Thanks guys, but no. I appreciate that someone would take the time to create a Wiki page about me and am humbled that others have come to my defense yet, returning the favor in kind, I’ll openly state all the hub-bub isn’t necessary. I have a personal website for such purposes and my publisher has set up more than enough social media for the same reason.
Being in the public eye, I’d rather not have to potentially contend with
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/rachel-johnson-in-the-grip-of-wikipedias-orange-mike-8613948.html. Thank you. M. Gurnow
Reply to a reply to a reply: What you’re essentially implying by stating the interviews don’t focus on Gurnow, but his work, is that Picasso isn’t noteworthy in-and-of himself; only his paintings are noteworthy. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum; a person's art is what makes him or her notable. You can’t separate an artist from his or her work anymore than you can interview a book, which is what you are saying has taken place with the Gurnow interviews since he’s talking about his writing and not himself. In short, you're wanting a radio or print discussion about an artist, but one that doesn't mention his or her work. What would be the topic? Conjecture as to what the person eats for breakfast? (On that note, and if you want to be technical, listen to the interviews: In almost every one, the interviewer inquires about how Gurnow, as an artist, created the books).
The credential is that a person appear on a noteworthy medium, Gurnow has and several are clearly listed in the article (Wiki-recognized radio programs and hosts, no less). Done deal. Nowhere is it required that the subject must be excluded from the discussion, which is what you're demanding. That said, examples such as these have also been clearly provided in the original Wiki entry, cf. Quinn, Stroud, Politisite. For good measure, I'll go ahead and add in a 2014 book review by Pure Politics.
Your inheritance/contagion argument is also skewed: A foundation needn't be chartered by a notable name to be noteworthy. The Aldo Leopold Foundation itself is noteworthy in that it is one of the largest, most influential conservation non-profits in America. (Using your line of reasoning that only Aldo was noteworthy and, by deduction, anything done in his name but not by him, i.e., his non-noteworthy children who started the Foundation, isn’t credible is analogous to declaring that the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change isn't notable because Martin Luther King Jr. didn't start it.) Clearly, the bottom line is the impact of the group, not who it is named after. Hufftaker, in-and-of himself, might not be a household name but, as president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation (since Aldo's ghost might have trouble typing up an introduction), he is representing the influential conservation group and, as such and by proxy, the Aldo Leopold Foundation deemed Gurnow’s novel worthy of being introduced.
NOTE: I have added the Pure Politics interview, included those brought up during this discussion that weren't in the original entry, as well as updated Gurnow's publication listing (there was quite a bit missing, including several cover stories for national magazines.) SnowdenFan ( talk)
I highly doubt that the request was made by Gurnow himself. Look at the timing of the request in context of the discussion and the account itself - a SPA. The subject has an IT background and wrote a book on computer security. It is reasonable to assume that if that were him, he'd have at least coded his post properly. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Krax and Wikimandia/Мандичка: This is the reason I stated I doubted it was him: The IP is NOT from his homestate, which is Missouri. The IP was out of Kansas (2 sites reporting) or Chicago (2 reporting): http://166.175.186.160.ipaddress.com/ and http://en.utrace.de/ip-address/166.175.186.52 or https://db-ip.com/166.175.186.52 and http://www.iplocationtools.com/166.175.186.52.html.
Also, as of 8/6/15, the author has recently listed on his personal website two more media interviews in the next two weeks, one a NY radio station, WCWP, and and television interview on a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate, KBSI. Regardless, as I outlined previously, under Wiki protocol, Gurnow already qualifies under the notability guidelines (see previous comments). SnowdenFan ( talk)
Good points: 1) "For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling." As you noted, we should follow Wiki policy and issue benefit of the doubt, meaning WP:Assume good faith. The dynamic IP is most likely due to him being on tour (his newest title came out in May). He mentions his various speaking invitations on his blog ( http://primitivarum.weebly.com/blog). 2) On your note that 15 references are by Gurnow: The subject is a writer. It is difficult to claim his work has appeared in X publication if we don't list/display what he's authored (it would be by him in respect to references if these appeared on his website, but they don't: They're are on individual, independent websites such as Fifth Estate, American Atheist, Word Riot, Literary Kicks, etc. As for the Amazon sales citations: Not sure how this isn't independent - they are screencaps taken from Amazon.com proving his books are international bestsellers ( http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html and http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales_ii.html); if you are implying they are fabricated (again, we're told to WP:Assume good faith), then they are there for the world - including Amazon - to see. If Gurnow or his publisher were to misrepresent the world's largest bookseller's data, it would make him/it liable to legal action. Doesn't seem likely. 3) As for your comment, "And here you come with Twitter as a reference": This is from the official, validated Twitter account of a well-known television personality, Les Stroud. It allows authentication of a blurb which would otherwise only be sourced by the subject's publisher. 4) Not sure what you are talking about in respect to the last cited book review: The link is active.
Again, under Wiki policy, his interviews (many conducted by noted radio hosts and one by a famous director) alone qualify Gurnow under the notability guidelines, atop his recognition by noted authors, television personalities, Pulitzer winners and environmental groups. SnowdenFan ( talk)
Wow. I feel as if this discussion has become a broken record. Ignoring that we're debating the legitimacy of an internationally bestselling author who has been translated, anthologized, referenced at international conferences and in law and literary journals, again, Gurnow has been cited, interviewed or given accolades by numerous people/sources, all of which have their own Wiki pages, thus are hardly "non-notable venues," thereby constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject": Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Les Stroud, Daniel Quinn, Jennifer Pharr Davis, Jeff Crouere of WGSO and Howie Carr of WRKO. And, as I have also already stated, he's due to appear on WCWP and the Fox Broadcasting Network in the next 10 days (as listed on his personal website). SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply I first started reading Gurnow's work several years ago, back when he was writing reviews for horror films. His postings on The Horror Review were many, something like 300-400, if memory serves. Unfortunately, it would take some time (like probably a full day, at least) to tally exactly how many since the site was sold a while back and the old reviews were all “archived,” and annoyingly so. Whereas they used to be accessible under the individual reviewer's moniker, all of the reviews have been submitted under Horror Bob's real name (Robert Brodmerkel), so now one has to click on every single review and scroll to the bottom of it to identify who wrote it. There are approximately 178 pages of reviews (mostly past, some present) with about five reviews per page. These include books as well as films. Like I said, it would take a substantial amount of time to correctly tally Gurnow's input in this endeavor, and it is time I do not have, especially since the effort would (more than likely) be written off as “non-notable” due to the following reasons: 1) the fact that they would be considered primary sources, and 2) the venue the work appeared in, despite the fact The Horror Review debuted on the WWW in March 1999, and, thanks to its buyout by Journal Stone Publishing, continues to remain online. If I thought writing online reviews for horror films was noteworthy (personally, I do, but professionally, even I'd give pause if that was someone's only source of notoriety) then I would have submitted a Wikipedia page for Mr. Gurnow several years ago. But, I waited until he had two books out, one (the Snowden book) that received respectable coverage, and another (his novel Nature's Housekeeper) that is finally starting to generate some much-deserved (in my opinion) interest.
I agree with Kraxler that “notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking,” but it is often established via writing, especially if several of those works have been published, either online or in print. Gurnow has done both – the former, extensively; the latter, minimally. And, obviously, it seems to be Gurnow's scarcity of availability in the latter medium that has precipitated this entire circumstance. By the interpretation of Gurnow's supporters, evidence abounds as to the subject's “notability”; however, according to the opposition, this is not the case, despite the fact they have failed to provide any significant evidence to support their stance, only reiterating the “lack of notability” issue that prompted SnowdenFan to apply a “broken record” comparison. Besides the repetition provided by the opposition, other weaknesses in their argument have surfaced. Granted, it's been a couple of decades since I took my Rhetoric & Critical Analysis class in college, so I'm a little hazy on all the fallacies, but I do believe that Tarc is guilty of the ol' Poisoning the Well ploy, or at least some form of Ad hominem. So far, the only quality debate in this entire discussion pertained to the IP address of “M. Gurnow” and his “request” for deletion. For argument's sake, let's say that the actual subject did post that message (I, for one, have no reason to believe he didn't). Considering the fact that Gurnow provided the link to the Rachel Johnson article that mentioned her incident with Orange Mike, who, as we all know, is the one who placed the Gurnow article on the deletion block, it leads me to wonder if this “request” was really more of an acquiescence. In short, perhaps he (Gurnow) saw his situation akin to Peckinpah's doomed Wild Bunch – why fight a bloody battle you know you're going to lose, even if the cause is a justifiable one? – and he didn't see the purpose in expending his energy on it. But, like The Wild Bunch, there are some of us (high five, SnowdenFan) who don't mind getting a little bloody, even though we already know we're going to lose this one. BrocktonBomber ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Of note admin Bearcat just browsed the page and, not only did he not deem it in need of deletion, he took the time to spiffy up some of the citations. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, Krax, that you'd edit your previous comment from "removed citations" to "removed duplicated citations" once I said something so as to look as if you'd done your homework the first time (as you note, decade-long editors do have an image to uphold) and, as you noted (I wasn't going to say anything), yes, Tarc admitted to assuming the name "Jimbo Wales" on Reaper Eternal's talkpage. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Outdoor Writer's Guild award-winner Chris Townsend, who is gear editor for The Great Outdoors and author of The Backpacker's Handbook, just posted a review of Gurnow's latest book: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2015/08/book-review-natures-housekeeper-eco.html. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply Just because something is listed as a blog does not, in and of itself, constitute the validity and/or accuracy of its information. Case in point, The Tone Zone: The Official Raybeats Tribute Page, is on WordPress, yet it is, as the name conveys, the official information source for the band, endorsed by its surviving members, who contributed greatly to the site. I mention this because several years ago I made a contribution to Wikipedia using information from this site. A Wiki editor quickly removed the citation due to its source's origin (WordPress), despite the fact the information I used did not come from a blog posting but from the historical content on the site. (In fact, if you ever visit the site, you will notice that the comments sections have been disabled for the majority of the pages.) I bring all this up to draw attention to the fact that the creation of the Internet has rewritten – and consistently continues to rewrite – the book on what constitutes a reliable/valid/notable source. As I mentioned in a previous post, Gurnow wrote hundreds of film reviews for The Horror Review, a site that would, more than likely, be considered to be lacking notability, especially since it doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry. Yet, ironically, the site is older than Wikipedia, having debuted in March 1999, almost two years before the launch of Wikipedia in January 2001.
I did read WP:BLUDGEON. Alas, SnowdenFan may feel the need to keep hitting the point home due to the fact that the opposition keeps failing to address it adequately, which, in turn, has created an unappealing turn of events, which even Drmies foresaw (i.e., “this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking."). But, then, maybe decreasing the level of the discussion's attractiveness was the point for its extension all along. After all, why else has this “discussion” entered its fourth week, despite not being officially extended? After reading WP:BLUDGEON, it became obvious to me that a well-written argument is not the issue with an ultimate decision regarding deletion, but, instead, it hinges on a casting of votes. At this point, it stands 2 (to keep) against 6 (to delete). (I'm excluding the deletion request by “M. Gurnow” due to the speculation regarding the source's authenticity.) Again, as I stated earlier, we (the 2 keep votes) knew all along we were going to lose this one; the writing was already on the wall long before Tarc's “[b]etter luck in the future” comment. BrocktonBomber ( talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
BrocktonBomber is right. Though Tarc may very well be proven to be correct that this article gets 187'd - at this juncture - it would be due to votes (which Wiki states is not the test of an article's live-or-die status), not the reasoning behind why it isn't valid since, as BB notes, the Bludgeon citation^ is unmerited: I (as well as BrocktonBomber) have been obligated to repeat myself because editors are submitting grievances which, time and again, have already been addressed and reinforced through citation (say nothing of being present in the article itself).
^ Irony of ironies (since, Krax, you seem fond of the term) - You have mentioned this twice amid having posted 10 times in 6 days since you entered the conversation. Returning the f.y.i. favor, you might find the article The pot calling the kettle black interesting.
SnowdenFan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) BethNaught ( talk) 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Claim of significance may be shown (via the one article referenced), but the other reference is a Wordpress - this persons notability has not been shown, this article should be deleted. Garchy ( talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Granted it's an Indian show so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches nothing at all to even suggest minimal improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to suggest good local or universal notability, with my searches finding nothing particularly good with the best here, here, here and here (all passing mentions). With no obvious possibility of improvement or moving elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete - there are some mentions and concert announcements in the local news, but nothing that could possibly make them pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Kraxler ( talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Subject does not appear notable. Current sources do not show notability, and neither does a google, google news or google books search. Most mentions seem to mention him only in passing. He appears to have produced notable bands, but notability is not inherited and I cannot find mention of any album he produced winning a technical award. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG, WP:Notability (sports) or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to PRehse, Mr. Guye, SebastjanH. Boleyn ( talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is dependent on the primary page: Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I will add additional and independent links till the end of the week that will prove the relevance of the page and the it has enough coverage. SebastjanH ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, better notability and/or moving elsewhere; searches here, here, here and here (browser and highbeam also found nothing). Overall, there's not that much info about this group aside from being around since at least the 1970s and it seems they changed their website to this (different name). It may be rather well known locally but there's not even anything to suggest good local notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:AGF notwithstanding, there is no credible assertion of notability and the creator is likely a sock. Guy ( Help!) 23:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article really qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance or significance), but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt, as the claim of "almost 15 thousand fans" could just about be construed as a claim of significance. It seems that what that means is simply that his Facebook page claims 14583 "likes". The article is about a person with no evidence of notability at all, either in the article itself or anywhere that I have managed to find on searching. It is sourced only to Facebook. (The original version of this article was created by an editor called "Libanbarre", and was speedily deleted. Libanbarre was also given a message alerting him to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. The article was later re-created by an editor who appears to be in contact with Liban Barre's manager, if not with Liban Barre himself.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
in the beginning user jamesBWatson told me that i had to show prove and significance that Liban Barre had 15,000 fans or almost close to that number so i search his name up got his facebook link and showed him prove. than afterward he tells me This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy after i proved to him that he had that much fans and let me ask you something Facebook is a big company almost 250 million people have an Facebook account and how do Facebook separate the public with celebrities they give the celebrities a blue verified check next to their name and only Celebrities and public figures
Global brands and businesses media can have it and Liban Barre fan page is going get verified very soon so what does that tell you it tells you that out of 250 million people on facebook liban wil be one of many verified account on facebook. on top of that google is making liban barre his knowledge graph anytime soon so if this article gets deleted than google has no information to put on his box and yes i dont know liban personally his manager contacted me and told me to make an article cause he will be appearing on tv and flim this upcoming spring and other than that i dont know who made that account i have no idea and it doesn't concern me my job is to make this article and obviously user jamesBWatson is making things harder and if so the article Sulekha_Ali has nothing significance about it and as i recall since i am fan of liban and sulekha videos since they are a big deal in my culture him and Sulekha working togather on a project — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ahmed9558 (
talk •
contribs)
20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No deletion reason given. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Completing nomination for 1.39.13.41 ( talk). I am neutral unless I comment below. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Too soon, I think. Perhaps he will become notable in the future. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a person who is not known for anything except a random picture taken of him working at Target, many different media outlets carried the story on the viral take up of this picture. The films/music he is involved in is not notable and do nothing to help Alex meet WP:ANYBIO as this is a single event notability a reassessment is needed to gain a consensus on permanent notability. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect all to List of county routes in Erie County, New York — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty simple, I have redone these into a formal list at List of county routes in Erie County, New York, replacing the version of 1-32 and so forth that I created when I was a naive editor. At this point, the redundancy of 12 existing lists and the numerous un-created ones can be dealt with this lone list and I can re-work it to bring it more up to standard than 12 lists. Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the redundancy:
Also, this is my first AfD nomination in almost 9 years, so if I've made any mistakes, pardon my inability. Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn( non-admin closure). Müdigkeit ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Sources contain little information, and seem to be broad catalogues or lists, as well as one source that seems to be a source directed on the order Siluriformes, so no significant coverage. Little is known about this species, it looks like a dictionary entry. If it would be redirected, Glyptothorax would be the target, so it isn't needed, as its name is an extension of that name. That article already contains information about this species. Müdigkeit ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was Trainwreck. Far too many canvassed/SPA !votes, poor-quality arguments, etc. to derive any sort of consensus from.
For formality, this closure is a no consensus/ WP:NPASR. Stifle ( talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Drmies ( talk) 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Notability is not temporary- I do not think this means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the general notability guideline, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Wikipedia being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
describes it as a larger phenomenon- If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, Identitarian movement is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*Keep It is an indisputable fact that millions of people around the world consider Wikipedia to be their first choice and vanguard of human knowledge as it pertains to being the most reliable resource for learning about new words, and information about people, places, things or other important categorical subjects. The word Cuckservative has caught on fire like no other political term in 2015 and continues burning feverishly bright as a white-hot philippic in the news, political commentary and on TV. Social media is buzzing intensely, especially twitter where more than 10,000 tweets a day are using or discussing the term. Political pundits of the left and Republicans with waffling principles on the right, in open wallace, have announced their scathing hatred of the term because of its capacity to label and brow beat left-regressing republicans. Having looked at the political bias of the people above who say delete the term, you will notice most of them have on the balance left oriented biases in their edits. Every one right of center is talking about this term and it is not the same thing as "RINO", though there is some overlap. If this word is deleted from Wikipedia, it is because the left mobilized themselves and succeeded in overwhelming this discussion with votes for delete. Do the right thing and keep the term, it would be a victory against partisan politics of left-right paradigms. If the term is deleted it is a victory for the left that overwhelmingly dominates Wikipedia.
AviBoteach (
talk)
14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) —
AviBoteach (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
:::It's obvious the intention to remove the term from wikipedia is grounded in the left's well organized groundswell movement to undermine the pejorative's gravitas at shaming mainstream waffle-Republicans with no principals that are regressing to the left. Case in point from the leftist Cato Institute '
As Racists Return to the Mainstream, Be Sure to Deprive Them of Power', the title says it all and lets the reader know the undercurrent of what the article is really about and defines the opening shots to why we must suppress the portmanteau. And whenever you want to fringe-smear or marginalize someone or something out of the mainstream conversation, connect them with extremism, today's McCarthyism is the shaming word "racism" or any other related fringing pejoratives meant to red-herring uncomfortable topics, like
Is “Cuckservative” the New, Hip Racial Slur For White Nationalists?. With the likening to Hitler, anyone who calls out Republicans who betray established party positions of the party's millions of voters and undermine their established constituents are now labelled "White Nationalist" (code word Hitler, code word Neo-Nazi, ut oh, here comes another Holocaust), and so we get a big fat juicy red flagged black Swastika emblazoned with a sexy-pot Aryan dominatrix. Yet only a minuscule number of people using the term Cuckservative are self-described "White Nationalists". We learn from the leftist Salon that Cuckservative is not only a disgusting racist term, but equally disgusting misogynist
The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur. Since I am prescient, the overwhelmingly left dominated Wikipedia will have its way and the article will be purged down the memory hole, but remember this time and day, I will be vindicated when you see that the word does not go away and becomes a major talking point from now till November 2016 when more than 100 million Americans vote for their next president.
AviBoteach (
talk)
20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::Could you please provide some reliable sources that are writing specifically about this term?
AviBoteach (
talk)
00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::What are some of these many reliable sources, not a rehash of stuff already covered above, but new examples.
AviBoteach (
talk)
00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Can you post titles and links to those articles, so that we have definitive proof of it?
AviBoteach (
talk)
05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::::The problem is that cuckservative and RINO are not the same thing, nor subsets of each other. They have completely different definitions, despite the fact there is some overlap. A RINO is basically not a republican at all, but a democrat running under the GOP. A cuckservative is a republican, who runs on party platforms, but is willing to betray his or her constituents on racial grounds.
AviBoteach (
talk)
23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This and some local news are all the sources I can find about this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This tiny article is the only thing I could find resembling coverage of this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
While I can find a number of mentions of this company and their software, I can't find anything that shows they are notable. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't locate any sources about Lambert of Cremona. If one looks up his name there is a result in the book The New Global Law (2010) but looking up the quoted Latin text in the "71" note reveals that the work perhaps belongs to Liutprand of Cremona, so it could be a book error. Probably the earliest mentions of a bishop named Lambert of Cremona in Wikipedia is from this November 2005 edit in the English Wikipedia, and this October 2004 edit in the Italian Wikipedia, The former edit might be a translation of the Italian article. There is no article of this person in the Italian Wikipedia. I'm not suspecting this article as a hoax, as there could be at least one source out there. TheGGoose ( talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW per discussion and WP:NOTDUP. Additionally, given that the lists are all annotated, the nominator's claim that they have no information beyond the categories' bare alphabetical listing of album (article) titles is so clearly erroneous as to arguably make this eligible for a WP:SK#3 close. postdlf ( talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. All 2007 with articles are already listed in Category:2007 albums, so this information is redundant. I also don't think this list of much value since we will never be able to list all albums released in a year and I don't see how simply listing albums released within year benefits readers. Littlecarmen ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Littlecarmen ( talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
KEEP: easy and convienient way to find out new albums being released, bought so many albums, that i wouldnt have known about, with these pages .... Great addition to Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.39.229 ( talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity ( talk) 14:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep as a duplicate nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Chauhan. ( non-admin closure) Fuebaey ( talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This article appears to be mostly written by the subject of the article themself. That is not a valid reason for speedy deletion.
The substantial reason for deletion is that the named person Yogesh Chauhan and any or all of his business enterprises do not pass the test for WP:CORP Shirt58 ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete by Jimfbleak with reason "promotional autobiography without sources that indicates no importance. Subject falls significantly short of WP:BIO" ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Autobiograpihcal article. Probably a copy of Resume of the User himself. No coverage in the news. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Tending towards keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My various searches found nothing to suggest improvement aside from several browser links none of which looked good. Although the position would sound notable, this is an orphan and there's no apparent target for moving elsewhere. I'm sure any sources may be non-English and offline but I'm not seeing anything to my abilities. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate summary of a single academic article. Possibly a class project, but not an appropriate one. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of notability. The awards are minor, and there seem no substantial third party references. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The references supplied do not support the notability of the subject - needs to comply with WP:NACTOR or WP:NCRICKET. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly doesn't comply with WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Non tour programme, no indication of importance. Ireneshih ( talk) 07:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Fake reference (No-1) and non-notable individual. Ireneshih ( talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Local pageant, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete as non notable pagent, fails NEVENT & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Near East University#Museum of Classical and Sports Cars of Near East University. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable independent source that significantly cover the subject. The article only cites the museum's web site (not an independent source) and other Wikipedia page (not reliable). I ran a Google search and found nothing reliable [35] [36]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'll happily move the deleted material the author's userspace if he or she wishes to work on it further. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about the act of escaping China for Hong Kong. Personally I feel this is covered elsewhere and doesnt merit a stand alone article. Plus this one is badly written. Gbawden ( talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Non notable baseball player.. has not played in the majors or in any major international tournaments (qualifiers are not tournaments themselves) Spanneraol ( talk) 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
non notable baseball player, does not meet baseball notability guidelines Spanneraol ( talk) 12:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many press releases, run of the mill notices, and some minor mentions of the product use in articles on other topics. But not enough to meet company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason is given for considering this building at all notable (other than a photographer who had his studio there & a shop which was there: WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources do not give reason for notability either. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete via WP:BLPPROD by Rjd0060. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACADEMICS. No indication that his research has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline
".
G S Palmer (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article about a gift basket shop from New York City. Claim for notability is that they not only deliver in Manhattan but also nationwide via an online store. One given source is a NYT article, but that mentions the shop only with half a sentence - the rest of the article is about the founders former job. Not enough to establish WP:N. — Ben Ben ( talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Andhra Pradesh Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Part of a series on | ||
Mathematics | ||
---|---|---|
|
||
![]() | ||
Comment Do you want to delete all the articles from Wikipedia which are similar to this article. The Wiki Articles available in following Categories are similar to this article.
Category:Indexes of topics by U.S. state Category:Indexes of topics by Canadian province Category:Indexes of topics by country
When the state got bifurcated, it is advised to change the article title to "Index of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana-related articles" or delete the content related to Telangana state. When there is no maintenance problem for this type of articles in USA and Canada, how is it applicable to an Indian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdt2 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No notability CerealKillerYum ( talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not finding the references, reviews, or coverage that convince me this title is notable. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The two sources are reputable (CBS and SF Chronicle) but they're versions of the same human interest story, and I don't see what makes the subject notable. ubiquity ( talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. With no objections after three weeks, I'm treating this as an expired PROD. Will undelete on request. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Coverage is spotty - to put it plainly, it's basically confined to tabloid trash - and while the subject has been the runner-up in a couple of prominent competitions, she hasn't actually won any. Fails WP:MUSBIO. - Biruitorul Talk 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) - NQ (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet stub criteria. Belongs in https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme ( talk • contribs)
Speedy keep: All properly sourced articles about correctly described species are inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. This Afd-nomination, and the PRODding of more than a dozen other articles about rare and endangered fish species that I have created, has been made in bad faith by the nominator , as an attempt to get back at me for voicing an opinion about WP:AVDUCK (an essay created by the nominator) that the nominator didn't like. Thomas.W talk 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not independently notable yet and my searches found nothing convincing and whether intentional or not, the article a bit more like a personal page than an encyclopedia. I considered redirecting to the one film but I wonder if deletion is the better option for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No reliable evidence for notability: refs are press releases or local promotion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an adult film director, resting almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources (IMDb, YouTube videos, etc.) Out of all the references here, #6 (the Charlottetown Guardian) is the only one that could even begin to get a person over WP:GNG — and even that article isn't about him, but merely namechecks his existence at the very end of an article about his father. The level of coverage needed to get him into Wikipedia simply hasn't been shown here. (This is also a WP:COI, as the creator's username matches the Twitter handle of a person directly employed in the public relations department of the same company that the article subject works for.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat ( talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. I have moved the page to Index of Telangana-related articles, following the pattern of similar pages. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Telangana Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG and GNG. nothing in gnews for English name, just 2 hits for Malay name. Gbooks reveals one small reference in a travel guide. LibStar ( talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There's not much to confirm this show exists aside this search with the Georgian name which found a Facebook and YouTube videos. If there are good sources, I hope someone familiar with this can add them. SwisterTwister talk 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Canadian Paul 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The only source shown is a database entry, which does not indicate the subject's notability. No other reliable sources could be found on an internet search. BenLinus 1214 talk 02:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk)
01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Public relations piece. No WP: Reliable sources. Refs link mostly to self-serving sites. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be an essay written by someone trying to promote this novel but non-notable neologism. None of the sources even mention the term. The Dissident Aggressor 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep and potentially merge. As noted by Mz7, who had initially closed this discussion, AfD is not optimized for discussing editorial decisions like merging—especially not when multiple articles are involved. Consensus seems to be in favor of merging at least the original article, but as the others were added late and "merge" outcomes at AfD are not really binding, I'd rather not slap a bunch of merging tags on them. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd be fine with a redirect, but @ Hahnchen thought the redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessories was "half-assed". Have fun finding sources. Please {{ ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. – czar 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This is a deletion discussion; it's purpose is to form a consensus over whether the selected article should be deleted or not, and if not, it's to decide what alternatives to deletion are applicable. While the nomination began on valid deletion grounds, the arising discussion has since brought about a budding merge consensus concerning articles not currently nominated for deletion and a destination title that is currently nonexistent. While "merge" is indeed available as an alternative to deletion, it is only actionable as an AfD outcome if all of the source pages are included in the deletion nomination. Of course, it is possible to relist and nominate those articles for deletion as a part of this discussion right now, but the proposed solution is a merge, not deletion. With all of this in mind, it is my view that AfD is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion, and I encourage all participants to continue the merge discussion at the appropriate talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
Vs. System is substantial enoughI think you meant to nominate Nintendo VS. System, not Vs. System. It isn't substantial—it's almost entirely unsourced. – czar 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No real evidence of notability . Previous A7 declined, but perhaps it shouldn't have been. The findable refs seem to be more mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy delete as a test page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Test page by new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djembayz ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Completely unsourced puffpiece for non-notable entity. Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources discuss this organization at length. Mentioned in the refs only casually. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My searches found nothing to suggest improvement (even minimal) and better notability, here, here, here and here. There's also no obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Citations are self-serving. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 23:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Granted this is Greek and before the widespread use of Internet but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from various browser links (YouTube, social media, forums, etc). Summarily, I'm seeing anything to suggest improvement this article that has not been heavily edited since December 2006. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
After several source searches, the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus after receiving no participation. North America 1000 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to L-1 Identity Solutions. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't find any coverage beyond press releases for this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't find any reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was snow close per my comments below. I'll e-mail a copy of this to whomever wants one, just let me know on my talk page. The content here is potentially a BLP issue (particularly with the Phillips addition), so this would need a lot of work and research before something like this could be in the mainspace - if it could ever be a mainspace article at all. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This list has both notability and original research issues, as well as a (theoretically curable) heavy dose of recentism, with all but one entry alive or recently-deceased (raising BLP issues). The inclusion criteria are arbitrarily vague and not based on reliable sources. When both participants in a supposed incestuous relationship are notable, only one is listed. With the exception of Patrick Stübing these people are not primarily known for incestuous relationships, and no source groups them together. In all, I see no indication that such a list would be encyclopedic in the first place, and if it were we could just as well start over and write a new list. Huon ( talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article does not make a case for subject's notability. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Although the author is represented by a small press, both of his books have received substantial recognition. In fact, his book about
Edward Snowden has been listed in the Wikipedia entry about Snowden under the Further Reading section. As for his novel, Nature's Housekeeper, the forward was written by Buddy Hufaker, the president of the
Aldo Leopold Foundation, an organization which was founded by the environmentalist's children in 1982. He has also received kudos from Survivorman Les Stroud and Ishmael author Daniel Quinn. In addition, several essays and articles penned by Mr. Gurnow have been used as source material for a variety of Wikipedia entries:
H.P. Lovecraft,
William S. Burroughs,
D. Harlan Wilson,
Roger Ebert,
Robinson Crusoe,
Waiting for Godot,
Existentialism,
Tor (anonymity network), and a handful of film write-ups.
BrocktonBomber (
talk)
17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Not sure why
User:Orangemike is objecting. As article's contents state, Gurnow's work has been referenced in the UC Davis Law Review
[1] and in a
Routledge anthology
[2]. Also contained within the article is mention that his writing has been publicly praised by
Pulitzer-winner
Roger Ebert
[3], million-copy selling author and
Oprah guest
Daniel Quinn
[4], and
Discovery Channel's
Les Stroud
[5]. He has been interviewed on various national radio stations by such Wiki-recognized names as
Mancow Muller
[2],
Howie Carr
[3], and
Jeff Crouere
[4], as well as by Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary
Fear of a Black Republican, for Politisite
[5]. Furthermore, his work is listed on the
EBSCO Information Services database
[6]. (As for
WorldCat holding libraries, his first book is in 115 collections worldwide
[7]). Lastly, Gurnow has been elected into
Poets & Writers
[8] (a writer must be elected into PW.org by a majority vote
[9]).
SnowdenFan |
Talk
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
E.M.Gregory Please do not violate Wiki policy of deleting external citations before entering into the deletion discussion in order to state there are no reliable sources.
Returning to your comments, 1) If the academic citations were "catch-all" overviews, you'd have a fine point, but they're not. They are exacting studies of the subject Gurnow wrote about, ie., a law professor (Kwoka) AND the Harvard of British presses, Routledge, deemed his first book worthy of including it in their research. 2) Wiki does not ask for volume but quality of sources. Gurnow's second book was applauded by a well-known television personality (Stroud) and a bestselling author who appeared on Oprah (Quinn). 3) Yet, going with "more is better," as stated in the original article (prior to your removal of sources), the introduction of his second book was written by the president of one of the largest conservationist/environmental non-profits in America, the Aldo Leopold Foundation,
Jennifer Pharr Davis also praised the work
[12], and the Wilderness Skills Institute positively reviewed the novel
[13]. 4) As for a lack of media coverage, why did you ignore my documented citations that Gurnow has been interviewed on numerous national radio programs about his writing? 5) Lastly, and returning to quality sources, not volume - Given that he won a Pulitzer, I don't see how Roger Ebert's statement that Gurnow's work in the field is "very admirable" is anything to sneeze at.
SnowdenFan (
talk)
Delete (a message from the subject of this article): Thanks guys, but no. I appreciate that someone would take the time to create a Wiki page about me and am humbled that others have come to my defense yet, returning the favor in kind, I’ll openly state all the hub-bub isn’t necessary. I have a personal website for such purposes and my publisher has set up more than enough social media for the same reason.
Being in the public eye, I’d rather not have to potentially contend with
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/rachel-johnson-in-the-grip-of-wikipedias-orange-mike-8613948.html. Thank you. M. Gurnow
Reply to a reply to a reply: What you’re essentially implying by stating the interviews don’t focus on Gurnow, but his work, is that Picasso isn’t noteworthy in-and-of himself; only his paintings are noteworthy. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum; a person's art is what makes him or her notable. You can’t separate an artist from his or her work anymore than you can interview a book, which is what you are saying has taken place with the Gurnow interviews since he’s talking about his writing and not himself. In short, you're wanting a radio or print discussion about an artist, but one that doesn't mention his or her work. What would be the topic? Conjecture as to what the person eats for breakfast? (On that note, and if you want to be technical, listen to the interviews: In almost every one, the interviewer inquires about how Gurnow, as an artist, created the books).
The credential is that a person appear on a noteworthy medium, Gurnow has and several are clearly listed in the article (Wiki-recognized radio programs and hosts, no less). Done deal. Nowhere is it required that the subject must be excluded from the discussion, which is what you're demanding. That said, examples such as these have also been clearly provided in the original Wiki entry, cf. Quinn, Stroud, Politisite. For good measure, I'll go ahead and add in a 2014 book review by Pure Politics.
Your inheritance/contagion argument is also skewed: A foundation needn't be chartered by a notable name to be noteworthy. The Aldo Leopold Foundation itself is noteworthy in that it is one of the largest, most influential conservation non-profits in America. (Using your line of reasoning that only Aldo was noteworthy and, by deduction, anything done in his name but not by him, i.e., his non-noteworthy children who started the Foundation, isn’t credible is analogous to declaring that the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change isn't notable because Martin Luther King Jr. didn't start it.) Clearly, the bottom line is the impact of the group, not who it is named after. Hufftaker, in-and-of himself, might not be a household name but, as president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation (since Aldo's ghost might have trouble typing up an introduction), he is representing the influential conservation group and, as such and by proxy, the Aldo Leopold Foundation deemed Gurnow’s novel worthy of being introduced.
NOTE: I have added the Pure Politics interview, included those brought up during this discussion that weren't in the original entry, as well as updated Gurnow's publication listing (there was quite a bit missing, including several cover stories for national magazines.) SnowdenFan ( talk)
I highly doubt that the request was made by Gurnow himself. Look at the timing of the request in context of the discussion and the account itself - a SPA. The subject has an IT background and wrote a book on computer security. It is reasonable to assume that if that were him, he'd have at least coded his post properly. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Krax and Wikimandia/Мандичка: This is the reason I stated I doubted it was him: The IP is NOT from his homestate, which is Missouri. The IP was out of Kansas (2 sites reporting) or Chicago (2 reporting): http://166.175.186.160.ipaddress.com/ and http://en.utrace.de/ip-address/166.175.186.52 or https://db-ip.com/166.175.186.52 and http://www.iplocationtools.com/166.175.186.52.html.
Also, as of 8/6/15, the author has recently listed on his personal website two more media interviews in the next two weeks, one a NY radio station, WCWP, and and television interview on a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate, KBSI. Regardless, as I outlined previously, under Wiki protocol, Gurnow already qualifies under the notability guidelines (see previous comments). SnowdenFan ( talk)
Good points: 1) "For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling." As you noted, we should follow Wiki policy and issue benefit of the doubt, meaning WP:Assume good faith. The dynamic IP is most likely due to him being on tour (his newest title came out in May). He mentions his various speaking invitations on his blog ( http://primitivarum.weebly.com/blog). 2) On your note that 15 references are by Gurnow: The subject is a writer. It is difficult to claim his work has appeared in X publication if we don't list/display what he's authored (it would be by him in respect to references if these appeared on his website, but they don't: They're are on individual, independent websites such as Fifth Estate, American Atheist, Word Riot, Literary Kicks, etc. As for the Amazon sales citations: Not sure how this isn't independent - they are screencaps taken from Amazon.com proving his books are international bestsellers ( http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html and http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales_ii.html); if you are implying they are fabricated (again, we're told to WP:Assume good faith), then they are there for the world - including Amazon - to see. If Gurnow or his publisher were to misrepresent the world's largest bookseller's data, it would make him/it liable to legal action. Doesn't seem likely. 3) As for your comment, "And here you come with Twitter as a reference": This is from the official, validated Twitter account of a well-known television personality, Les Stroud. It allows authentication of a blurb which would otherwise only be sourced by the subject's publisher. 4) Not sure what you are talking about in respect to the last cited book review: The link is active.
Again, under Wiki policy, his interviews (many conducted by noted radio hosts and one by a famous director) alone qualify Gurnow under the notability guidelines, atop his recognition by noted authors, television personalities, Pulitzer winners and environmental groups. SnowdenFan ( talk)
Wow. I feel as if this discussion has become a broken record. Ignoring that we're debating the legitimacy of an internationally bestselling author who has been translated, anthologized, referenced at international conferences and in law and literary journals, again, Gurnow has been cited, interviewed or given accolades by numerous people/sources, all of which have their own Wiki pages, thus are hardly "non-notable venues," thereby constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject": Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Les Stroud, Daniel Quinn, Jennifer Pharr Davis, Jeff Crouere of WGSO and Howie Carr of WRKO. And, as I have also already stated, he's due to appear on WCWP and the Fox Broadcasting Network in the next 10 days (as listed on his personal website). SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply I first started reading Gurnow's work several years ago, back when he was writing reviews for horror films. His postings on The Horror Review were many, something like 300-400, if memory serves. Unfortunately, it would take some time (like probably a full day, at least) to tally exactly how many since the site was sold a while back and the old reviews were all “archived,” and annoyingly so. Whereas they used to be accessible under the individual reviewer's moniker, all of the reviews have been submitted under Horror Bob's real name (Robert Brodmerkel), so now one has to click on every single review and scroll to the bottom of it to identify who wrote it. There are approximately 178 pages of reviews (mostly past, some present) with about five reviews per page. These include books as well as films. Like I said, it would take a substantial amount of time to correctly tally Gurnow's input in this endeavor, and it is time I do not have, especially since the effort would (more than likely) be written off as “non-notable” due to the following reasons: 1) the fact that they would be considered primary sources, and 2) the venue the work appeared in, despite the fact The Horror Review debuted on the WWW in March 1999, and, thanks to its buyout by Journal Stone Publishing, continues to remain online. If I thought writing online reviews for horror films was noteworthy (personally, I do, but professionally, even I'd give pause if that was someone's only source of notoriety) then I would have submitted a Wikipedia page for Mr. Gurnow several years ago. But, I waited until he had two books out, one (the Snowden book) that received respectable coverage, and another (his novel Nature's Housekeeper) that is finally starting to generate some much-deserved (in my opinion) interest.
I agree with Kraxler that “notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking,” but it is often established via writing, especially if several of those works have been published, either online or in print. Gurnow has done both – the former, extensively; the latter, minimally. And, obviously, it seems to be Gurnow's scarcity of availability in the latter medium that has precipitated this entire circumstance. By the interpretation of Gurnow's supporters, evidence abounds as to the subject's “notability”; however, according to the opposition, this is not the case, despite the fact they have failed to provide any significant evidence to support their stance, only reiterating the “lack of notability” issue that prompted SnowdenFan to apply a “broken record” comparison. Besides the repetition provided by the opposition, other weaknesses in their argument have surfaced. Granted, it's been a couple of decades since I took my Rhetoric & Critical Analysis class in college, so I'm a little hazy on all the fallacies, but I do believe that Tarc is guilty of the ol' Poisoning the Well ploy, or at least some form of Ad hominem. So far, the only quality debate in this entire discussion pertained to the IP address of “M. Gurnow” and his “request” for deletion. For argument's sake, let's say that the actual subject did post that message (I, for one, have no reason to believe he didn't). Considering the fact that Gurnow provided the link to the Rachel Johnson article that mentioned her incident with Orange Mike, who, as we all know, is the one who placed the Gurnow article on the deletion block, it leads me to wonder if this “request” was really more of an acquiescence. In short, perhaps he (Gurnow) saw his situation akin to Peckinpah's doomed Wild Bunch – why fight a bloody battle you know you're going to lose, even if the cause is a justifiable one? – and he didn't see the purpose in expending his energy on it. But, like The Wild Bunch, there are some of us (high five, SnowdenFan) who don't mind getting a little bloody, even though we already know we're going to lose this one. BrocktonBomber ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Of note admin Bearcat just browsed the page and, not only did he not deem it in need of deletion, he took the time to spiffy up some of the citations. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, Krax, that you'd edit your previous comment from "removed citations" to "removed duplicated citations" once I said something so as to look as if you'd done your homework the first time (as you note, decade-long editors do have an image to uphold) and, as you noted (I wasn't going to say anything), yes, Tarc admitted to assuming the name "Jimbo Wales" on Reaper Eternal's talkpage. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Outdoor Writer's Guild award-winner Chris Townsend, who is gear editor for The Great Outdoors and author of The Backpacker's Handbook, just posted a review of Gurnow's latest book: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2015/08/book-review-natures-housekeeper-eco.html. SnowdenFan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply Just because something is listed as a blog does not, in and of itself, constitute the validity and/or accuracy of its information. Case in point, The Tone Zone: The Official Raybeats Tribute Page, is on WordPress, yet it is, as the name conveys, the official information source for the band, endorsed by its surviving members, who contributed greatly to the site. I mention this because several years ago I made a contribution to Wikipedia using information from this site. A Wiki editor quickly removed the citation due to its source's origin (WordPress), despite the fact the information I used did not come from a blog posting but from the historical content on the site. (In fact, if you ever visit the site, you will notice that the comments sections have been disabled for the majority of the pages.) I bring all this up to draw attention to the fact that the creation of the Internet has rewritten – and consistently continues to rewrite – the book on what constitutes a reliable/valid/notable source. As I mentioned in a previous post, Gurnow wrote hundreds of film reviews for The Horror Review, a site that would, more than likely, be considered to be lacking notability, especially since it doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry. Yet, ironically, the site is older than Wikipedia, having debuted in March 1999, almost two years before the launch of Wikipedia in January 2001.
I did read WP:BLUDGEON. Alas, SnowdenFan may feel the need to keep hitting the point home due to the fact that the opposition keeps failing to address it adequately, which, in turn, has created an unappealing turn of events, which even Drmies foresaw (i.e., “this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking."). But, then, maybe decreasing the level of the discussion's attractiveness was the point for its extension all along. After all, why else has this “discussion” entered its fourth week, despite not being officially extended? After reading WP:BLUDGEON, it became obvious to me that a well-written argument is not the issue with an ultimate decision regarding deletion, but, instead, it hinges on a casting of votes. At this point, it stands 2 (to keep) against 6 (to delete). (I'm excluding the deletion request by “M. Gurnow” due to the speculation regarding the source's authenticity.) Again, as I stated earlier, we (the 2 keep votes) knew all along we were going to lose this one; the writing was already on the wall long before Tarc's “[b]etter luck in the future” comment. BrocktonBomber ( talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
BrocktonBomber is right. Though Tarc may very well be proven to be correct that this article gets 187'd - at this juncture - it would be due to votes (which Wiki states is not the test of an article's live-or-die status), not the reasoning behind why it isn't valid since, as BB notes, the Bludgeon citation^ is unmerited: I (as well as BrocktonBomber) have been obligated to repeat myself because editors are submitting grievances which, time and again, have already been addressed and reinforced through citation (say nothing of being present in the article itself).
^ Irony of ironies (since, Krax, you seem fond of the term) - You have mentioned this twice amid having posted 10 times in 6 days since you entered the conversation. Returning the f.y.i. favor, you might find the article The pot calling the kettle black interesting.
SnowdenFan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) BethNaught ( talk) 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Claim of significance may be shown (via the one article referenced), but the other reference is a Wordpress - this persons notability has not been shown, this article should be deleted. Garchy ( talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Granted it's an Indian show so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches nothing at all to even suggest minimal improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to suggest good local or universal notability, with my searches finding nothing particularly good with the best here, here, here and here (all passing mentions). With no obvious possibility of improvement or moving elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete - there are some mentions and concert announcements in the local news, but nothing that could possibly make them pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Kraxler ( talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Subject does not appear notable. Current sources do not show notability, and neither does a google, google news or google books search. Most mentions seem to mention him only in passing. He appears to have produced notable bands, but notability is not inherited and I cannot find mention of any album he produced winning a technical award. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG, WP:Notability (sports) or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to PRehse, Mr. Guye, SebastjanH. Boleyn ( talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is dependent on the primary page: Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I will add additional and independent links till the end of the week that will prove the relevance of the page and the it has enough coverage. SebastjanH ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, better notability and/or moving elsewhere; searches here, here, here and here (browser and highbeam also found nothing). Overall, there's not that much info about this group aside from being around since at least the 1970s and it seems they changed their website to this (different name). It may be rather well known locally but there's not even anything to suggest good local notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:AGF notwithstanding, there is no credible assertion of notability and the creator is likely a sock. Guy ( Help!) 23:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article really qualifies for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance or significance), but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt, as the claim of "almost 15 thousand fans" could just about be construed as a claim of significance. It seems that what that means is simply that his Facebook page claims 14583 "likes". The article is about a person with no evidence of notability at all, either in the article itself or anywhere that I have managed to find on searching. It is sourced only to Facebook. (The original version of this article was created by an editor called "Libanbarre", and was speedily deleted. Libanbarre was also given a message alerting him to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. The article was later re-created by an editor who appears to be in contact with Liban Barre's manager, if not with Liban Barre himself.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
in the beginning user jamesBWatson told me that i had to show prove and significance that Liban Barre had 15,000 fans or almost close to that number so i search his name up got his facebook link and showed him prove. than afterward he tells me This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy after i proved to him that he had that much fans and let me ask you something Facebook is a big company almost 250 million people have an Facebook account and how do Facebook separate the public with celebrities they give the celebrities a blue verified check next to their name and only Celebrities and public figures
Global brands and businesses media can have it and Liban Barre fan page is going get verified very soon so what does that tell you it tells you that out of 250 million people on facebook liban wil be one of many verified account on facebook. on top of that google is making liban barre his knowledge graph anytime soon so if this article gets deleted than google has no information to put on his box and yes i dont know liban personally his manager contacted me and told me to make an article cause he will be appearing on tv and flim this upcoming spring and other than that i dont know who made that account i have no idea and it doesn't concern me my job is to make this article and obviously user jamesBWatson is making things harder and if so the article Sulekha_Ali has nothing significance about it and as i recall since i am fan of liban and sulekha videos since they are a big deal in my culture him and Sulekha working togather on a project — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ahmed9558 (
talk •
contribs)
20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No deletion reason given. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Completing nomination for 1.39.13.41 ( talk). I am neutral unless I comment below. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Too soon, I think. Perhaps he will become notable in the future. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a person who is not known for anything except a random picture taken of him working at Target, many different media outlets carried the story on the viral take up of this picture. The films/music he is involved in is not notable and do nothing to help Alex meet WP:ANYBIO as this is a single event notability a reassessment is needed to gain a consensus on permanent notability. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect all to List of county routes in Erie County, New York — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty simple, I have redone these into a formal list at List of county routes in Erie County, New York, replacing the version of 1-32 and so forth that I created when I was a naive editor. At this point, the redundancy of 12 existing lists and the numerous un-created ones can be dealt with this lone list and I can re-work it to bring it more up to standard than 12 lists. Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the redundancy:
Also, this is my first AfD nomination in almost 9 years, so if I've made any mistakes, pardon my inability. Mitch32( The best ideas are common property.) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn( non-admin closure). Müdigkeit ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Sources contain little information, and seem to be broad catalogues or lists, as well as one source that seems to be a source directed on the order Siluriformes, so no significant coverage. Little is known about this species, it looks like a dictionary entry. If it would be redirected, Glyptothorax would be the target, so it isn't needed, as its name is an extension of that name. That article already contains information about this species. Müdigkeit ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was Trainwreck. Far too many canvassed/SPA !votes, poor-quality arguments, etc. to derive any sort of consensus from.
For formality, this closure is a no consensus/ WP:NPASR. Stifle ( talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Drmies ( talk) 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Notability is not temporary- I do not think this means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the general notability guideline, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Wikipedia being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
describes it as a larger phenomenon- If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, Identitarian movement is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*Keep It is an indisputable fact that millions of people around the world consider Wikipedia to be their first choice and vanguard of human knowledge as it pertains to being the most reliable resource for learning about new words, and information about people, places, things or other important categorical subjects. The word Cuckservative has caught on fire like no other political term in 2015 and continues burning feverishly bright as a white-hot philippic in the news, political commentary and on TV. Social media is buzzing intensely, especially twitter where more than 10,000 tweets a day are using or discussing the term. Political pundits of the left and Republicans with waffling principles on the right, in open wallace, have announced their scathing hatred of the term because of its capacity to label and brow beat left-regressing republicans. Having looked at the political bias of the people above who say delete the term, you will notice most of them have on the balance left oriented biases in their edits. Every one right of center is talking about this term and it is not the same thing as "RINO", though there is some overlap. If this word is deleted from Wikipedia, it is because the left mobilized themselves and succeeded in overwhelming this discussion with votes for delete. Do the right thing and keep the term, it would be a victory against partisan politics of left-right paradigms. If the term is deleted it is a victory for the left that overwhelmingly dominates Wikipedia.
AviBoteach (
talk)
14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) —
AviBoteach (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
:::It's obvious the intention to remove the term from wikipedia is grounded in the left's well organized groundswell movement to undermine the pejorative's gravitas at shaming mainstream waffle-Republicans with no principals that are regressing to the left. Case in point from the leftist Cato Institute '
As Racists Return to the Mainstream, Be Sure to Deprive Them of Power', the title says it all and lets the reader know the undercurrent of what the article is really about and defines the opening shots to why we must suppress the portmanteau. And whenever you want to fringe-smear or marginalize someone or something out of the mainstream conversation, connect them with extremism, today's McCarthyism is the shaming word "racism" or any other related fringing pejoratives meant to red-herring uncomfortable topics, like
Is “Cuckservative” the New, Hip Racial Slur For White Nationalists?. With the likening to Hitler, anyone who calls out Republicans who betray established party positions of the party's millions of voters and undermine their established constituents are now labelled "White Nationalist" (code word Hitler, code word Neo-Nazi, ut oh, here comes another Holocaust), and so we get a big fat juicy red flagged black Swastika emblazoned with a sexy-pot Aryan dominatrix. Yet only a minuscule number of people using the term Cuckservative are self-described "White Nationalists". We learn from the leftist Salon that Cuckservative is not only a disgusting racist term, but equally disgusting misogynist
The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur. Since I am prescient, the overwhelmingly left dominated Wikipedia will have its way and the article will be purged down the memory hole, but remember this time and day, I will be vindicated when you see that the word does not go away and becomes a major talking point from now till November 2016 when more than 100 million Americans vote for their next president.
AviBoteach (
talk)
20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::Could you please provide some reliable sources that are writing specifically about this term?
AviBoteach (
talk)
00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::What are some of these many reliable sources, not a rehash of stuff already covered above, but new examples.
AviBoteach (
talk)
00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Can you post titles and links to those articles, so that we have definitive proof of it?
AviBoteach (
talk)
05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
::::The problem is that cuckservative and RINO are not the same thing, nor subsets of each other. They have completely different definitions, despite the fact there is some overlap. A RINO is basically not a republican at all, but a democrat running under the GOP. A cuckservative is a republican, who runs on party platforms, but is willing to betray his or her constituents on racial grounds.
AviBoteach (
talk)
23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This and some local news are all the sources I can find about this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This tiny article is the only thing I could find resembling coverage of this company. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
While I can find a number of mentions of this company and their software, I can't find anything that shows they are notable. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't locate any sources about Lambert of Cremona. If one looks up his name there is a result in the book The New Global Law (2010) but looking up the quoted Latin text in the "71" note reveals that the work perhaps belongs to Liutprand of Cremona, so it could be a book error. Probably the earliest mentions of a bishop named Lambert of Cremona in Wikipedia is from this November 2005 edit in the English Wikipedia, and this October 2004 edit in the Italian Wikipedia, The former edit might be a translation of the Italian article. There is no article of this person in the Italian Wikipedia. I'm not suspecting this article as a hoax, as there could be at least one source out there. TheGGoose ( talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW per discussion and WP:NOTDUP. Additionally, given that the lists are all annotated, the nominator's claim that they have no information beyond the categories' bare alphabetical listing of album (article) titles is so clearly erroneous as to arguably make this eligible for a WP:SK#3 close. postdlf ( talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. All 2007 with articles are already listed in Category:2007 albums, so this information is redundant. I also don't think this list of much value since we will never be able to list all albums released in a year and I don't see how simply listing albums released within year benefits readers. Littlecarmen ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Littlecarmen ( talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
KEEP: easy and convienient way to find out new albums being released, bought so many albums, that i wouldnt have known about, with these pages .... Great addition to Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.39.229 ( talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity ( talk) 14:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural keep as a duplicate nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Chauhan. ( non-admin closure) Fuebaey ( talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This article appears to be mostly written by the subject of the article themself. That is not a valid reason for speedy deletion.
The substantial reason for deletion is that the named person Yogesh Chauhan and any or all of his business enterprises do not pass the test for WP:CORP Shirt58 ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete by Jimfbleak with reason "promotional autobiography without sources that indicates no importance. Subject falls significantly short of WP:BIO" ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Autobiograpihcal article. Probably a copy of Resume of the User himself. No coverage in the news. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Tending towards keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My various searches found nothing to suggest improvement aside from several browser links none of which looked good. Although the position would sound notable, this is an orphan and there's no apparent target for moving elsewhere. I'm sure any sources may be non-English and offline but I'm not seeing anything to my abilities. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate summary of a single academic article. Possibly a class project, but not an appropriate one. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of notability. The awards are minor, and there seem no substantial third party references. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The references supplied do not support the notability of the subject - needs to comply with WP:NACTOR or WP:NCRICKET. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly doesn't comply with WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Non tour programme, no indication of importance. Ireneshih ( talk) 07:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Fake reference (No-1) and non-notable individual. Ireneshih ( talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's a redirect. Take it to RfD, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason should this be in article namespace. GZWDer ( talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Local pageant, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete as non notable pagent, fails NEVENT & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Near East University#Museum of Classical and Sports Cars of Near East University. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable independent source that significantly cover the subject. The article only cites the museum's web site (not an independent source) and other Wikipedia page (not reliable). I ran a Google search and found nothing reliable [35] [36]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'll happily move the deleted material the author's userspace if he or she wishes to work on it further. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about the act of escaping China for Hong Kong. Personally I feel this is covered elsewhere and doesnt merit a stand alone article. Plus this one is badly written. Gbawden ( talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Non notable baseball player.. has not played in the majors or in any major international tournaments (qualifiers are not tournaments themselves) Spanneraol ( talk) 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
non notable baseball player, does not meet baseball notability guidelines Spanneraol ( talk) 12:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many press releases, run of the mill notices, and some minor mentions of the product use in articles on other topics. But not enough to meet company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason is given for considering this building at all notable (other than a photographer who had his studio there & a shop which was there: WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources do not give reason for notability either. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete via WP:BLPPROD by Rjd0060. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACADEMICS. No indication that his research has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline
".
G S Palmer (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article about a gift basket shop from New York City. Claim for notability is that they not only deliver in Manhattan but also nationwide via an online store. One given source is a NYT article, but that mentions the shop only with half a sentence - the rest of the article is about the founders former job. Not enough to establish WP:N. — Ben Ben ( talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Andhra Pradesh Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Part of a series on | ||
Mathematics | ||
---|---|---|
|
||
![]() | ||
Comment Do you want to delete all the articles from Wikipedia which are similar to this article. The Wiki Articles available in following Categories are similar to this article.
Category:Indexes of topics by U.S. state Category:Indexes of topics by Canadian province Category:Indexes of topics by country
When the state got bifurcated, it is advised to change the article title to "Index of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana-related articles" or delete the content related to Telangana state. When there is no maintenance problem for this type of articles in USA and Canada, how is it applicable to an Indian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdt2 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No notability CerealKillerYum ( talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not finding the references, reviews, or coverage that convince me this title is notable. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The two sources are reputable (CBS and SF Chronicle) but they're versions of the same human interest story, and I don't see what makes the subject notable. ubiquity ( talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. With no objections after three weeks, I'm treating this as an expired PROD. Will undelete on request. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Coverage is spotty - to put it plainly, it's basically confined to tabloid trash - and while the subject has been the runner-up in a couple of prominent competitions, she hasn't actually won any. Fails WP:MUSBIO. - Biruitorul Talk 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) - NQ (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet stub criteria. Belongs in https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme ( talk • contribs)
Speedy keep: All properly sourced articles about correctly described species are inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. This Afd-nomination, and the PRODding of more than a dozen other articles about rare and endangered fish species that I have created, has been made in bad faith by the nominator , as an attempt to get back at me for voicing an opinion about WP:AVDUCK (an essay created by the nominator) that the nominator didn't like. Thomas.W talk 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not independently notable yet and my searches found nothing convincing and whether intentional or not, the article a bit more like a personal page than an encyclopedia. I considered redirecting to the one film but I wonder if deletion is the better option for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No reliable evidence for notability: refs are press releases or local promotion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. – czar 08:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP of an adult film director, resting almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources (IMDb, YouTube videos, etc.) Out of all the references here, #6 (the Charlottetown Guardian) is the only one that could even begin to get a person over WP:GNG — and even that article isn't about him, but merely namechecks his existence at the very end of an article about his father. The level of coverage needed to get him into Wikipedia simply hasn't been shown here. (This is also a WP:COI, as the creator's username matches the Twitter handle of a person directly employed in the public relations department of the same company that the article subject works for.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat ( talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural closure. This is not an article, it's an index. That's different from a list, which would be in the right place here. Lists may have text appended to the entries, indexes have only entries without any text. This is the wrong place, start a discussion about index pages at the pertaining project or the Village Pump, if necessary. I have moved the page to Index of Telangana-related articles, following the pattern of similar pages. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A big unmaintainable mess, and redundant to Category:Telangana Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG and GNG. nothing in gnews for English name, just 2 hits for Malay name. Gbooks reveals one small reference in a travel guide. LibStar ( talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There's not much to confirm this show exists aside this search with the Georgian name which found a Facebook and YouTube videos. If there are good sources, I hope someone familiar with this can add them. SwisterTwister talk 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Canadian Paul 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The only source shown is a database entry, which does not indicate the subject's notability. No other reliable sources could be found on an internet search. BenLinus 1214 talk 02:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk)
01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Public relations piece. No WP: Reliable sources. Refs link mostly to self-serving sites. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be an essay written by someone trying to promote this novel but non-notable neologism. None of the sources even mention the term. The Dissident Aggressor 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep and potentially merge. As noted by Mz7, who had initially closed this discussion, AfD is not optimized for discussing editorial decisions like merging—especially not when multiple articles are involved. Consensus seems to be in favor of merging at least the original article, but as the others were added late and "merge" outcomes at AfD are not really binding, I'd rather not slap a bunch of merging tags on them. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd be fine with a redirect, but @ Hahnchen thought the redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessories was "half-assed". Have fun finding sources. Please {{ ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. – czar 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This is a deletion discussion; it's purpose is to form a consensus over whether the selected article should be deleted or not, and if not, it's to decide what alternatives to deletion are applicable. While the nomination began on valid deletion grounds, the arising discussion has since brought about a budding merge consensus concerning articles not currently nominated for deletion and a destination title that is currently nonexistent. While "merge" is indeed available as an alternative to deletion, it is only actionable as an AfD outcome if all of the source pages are included in the deletion nomination. Of course, it is possible to relist and nominate those articles for deletion as a part of this discussion right now, but the proposed solution is a merge, not deletion. With all of this in mind, it is my view that AfD is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion, and I encourage all participants to continue the merge discussion at the appropriate talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
Vs. System is substantial enoughI think you meant to nominate Nintendo VS. System, not Vs. System. It isn't substantial—it's almost entirely unsourced. – czar 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No real evidence of notability . Previous A7 declined, but perhaps it shouldn't have been. The findable refs seem to be more mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)