![]() |
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable album with no references even Wgolf ( talk) 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable, per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Candidate to office without any other claim to notability Grahame ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Nkbuduma, who appears to be the person about whom this BLP is written, has requested this page be deleted. I think the notability of this person is questionable, and we should honour their wish. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. This is an obvious hoax. Nick-D ( talk) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a hoax. A 2010 edit by an IP, immediately self-reverted, said so. That is not definitive, of course, but investigation finds no confirmation. I do not have access to the book which is the first reference, but the second reference is accessible via JStor, and neither it nor the third reference say anything relevant. Authoritative sources on the holocaust in Romania also fail to provide any confirmation. The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania is available online here (warning: 313-page pdf) and neither Operation Pax Romana nor Johannes Jodl is mentioned in its index. Further, the website of the "Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania" contains a timeline "Etape ale holocaustului" ("Stages of the Holocaust"), which also does not mention Pax Romana or Jodl. False references plus no mention in authoritative sources = hoax. Thanks to Calamondin12 for tagging it. JohnCD ( talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not notable composer, all references are primary sources and the article gives an impression of being promotional and reads like a resume. Karst ( talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn [1] / Per Sk1 ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRG or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds very successful, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article contains no references and makes no assertion of album's notability. The only reason it cannot be nominated for speedy deletion is that the band itself, "Aquaria", has an article... But that, too, stands on very weak grounds, and I have also nominated that article for deletion as failing to meet notability guidelines. Regardless of whether or not the Aquaria article stands, this album cannot inherit notability from that one, and needs some evidence of its own independent notability as demonstrated in multiple reliable independent third-party sources. Otherwise this is just WP:PROMO. KDS4444 Talk 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't quite establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I can't see the Times article, but generally I was surprised by thr low number of Google hits. Boleyn ( talk) 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article's references include only one dead link (Rockdetector) and a two-sentence press release (?) with no named author (Blabbermouth.net), neither of which is in the form of an inline citation (so there is no way to know what information these "references" are supposed to be supporting). Without these, there is no evidence of the subject's real-world notability: none of the band members appears to be notable, and neither of their albums was released under a major record label. Neither has the band won any awards anywhere. Having a link to the band's official website and its MySpace page makes me suspect that this is mostly WP:PROMO. Previous deletion discussions have focused on the fact that the band is covered in foreign language wikis— these wikis have different standards of notability than the English Wikipedia does, and should not be used as reliable evidence of the band's notability for this Wikipedia. A dead link and a press release do not constitute evidence of notability. KDS4444 Talk 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Main source is a blog. Says has 5 international caps from the 50's but only lists against 3 teams, one against Peru where there is no record that Philippines had match versus Peru ever. I believe if any past player played in full international matches, there should be relevant source, not a modern source which mentions this in passing only. AndaleCaballo ( talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article with no assertion or evidence of notability of subject. KDS4444 Talk 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Granted this person received a large amount of media attention for who she murdered, but the subject is known for the one thing
WP:1E. Therefore, the article should either be deleted or merged into
Murder of Selena.
I am withdrawing my nomination. Consensus seems clear and for substantive reasons. Thank to everyone for their input. --
Scalhotrod
(Talk) ☮ღ☺
21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Contested speedy deletion (A7). Nakon 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod-unotable album Wgolf ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL as Lebanese league is not a Fully professional league. The included reference after the article was proded does not mention the player. Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested deletion-unotable song Wgolf ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Non notable book Wgolf ( talk) 16:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (mass deletion of pages added by Black jack2015). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet another uneeded filmography! Wgolf ( talk) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 01:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL also WP:NOTMEMORIAL JMHamo ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Best case redirect to Big Brother Africa 7 since she has some coverage as a contestant there although the information on that page shows she was kicked out on week 3 of a 13 week show. Does not meet general notability guidelines Jbh ( talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
small class="delsort-notice"
The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it being a seperate franchise in the MLS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This is based on the fault premise that this team is in the same situation as previous teams, primarily Seattle, Vancouver and Portland and Orlando. However those teams changed name and other aspects when when they came to MLS. That is not the case with Minnesota. Seattle and Vancouver are prime examples of this while Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples. MLS's franchise model does not mean that the previous companies/clubs cease to exist, only that they entered a different legal agreement. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like this is a rather straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, as she seems to be only notable for allegedly being raped by Bill Clinton. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA 1000 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Harvard played no football in 1873, the 1873 dates were confused for 1874. Its own sources betray the article. See 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game. Cake ( talk) 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bardo National Museum attack. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is clear WP:ONE EVENT. There is not even an article about the (human) police officer who was killed.
However, I feel that would also be more appropriate as a redirect than an article. Superm401 - Talk 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it winning multiple awards as listed in the below discussion. I would, at this time, also remind Mehran that we are a worldwide encyclopedia; which means that a major literary award is not made invalid for use as a source of notability, just because it is not known by those in the English speaking parts of the world. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no independent and reliable source in the articles, no sign of notability. More like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. ● Mehran Debate● 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
11:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There article is more like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. There is nothing which can make the book notable ● Mehran Debate● 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Diannaa. – Davey2010 Talk 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the blatantly promotional tone, fails the general notability guidelines like many other temples in India. Also not a significant geographical location. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no sign of notability per WP:GNG. He is an ordinary translator. ● Mehran Debate● 06:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Review on JSTOR [20]
- English version of war novel “Da” completed - Tehran Times [21]
- IBNA - Paul Sprachman visits IBNA [22]
- Literature of war in Persian presents interesting challenges to reader | onviewpoint.com [23]
- NJ Jewish News on-line | A Rutgers professor thinks Iran is open to diplomacy — and tourism [24]
- A City under Siege - Habib Ahmadzadeh [25]
- Americans read Iranian war novel, 5 October 2005 [26]
- Britannica Book of the Year 2009 [27]
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The notability of this building is not clearly stated. There are no supporting references that provide notability either. The only references are from Polish telephone books (proving only of its existence) and an ambiguous reference on a random carpenter. This seems entirely non-notable. Jcmcc450 ( talk) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This article has one source, Geltman's website. The article has been tagged with having this as a deficiency since Feb. 2007, for over 8 years. There is no indication that the subject comes anywhere close to meeting our notability guidelines for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable athlete, fails WP:NCOLLATH. - War wizard90 ( talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Original research. None of the references actually discuss the topic. utcursch | talk 01:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#G5. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Only sources are that written by the person himself. smileguy91 talk - contribs 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The last comment by User:Arb is showing of a potential for this list to be expanded, with reliable sourcing. Therefore, while I was leaning towards closing this as a redirect, I now find that there is no clear consensus to be made here at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A list of one item is not a list The Banner talk 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, I would prefer to keep the list as is. This would be more likely to encourage editors to add entries than redirection or deletion. But if the consensus is that this should not be an article right now, I would prefer the history is preserved through a redirect to List of events named massacres.I also have a hard time believing there is only one massacre in the island's whole history that is worth documenting, particularly given the history of colonization and slavery, but redirection would also preserve the formatting in case anyone can properly expand it in the future.
The following is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres in Iceland as this AfD ends first. -Arb. ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
End of copied text -Arb. ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'd hoped that this AfD would resolve the issue of "Lists with a single item that are part of a navbox series" being a special case. However, as no one seems prepared to engage with that here's a link to a massacre of fifty or so people in 2009 for which Wikipedia has as yet no mention that I can find: A Massacre in Jamaica, New Yorker. The shooting of seven unarmed citizens by the British Army during the Morant Bay rebellion was also arguably a massacre. There are doubtless more. -Arb. ( talk) 11:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for new participants: I have replaced the (very) old version with a new version. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Lack of notability Rhode Island Red ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply compare these versions: [34] -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
And to demonstrate this, you even deleted the list of publications. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
To end up the demolition of a living personality, my work and the collaborative culture within Wikipedia, I would like to invite the wikipedia public to decide now with a clear yes or no what follows:
- Concerning the notability of a personality in the field of design and architecture it is now time to focus with the following questions...
1. Is a personality notable, if his work is published within the leading journal of architecture and design and other magazines?
Domus (magazine) ISBN: CORNELL 31924068467376 language: it date: 1993-10 753 DOMUS 6 OTTOBBE '33 DesignLabor, Bremerhaven (Brema), 1 maggio-16 luglio 1993 Sprtatfields, London, settembre-ottobre Curatori: Karin-Beate PhilHs, Liz Farrelly, Helmut Diez Allestimento: Helmut Diez, Henning Krohn, Thomas ... or in other leading magazines, like Blueprint (architecture magazine) or Der Spiegel [42]
2. Is a personality notable which organizes and designs the biggest show of British Design on the Continent?
″größte Werkschau britischer Möbeldesigner des 20. Jahrhunderts″ (Sonntagsmagazin, ARD 1993-05-05, KulturBuffet, N3, Gerd Röhlke, Jürgen Schöffel: Visions in the swim and VOX (features)).
"In the swim": in mostra 57 giovani designer inglesi, in: DOMUS, 753, Mailand, Oktober 1993, p. 6-7 (among the „curatori“ Helmut Diez, in addition responsible for „allestimento“ (Inszenierung)). Perspectives, in: Blueprint. The leading Magazine of Architecture and Design, London, june 1993 („The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez“). Blueprint. The Leading Magazine of Architecture and Design. British Design's big splash, in: Blueprint, june 1993, S. 6 („Design Labor’s Managing Director Helmut Diez“).
3. Is a personality notable which as the head of a relevant design institution developed the only German scholarship for postgraduates in Design and architecture?
„Diez hat ein Modell entworfen, in dem sich künftig Stipendiat/Innen "im Sinne einer Spitzenförderung" in Bremerhaven fortbilden sollen“ (Thomas Wolff: Floßfahrt per Computer, in: Tageszeitung, 20th of july 1994, p. 19).
4. Is a personality notable which is managing a design institution together with personalities like François Burkardt, former director of Paris's Centre Pompidou, editor of Domus, editor of Crossing etc.)? (Künstlerlexikon Saar: Burkhardt, François)
5. Is a personality notable which is directing design workshops with more than 50 Designers and heads of leading global furniture producers like Carl Magnusson, Phillip Thonet (managing shareholder of Gebrüder Thonet etc.)
„Another element of the nexus of mutual benefit was the workshops, held at the show's opening weekend. An impressive group of international industrialists - Carl Magnusson, president of design for Knoll international, Sergio Buttiglieri, productmanager for Driade/Aleph, Anthologie-Quartett's art director Rainer Krause, Phillipe Thonet from Thonate, and Paul Jensen, Fritz Hansen's international sales director - worked with the designers over two days, examining the pieces and discussing their suitability for marketing. A highly charged and intensely creative atmosphere was generated...“, DOMUS No. 753/Album, Gio Ponti, Oktober 1993, S. 6-7.
„Diez invited manufacturers with contrasting product ranges and philosophies including Paul Mygind Jensen from Fritz Hansen, Philippe Thonet, Sergio Buttiglieri of Driade, Rainer Krause of Anthologie Quartett and Carl Magnusson of Knoll (company)Knoll...“ (Blueprint 1992, p. 72.)
6. Is a personality notable which develops together with postgraduates on a pre-competitive basis an important regional traffic system - like a longitudinal high speed ferry system with all components - ships, tidal jetty systems, frequencies, integration into regional traffic systems, marketing concept and realizing consortium ?
Weserbus: Working on water, in: FX Magazine, Fast and Forward, february 1995, p. 23. "Laborleiter Helmut Diez" (Frische Brise statt Abgasmief. Der "Weserbus" legt an – zunächst mal als Designstudie für ein neues Verkehrssystem, in: Die Tageszeitung, 16th of july 1994, p. 35).
7. Is a personality notable which erects a new pre-competitive studying field like Sound Design - 20 years ago?
"60 % der Menschen leiden unter vegetativen Störungen durch akustische Umweltverschmutzung", sagt der Leiter des Designlabors Bremerhaven, Helmut Diez … Klanggestaltung heißt das Studienfeld …, das dem Lärm des Maschinenzeitalters zu Leibe rücken will.“ (Hagen Hastert: Das Geräusch als Nervenprobe. Klang-Gestaltung, Designlabor BHV, in: Die Tageszeitung, 19th of january 1993, p. 20).
8. Is a personality notable which develops an analytical matrix after extracting hundreds of labour medical studies concerning still millions of people worldwide bearing heavy loads and which develops design strategies to minimize risks - as a governmental study featured by the government of North Rhine Westfalia? (Leitbilder sozialverträglicher Technikgestaltung - Ergebnisbericht des Projektträgers zum NRW-Landesprogramm Sozialverträgliche Technik — Gestaltung und Bewertung -
Humanisierungstechniken für den Bereich Heben und Tragen schwerer Lasten, Institut für Arbeit und Technik, bis 2005, ISBN 3-89368-014-4.
9. Is a personality notable which designs a hotel on high standard within a treehouse concept and which gains a worldwide feedback from Japan to New York, being awarded and ranges among the top ten worldwide, finding its way into two important book publications within shortest time? (Philip Jodidio:: Architecture Now! Small is Beautiful), [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] ("Interior Design: Helmut Diez, Bremen").
10. Is a personality notable which plans and influences the city development of Istanbul since 2003 and which is now involved again as the head of his own consortium in the masterplanning for the most historical part of the Mediterranean Sea - of Constantinople, Byzantium, Istanbul
The topics 1 to 7 were realized by Helmut Diez within less than two years of his worklife. The study in question 8 took him half a year. The project under n. 9 lasted 4 months. - His life-project in Istanbul takes him now 12 years.
Please let me as wikipedia author of more than 800 articles in the German wikipedia put now two questions to our community:
A. Is the article shown currently and thanks to Rhode Island Red under Helmut Diez bearable for wikipedia? - Yes or no?
B. And is Helmut Diez notable to be subject of an English wikipedia article? - Yes or no?
And as a summary: Helmut Diez is not a specialist but a generalists with interdivisionary and visionary approaches in different fields - above is only shown a selection of design and architectural works. He is head of a THINK TANK - and not easy to press into narrow categories.
That's what everybody has to think about, not about the usual tricks and contortions of Rhode Island Red. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You have tried this kind of manipulation with other authors in the same manner. Let the community decide. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, stop repeating your opinion again and again. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We know your personal opinion. Stop wasting our colleagues' time. The probably better version is here, but that's also mentioned above. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Keithbob, your intervention here casts doubts on your neutrality during the DRN. That's a pity. - Indirectly you don't accept german sources, and you don't really accept offline sources. If the majority of the boys here simply makes up a congregation of only english readers, only screen readers and nobody dares to enter a library, Wikipedia will become an addendum of Google. Good luck! -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 07:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"# The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Last hints, probably not without relevance for our administrators, just to show that most of the above mentioned "reasons" are simply not true. The article in my sandbox contains seven sources in English in the footnotes alone, although this is not necessary, and about thirty in German. Here we go:
German (not complete):
Here Diez's publications:
Works
Bibliography
My last question: Why are there only english speaking votings, exactly those guys that don't understand the text, the sources, the underlying culture? And even our own regulations! -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Did I really make the impression that I wanted to talk with you? -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"Of course, this has something to do with your understanding of German. Otherwise you would have realized that the paper by Diez and Michael Grauvogel cited by the European Commission contributed in no small degree to their decisions.”
Again, it’s not my understanding of German that’s the problem. The claim you make above is WP:OR. Nowhere in the document does it include the statement you made. Those are your words, not the words of the source; that’s the problem.
“As far as I can see, there is also an article about one of Diez's recent design projects in the manager magazine Creditreform, published by the prestigious Handelsblatt, saying that Diez created, with architect Andreas Wenning, four tree houses. See [62].”
I wouldn’t say there’s anything prestigious about the article or the source, and it’s only a two-paragraph blurb that mentions Diez’s name in passing once in reference to the tree house suites. According to previous iteration of the Diez bio, he was responsible for the interior design. [63] I wouldn’t dismiss this as a potentially usable source. It’s one of the only ones presented yet that’s available online. But it doesn’t provide significant depth of coverage nor does it establish notability according to WP:BIO. I’ts still not clear what the primary basis is for Diez putative notability. If it’s doing interior design on these treehouse suites, I don’t think that’s going to pass the test.
"Furthermore, the book In the Swim: An Exhibition of Creative Design from the British European Design Group shows that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer. See [64]. At least, all this suggests that he is notable enough for an entry in the English Wikipedia"
Can you provide a specific portion of the book’s text says that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer, or are those your words again? The point of this exercise is to put forth specific (and reliably sourced) text. A WordCat bibliographic entry alone isn’t helpful for the purpose of this exercise, and it doesn’t demonstrate notability. Also, remember that WP:NPF states: "...exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." So unless Diez's primary basis for notability is as an interior designer, it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. The current version of the article contains a hodgepodge list of disparate and unrelated activities, and none of them really seem notable at all; tree house interior design included. A jack of all trades perhaps, but apparently not a master of any, at least judging by the shallow depth of coverage he's received. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only.
|
---|
Everybody can read that it's always your behavior that I've got in mind. I had to learn that you are not interested in fairness or the truth, or even the sake of this project. You believe in the force of contortions and lawyering and you acted the same way in other occasions for years. To give only a few examples: Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, Talk:Gotthard_Graubner This might give our readers an idea, why it is senseless to discuss with you, Rhode Island Red. You have simply no idea of notability, you are too illiterate for an adequate participation in important fields, you are too lazy to visit a library. With only three hours of reserch you try to destroy a work of months. That's what you don't want to hear, but that's why I believe, that nobody should try to discuss with you on the grounds of AGF in the future. And: Of course it's still important to discuss with the rest of the audience! N. b.: Even if I have criticized Keithbob, I still believe in his good faith. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)|}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think, everything is said and done now. Every neutral and openminded Wikipedian, who is prepared to take action solely for the sake of this phantastic project, has got a sufficient basis for an adequate decision now. The last thing I can offer is to replace the very old version with the new one in my sandbox. I will leave Germany for a couple of days on monday, and I am not shure, if I'll have WLAN overthere. Anyway, Thanks a lot for your patience. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
|
The result was merge to Ever After High. The list's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced recreation of an article previously deleted following discussion Seems promotional Flat Out let's discuss it 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Delete. The news references seem to be run-of-the mill and do not confer Notability (although I don't read Norwegian very well). GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I have read through your helpful links and tried to update the page so that the links/references are also made directly in the text, trying to make the notability more clear. There are several links to german articles and pages, some Danish and also one in English. I have also made the page shorter and hopefully more to the point. What do you think now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedicteok ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Notability criteria for authors The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now included more information, more links and linked this page to other relevant pages on English Wiki. Am I drawing closer to this discussion beeing over? Benedicteok ( talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a summary article for a series of albums/EPs by Shinhwa, all of which are notable and have their own articles (and yes, the articles are in sad shape; they're on my to-do list). Shinhwa also has a discography article. Basically this article isn't needed and says nothing that isn't already said elsewhere. It also kind of implies a relationship between the albums/EPs that maybe doesn't really exist. As the first line of the overview states, they have no connection other than sharing a name. Shinyang-i ( talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of WP:ORIGINALSYN used here, no independent third party sources. Also fails WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We have reached a consensus that the information in the article is accurate, but notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG . 1. "Significant coverage": This topic has received significant coverage in the past. Please watch the video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4j7dmziOQ. This is a Top Billing episode. Top Billing is a television program that is broadcasted by SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation). SABC broadcasts 4 channels to the ENTIRE South African population (for free), as opposed to DSTV (Digital Satellite Television) which has multiple channels that are available ONLY on subscription. This topic was clearly mentioned on Top Billing. The person in the Top Billing interview is clearly identified by Top Billing as “South Africa’s Top Backstroke Swimmer” to the entire South African population (53 million people). The viewers of this program (Top Billing) currently have no way of verifying the accuracy of this country wide broadcast so it is necessary to have it on Wikipedia so that people (sponsors et al) can verify the information. 2. "Reliable": The sources that are referenced DO have editorial integrity that allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Reference 1: The source (SwimSA) is the ONLY official swimming federation in South Africa and all provincial federations submit their results to SwimSA. A SwimSA employee has told me that the information is 100% accurate and that the times have been verified by “The Provincial Officials Society, the Board, and by Swimming South Africa”. Reference 2: The source (FINA) describes itself as “FINA is the international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming.” They are the world’s major swimming organization and their published results would also be accurate. Reference 3: The source (The FINA Points Calculator) is based on the FINA Points Table. The application is available for download directly from the FINA website and is used by millions of swimmers worldwide. Thus ALL the sources referenced are reliable. 3. "Sources": The sources listed under references are primary sources ie. Raw data BUT there is a screenshot to illustrate how the information was calculated. The secondary source is thus the excel information that I have calculated. The Wikipedia notability guidelines state that the sources do NOT have to be available online. The information is verifiable because I have attached two screenshots to the article which serve as examples that can be used by viewers to easily verify the information if they want to. We have already reached consensus during this discussion that the information is indeed reliable. 4. "Independent of the subject": This work is considered independent because none of us are affiliated to the article’s subject. The work does not fall under advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or the subject’s website. 5. "Presumed": This means that an assumption was created that the article should be included as it provides a way to verify the claims made in the Top Billing episode. The Wikipedia article is based on reliable, published sources, and is expressed from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means that it is representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias. It is without bias because the calculations are mathematically verifiable and always yield the same unbiased result. The article does not violate the “what Wikipedia is not”, in particular the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is explained in more depth below (which addresses WP:IINFO). For the above reasons the topic DOES meet the general notability guideline ie. WP:GNG . The topic thus warrants its own article. I refer you to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information . The data does provide encyclopedic value because the data has been put in the context of verifiable calculations which has been based on the data referenced to independent sources. The article is not: 1. A Summary-only description of works. The data is expanded into a form that allows swimming times to be compared across events by means of FINA points. The FINA points are then compared to reach an accurate ranking of the Top backstrokers per event. 2. A lyrics database as it contains no reference to or information about songs. 3. An excessive listing of statistics. Most of the statistical calculations (in Excel) are not visible to the reader. The reader only sees the end result of the calculations. Some of the statistical calculations are visible as attached images (2 images) because this allows the reader to understand the article. The article does not contain long and sprawling lists of statistics. The displayed information is not confusing to readers and is readable. The visible statistics are put into context for a general reader by the initial paragraph. It is necessary to display the data in the current form because it would be less understandable and more complicated to readers if displayed in paragraph form. All the excess statistics (Excel calculations) have already been omitted and the necessary data is summarized concisely. 4. An Exhaustive log of software updates. The article does not deal with software updates. For the above reasons, this article satisfies the requirement that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” ie. It satisfies WP:IINFO . I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NLIST . The people in the list (individual items) contained within the article follow the Wikipedia content policy of Verifiability (the people are listed on the SwimSA and FINA websites that are used as references), No original research (the data used is based on the SwimSA and FINA databases. The times represent actual performances as measured by the swimming equipment.), Neutral point of view (The data is calculated in an objective and mathematical manner. The points are from the FINA points table. The sorting is done in Excel. The information is thus objective, neutral, and one will always end up with the same result.), plus the other content policies as well. Each item on the list is well referenced and the list as a whole represents a neutral point of view. The items (people) meet the requirements of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy because people reading or editing the list can check the references to see that the information comes from a reliable source. All items (people) are relevant to the topic and are represented by a good source. The list involves living persons. It complies with the Biographies of living persons policy. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTPURP . The list in the article is for Information purposes. It represents an information source. It is a structured list and is organized chronologically by season. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSTATS . This has already been described above for WP:IINFO. Thank you for your kindness and cooperation. Blueblood53 ( talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have already referred you to the Top Billing episode. That was a nationwide broadcast, yet there is no evidence to support their claim that the featured backstroker has ever been the top backstroker because he has ranked at number 2 at best. Here is another article: http://www.zwemza.com/?p=11846. This is from ZwemZA, an Independent Swim News Site (it says this at the top of their website). It says that “by the time he was 20 he was ranked as the world’s top 50m backstroker”, thus implying he was South Africa’s top backstroker too. These claims are accurate. swimswam.com describe themselves as “Swim news, swimming videos, college swimming and Olympic swimming coverage, everything for the swimmer and the swim fan.” In this article, Charl Crous is referred to as South Africa’s top backstroker http://swimswam.com/spains-costa-schmid-swims-personal-best-at-mare-nostrum/ . This is inaccurate. Another article in The Times: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/10/schoeman-halts-le-clos-victory-charge . They claim that Le Clos is the top backstroker in South Africa, but this is not the case because there are 6 backstroke events and the Top backstroker is found by comparing the best times across events by means of FINA points. Kind Regards. Blueblood53 ( talk) 12:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per CSD G5. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Unotable yet to be released film Wgolf ( talk) 00:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Currently, the community is unable to find whether or not this 501c(3) is notable enough to merit inclusion here. The AFDs nominator also (although in a non-standard way) withdrew their nomination. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:20, 3 April 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}} . |
I turned down a CSD A7 and a few of us (@ Shirt58:, @ MelanieN:) have had a look, but of all the sources we've uncovered, there doesn't seem to be much other than mentions of the variety of "x, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors". I think we could still mention the organisation in passing in a few biographies of its members that happen to be notable for other means, but there doesn't seem to be much in reliable sources to actually make an article stick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand the points made but this organization is incredibly relevant and important to the film industry. Given how few women's voices there are in the industry and this is one of the only organization's doing anything about it I find it highly suspect that the only system for determining its importance and relevance is precise references to on other web articles. This is why this is so important & relevant - http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/dga-study-women-and-minority-directors-face-significant-hiring-disadvantage-at-entry-level-20150109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Just to pick a random other page on wiki that has been approved, apparently the video game Skull & Crossbones ( /info/en/?search=Skull_%26_Crossbones) is important & relevant but The Alliance of Women Directors is not? These judgement calls are neither neutral nor absent of perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather than a Speedy Deletion, why not take a week or so to try to improve the article? Carl Henderson ( talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Other points of relevance (sorry I don't know how to format on this)... http://www.networkisa.org/podcast.php?id=2466
How to Hire a Woman Director http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/guest-post-how-to-hire-a-woman-director-20150225
Study on Women in Film Confirms the Worst http://www.indiewire.com/article/sorry-ladies-study-on-women-in-film-and-television-confirms-the-worst-20150210
Women Directed Top Films http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/women-directed-17-of-the-top-250-grossing-films-of-2014-20150108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want.because it seem to overlook that important fact that guidelines, like policies, are established through consensus and are not opinion pieces like essays. Guidelines represent what the community at large has determined to be best practices that each editor should try and follow. Sure there are occasional exceptions, but "don't want to" is not one in my opinion. WP:CONLIMITED tells us that a "local consensus" (i.e., "a consensus achieved by a limited group of editors at a one place or time") does not take precedence over a "community consensus". Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The WP:GNG, WP:ORG and other notability guidelines have been determined through consensus and are widely accepted by the community as a whole. For sure, they may be changed over time, but this is something best achieved through proper discussion at their talk pages and not by simply ignoring them here because it helps us save this particular article. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment As the editor who started this discussion, I'd like to make a few points. I apologise to the regulars for going a little off-topic and long winded, but I'd like to reassure some of the visitors that I have sympathy for their viewpoints, some of which I agree with myself.
So what information am I looking for (and would make me change my mind and switch to !voting "keep" - which I have done in the past)? Well, ideally I'd like what I call (for some bizarre reason) a "money source" - an in-depth news article, preferably from a broadsheet newspaper such as the New York Times or LA Times, or maybe one of the major film magazines sold nationally (sorry, don't know what those are in the US, but the British equivalent would be Empire). Basically, something that allows me to write a full and in-depth article directly about the topic, its history and its purpose. ( : I see upthread that the Variety source has already gone some way towards this)
I can't get that from a magazine piece saying "so and so, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors, said..." - there's no information there to be able to write about the company. Have a look at Ika Hügel-Marshall (a good read even if I do say so myself), our "money source" there was an 5-6 page in-depth analysis of the article's subject archived on JSTOR, which was enough to write the guts of a basic article. Then when we got her autobiography (commercially published and edited by a third party, so can be considered reliable), we could expand the article even more, eventually obtaining good article status.
Anyway, I've rambled on for too long but hopefully that'll give you some ideas and reassure you that editor retention is a favourite subject of mine and nothing here is in any way personal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, thank you to those who have helped get this page in compliance. I am new to this and am definitely learning a ton. Not that this matters to the page but I think some of you would like to know that overall this has been a positive experience and I plan to continue editing and will hopefully improve, the only downside has been the trolling that I and other women have experienced on twitter over this issue. Seems pretty silly but whatevs, not really concerned about it but thought you should know it's been happening. Regarding the article, I've received considerable support about this page over the past few days and I expect non-AWD member wiki editors to contribute to continuer improving the page. Obviously I will not touch it any more. I didn't know I could't as a member but I do now. Jjenred5 ( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zackmann08 ( talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the general notability criterion or any of the more specialized criteria such as WP:BIO. Looking at the username, this appears to be an autobiography. The claims of importance are all problematic. He's supposed to be a singer-songwriter but there's no indication that he has ever released or even recorded so much as a single. It's claimed that he was on a Survivor-like reality TV series (and made an early exit) but his name does not appear in the article Treasure Island (show) and a search for "Herb Sherman + Treasure Island" comes up empty. He claims that he's part of a collective of Gospel musicians but there's no sign that this collective is itself notable. Finally, Sherman has fought in mixed martial arts but in a semi-professional promotion that is not notable. Pichpich ( talk) 18:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod of a unotable unreleased film Wgolf ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The Lead section is a dictionary definition. The Geometry section is better described by Serpentine curve. 'In Architecture' and 'In Topography and Geoecology' sections - in the main, contain blocks of text that happen to include the adjective 'serpentine' HolsworthyDave 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue - This isn't the place to discuss WP:merges - Those take place thataway → ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an ' ory' page, and it has some of the names. Suggest merge. Smarkflea ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable album with no references even Wgolf ( talk) 23:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable, per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Candidate to office without any other claim to notability Grahame ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Nkbuduma, who appears to be the person about whom this BLP is written, has requested this page be deleted. I think the notability of this person is questionable, and we should honour their wish. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. This is an obvious hoax. Nick-D ( talk) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a hoax. A 2010 edit by an IP, immediately self-reverted, said so. That is not definitive, of course, but investigation finds no confirmation. I do not have access to the book which is the first reference, but the second reference is accessible via JStor, and neither it nor the third reference say anything relevant. Authoritative sources on the holocaust in Romania also fail to provide any confirmation. The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania is available online here (warning: 313-page pdf) and neither Operation Pax Romana nor Johannes Jodl is mentioned in its index. Further, the website of the "Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania" contains a timeline "Etape ale holocaustului" ("Stages of the Holocaust"), which also does not mention Pax Romana or Jodl. False references plus no mention in authoritative sources = hoax. Thanks to Calamondin12 for tagging it. JohnCD ( talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not notable composer, all references are primary sources and the article gives an impression of being promotional and reads like a resume. Karst ( talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn [1] / Per Sk1 ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRG or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds very successful, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article contains no references and makes no assertion of album's notability. The only reason it cannot be nominated for speedy deletion is that the band itself, "Aquaria", has an article... But that, too, stands on very weak grounds, and I have also nominated that article for deletion as failing to meet notability guidelines. Regardless of whether or not the Aquaria article stands, this album cannot inherit notability from that one, and needs some evidence of its own independent notability as demonstrated in multiple reliable independent third-party sources. Otherwise this is just WP:PROMO. KDS4444 Talk 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't quite establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I can't see the Times article, but generally I was surprised by thr low number of Google hits. Boleyn ( talk) 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article's references include only one dead link (Rockdetector) and a two-sentence press release (?) with no named author (Blabbermouth.net), neither of which is in the form of an inline citation (so there is no way to know what information these "references" are supposed to be supporting). Without these, there is no evidence of the subject's real-world notability: none of the band members appears to be notable, and neither of their albums was released under a major record label. Neither has the band won any awards anywhere. Having a link to the band's official website and its MySpace page makes me suspect that this is mostly WP:PROMO. Previous deletion discussions have focused on the fact that the band is covered in foreign language wikis— these wikis have different standards of notability than the English Wikipedia does, and should not be used as reliable evidence of the band's notability for this Wikipedia. A dead link and a press release do not constitute evidence of notability. KDS4444 Talk 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Main source is a blog. Says has 5 international caps from the 50's but only lists against 3 teams, one against Peru where there is no record that Philippines had match versus Peru ever. I believe if any past player played in full international matches, there should be relevant source, not a modern source which mentions this in passing only. AndaleCaballo ( talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Article with no assertion or evidence of notability of subject. KDS4444 Talk 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Granted this person received a large amount of media attention for who she murdered, but the subject is known for the one thing
WP:1E. Therefore, the article should either be deleted or merged into
Murder of Selena.
I am withdrawing my nomination. Consensus seems clear and for substantive reasons. Thank to everyone for their input. --
Scalhotrod
(Talk) ☮ღ☺
21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Contested speedy deletion (A7). Nakon 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod-unotable album Wgolf ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL as Lebanese league is not a Fully professional league. The included reference after the article was proded does not mention the player. Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ogre You Asshole. The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested deletion-unotable song Wgolf ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Non notable book Wgolf ( talk) 16:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (mass deletion of pages added by Black jack2015). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet another uneeded filmography! Wgolf ( talk) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 01:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL also WP:NOTMEMORIAL JMHamo ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Best case redirect to Big Brother Africa 7 since she has some coverage as a contestant there although the information on that page shows she was kicked out on week 3 of a 13 week show. Does not meet general notability guidelines Jbh ( talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
small class="delsort-notice"
The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it being a seperate franchise in the MLS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This is based on the fault premise that this team is in the same situation as previous teams, primarily Seattle, Vancouver and Portland and Orlando. However those teams changed name and other aspects when when they came to MLS. That is not the case with Minnesota. Seattle and Vancouver are prime examples of this while Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples. MLS's franchise model does not mean that the previous companies/clubs cease to exist, only that they entered a different legal agreement. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like this is a rather straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, as she seems to be only notable for allegedly being raped by Bill Clinton. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA 1000 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Harvard played no football in 1873, the 1873 dates were confused for 1874. Its own sources betray the article. See 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game. Cake ( talk) 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bardo National Museum attack. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is clear WP:ONE EVENT. There is not even an article about the (human) police officer who was killed.
However, I feel that would also be more appropriate as a redirect than an article. Superm401 - Talk 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it winning multiple awards as listed in the below discussion. I would, at this time, also remind Mehran that we are a worldwide encyclopedia; which means that a major literary award is not made invalid for use as a source of notability, just because it is not known by those in the English speaking parts of the world. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no independent and reliable source in the articles, no sign of notability. More like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. ● Mehran Debate● 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
11:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There article is more like an advertisement for the book than an encyclopediac article. There is nothing which can make the book notable ● Mehran Debate● 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Diannaa. – Davey2010 Talk 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the blatantly promotional tone, fails the general notability guidelines like many other temples in India. Also not a significant geographical location. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no sign of notability per WP:GNG. He is an ordinary translator. ● Mehran Debate● 06:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Review on JSTOR [20]
- English version of war novel “Da” completed - Tehran Times [21]
- IBNA - Paul Sprachman visits IBNA [22]
- Literature of war in Persian presents interesting challenges to reader | onviewpoint.com [23]
- NJ Jewish News on-line | A Rutgers professor thinks Iran is open to diplomacy — and tourism [24]
- A City under Siege - Habib Ahmadzadeh [25]
- Americans read Iranian war novel, 5 October 2005 [26]
- Britannica Book of the Year 2009 [27]
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The notability of this building is not clearly stated. There are no supporting references that provide notability either. The only references are from Polish telephone books (proving only of its existence) and an ambiguous reference on a random carpenter. This seems entirely non-notable. Jcmcc450 ( talk) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This article has one source, Geltman's website. The article has been tagged with having this as a deficiency since Feb. 2007, for over 8 years. There is no indication that the subject comes anywhere close to meeting our notability guidelines for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable athlete, fails WP:NCOLLATH. - War wizard90 ( talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Original research. None of the references actually discuss the topic. utcursch | talk 01:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#G5. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Only sources are that written by the person himself. smileguy91 talk - contribs 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The last comment by User:Arb is showing of a potential for this list to be expanded, with reliable sourcing. Therefore, while I was leaning towards closing this as a redirect, I now find that there is no clear consensus to be made here at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A list of one item is not a list The Banner talk 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, I would prefer to keep the list as is. This would be more likely to encourage editors to add entries than redirection or deletion. But if the consensus is that this should not be an article right now, I would prefer the history is preserved through a redirect to List of events named massacres.I also have a hard time believing there is only one massacre in the island's whole history that is worth documenting, particularly given the history of colonization and slavery, but redirection would also preserve the formatting in case anyone can properly expand it in the future.
The following is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres in Iceland as this AfD ends first. -Arb. ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
End of copied text -Arb. ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'd hoped that this AfD would resolve the issue of "Lists with a single item that are part of a navbox series" being a special case. However, as no one seems prepared to engage with that here's a link to a massacre of fifty or so people in 2009 for which Wikipedia has as yet no mention that I can find: A Massacre in Jamaica, New Yorker. The shooting of seven unarmed citizens by the British Army during the Morant Bay rebellion was also arguably a massacre. There are doubtless more. -Arb. ( talk) 11:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for new participants: I have replaced the (very) old version with a new version. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Lack of notability Rhode Island Red ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply compare these versions: [34] -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
And to demonstrate this, you even deleted the list of publications. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
To end up the demolition of a living personality, my work and the collaborative culture within Wikipedia, I would like to invite the wikipedia public to decide now with a clear yes or no what follows:
- Concerning the notability of a personality in the field of design and architecture it is now time to focus with the following questions...
1. Is a personality notable, if his work is published within the leading journal of architecture and design and other magazines?
Domus (magazine) ISBN: CORNELL 31924068467376 language: it date: 1993-10 753 DOMUS 6 OTTOBBE '33 DesignLabor, Bremerhaven (Brema), 1 maggio-16 luglio 1993 Sprtatfields, London, settembre-ottobre Curatori: Karin-Beate PhilHs, Liz Farrelly, Helmut Diez Allestimento: Helmut Diez, Henning Krohn, Thomas ... or in other leading magazines, like Blueprint (architecture magazine) or Der Spiegel [42]
2. Is a personality notable which organizes and designs the biggest show of British Design on the Continent?
″größte Werkschau britischer Möbeldesigner des 20. Jahrhunderts″ (Sonntagsmagazin, ARD 1993-05-05, KulturBuffet, N3, Gerd Röhlke, Jürgen Schöffel: Visions in the swim and VOX (features)).
"In the swim": in mostra 57 giovani designer inglesi, in: DOMUS, 753, Mailand, Oktober 1993, p. 6-7 (among the „curatori“ Helmut Diez, in addition responsible for „allestimento“ (Inszenierung)). Perspectives, in: Blueprint. The leading Magazine of Architecture and Design, London, june 1993 („The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez“). Blueprint. The Leading Magazine of Architecture and Design. British Design's big splash, in: Blueprint, june 1993, S. 6 („Design Labor’s Managing Director Helmut Diez“).
3. Is a personality notable which as the head of a relevant design institution developed the only German scholarship for postgraduates in Design and architecture?
„Diez hat ein Modell entworfen, in dem sich künftig Stipendiat/Innen "im Sinne einer Spitzenförderung" in Bremerhaven fortbilden sollen“ (Thomas Wolff: Floßfahrt per Computer, in: Tageszeitung, 20th of july 1994, p. 19).
4. Is a personality notable which is managing a design institution together with personalities like François Burkardt, former director of Paris's Centre Pompidou, editor of Domus, editor of Crossing etc.)? (Künstlerlexikon Saar: Burkhardt, François)
5. Is a personality notable which is directing design workshops with more than 50 Designers and heads of leading global furniture producers like Carl Magnusson, Phillip Thonet (managing shareholder of Gebrüder Thonet etc.)
„Another element of the nexus of mutual benefit was the workshops, held at the show's opening weekend. An impressive group of international industrialists - Carl Magnusson, president of design for Knoll international, Sergio Buttiglieri, productmanager for Driade/Aleph, Anthologie-Quartett's art director Rainer Krause, Phillipe Thonet from Thonate, and Paul Jensen, Fritz Hansen's international sales director - worked with the designers over two days, examining the pieces and discussing their suitability for marketing. A highly charged and intensely creative atmosphere was generated...“, DOMUS No. 753/Album, Gio Ponti, Oktober 1993, S. 6-7.
„Diez invited manufacturers with contrasting product ranges and philosophies including Paul Mygind Jensen from Fritz Hansen, Philippe Thonet, Sergio Buttiglieri of Driade, Rainer Krause of Anthologie Quartett and Carl Magnusson of Knoll (company)Knoll...“ (Blueprint 1992, p. 72.)
6. Is a personality notable which develops together with postgraduates on a pre-competitive basis an important regional traffic system - like a longitudinal high speed ferry system with all components - ships, tidal jetty systems, frequencies, integration into regional traffic systems, marketing concept and realizing consortium ?
Weserbus: Working on water, in: FX Magazine, Fast and Forward, february 1995, p. 23. "Laborleiter Helmut Diez" (Frische Brise statt Abgasmief. Der "Weserbus" legt an – zunächst mal als Designstudie für ein neues Verkehrssystem, in: Die Tageszeitung, 16th of july 1994, p. 35).
7. Is a personality notable which erects a new pre-competitive studying field like Sound Design - 20 years ago?
"60 % der Menschen leiden unter vegetativen Störungen durch akustische Umweltverschmutzung", sagt der Leiter des Designlabors Bremerhaven, Helmut Diez … Klanggestaltung heißt das Studienfeld …, das dem Lärm des Maschinenzeitalters zu Leibe rücken will.“ (Hagen Hastert: Das Geräusch als Nervenprobe. Klang-Gestaltung, Designlabor BHV, in: Die Tageszeitung, 19th of january 1993, p. 20).
8. Is a personality notable which develops an analytical matrix after extracting hundreds of labour medical studies concerning still millions of people worldwide bearing heavy loads and which develops design strategies to minimize risks - as a governmental study featured by the government of North Rhine Westfalia? (Leitbilder sozialverträglicher Technikgestaltung - Ergebnisbericht des Projektträgers zum NRW-Landesprogramm Sozialverträgliche Technik — Gestaltung und Bewertung -
Humanisierungstechniken für den Bereich Heben und Tragen schwerer Lasten, Institut für Arbeit und Technik, bis 2005, ISBN 3-89368-014-4.
9. Is a personality notable which designs a hotel on high standard within a treehouse concept and which gains a worldwide feedback from Japan to New York, being awarded and ranges among the top ten worldwide, finding its way into two important book publications within shortest time? (Philip Jodidio:: Architecture Now! Small is Beautiful), [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] ("Interior Design: Helmut Diez, Bremen").
10. Is a personality notable which plans and influences the city development of Istanbul since 2003 and which is now involved again as the head of his own consortium in the masterplanning for the most historical part of the Mediterranean Sea - of Constantinople, Byzantium, Istanbul
The topics 1 to 7 were realized by Helmut Diez within less than two years of his worklife. The study in question 8 took him half a year. The project under n. 9 lasted 4 months. - His life-project in Istanbul takes him now 12 years.
Please let me as wikipedia author of more than 800 articles in the German wikipedia put now two questions to our community:
A. Is the article shown currently and thanks to Rhode Island Red under Helmut Diez bearable for wikipedia? - Yes or no?
B. And is Helmut Diez notable to be subject of an English wikipedia article? - Yes or no?
And as a summary: Helmut Diez is not a specialist but a generalists with interdivisionary and visionary approaches in different fields - above is only shown a selection of design and architectural works. He is head of a THINK TANK - and not easy to press into narrow categories.
That's what everybody has to think about, not about the usual tricks and contortions of Rhode Island Red. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You have tried this kind of manipulation with other authors in the same manner. Let the community decide. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, stop repeating your opinion again and again. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We know your personal opinion. Stop wasting our colleagues' time. The probably better version is here, but that's also mentioned above. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Keithbob, your intervention here casts doubts on your neutrality during the DRN. That's a pity. - Indirectly you don't accept german sources, and you don't really accept offline sources. If the majority of the boys here simply makes up a congregation of only english readers, only screen readers and nobody dares to enter a library, Wikipedia will become an addendum of Google. Good luck! -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 07:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"# The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Last hints, probably not without relevance for our administrators, just to show that most of the above mentioned "reasons" are simply not true. The article in my sandbox contains seven sources in English in the footnotes alone, although this is not necessary, and about thirty in German. Here we go:
German (not complete):
Here Diez's publications:
Works
Bibliography
My last question: Why are there only english speaking votings, exactly those guys that don't understand the text, the sources, the underlying culture? And even our own regulations! -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Did I really make the impression that I wanted to talk with you? -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"Of course, this has something to do with your understanding of German. Otherwise you would have realized that the paper by Diez and Michael Grauvogel cited by the European Commission contributed in no small degree to their decisions.”
Again, it’s not my understanding of German that’s the problem. The claim you make above is WP:OR. Nowhere in the document does it include the statement you made. Those are your words, not the words of the source; that’s the problem.
“As far as I can see, there is also an article about one of Diez's recent design projects in the manager magazine Creditreform, published by the prestigious Handelsblatt, saying that Diez created, with architect Andreas Wenning, four tree houses. See [62].”
I wouldn’t say there’s anything prestigious about the article or the source, and it’s only a two-paragraph blurb that mentions Diez’s name in passing once in reference to the tree house suites. According to previous iteration of the Diez bio, he was responsible for the interior design. [63] I wouldn’t dismiss this as a potentially usable source. It’s one of the only ones presented yet that’s available online. But it doesn’t provide significant depth of coverage nor does it establish notability according to WP:BIO. I’ts still not clear what the primary basis is for Diez putative notability. If it’s doing interior design on these treehouse suites, I don’t think that’s going to pass the test.
"Furthermore, the book In the Swim: An Exhibition of Creative Design from the British European Design Group shows that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer. See [64]. At least, all this suggests that he is notable enough for an entry in the English Wikipedia"
Can you provide a specific portion of the book’s text says that Diez is internationally recognized as a designer, or are those your words again? The point of this exercise is to put forth specific (and reliably sourced) text. A WordCat bibliographic entry alone isn’t helpful for the purpose of this exercise, and it doesn’t demonstrate notability. Also, remember that WP:NPF states: "...exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." So unless Diez's primary basis for notability is as an interior designer, it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. The current version of the article contains a hodgepodge list of disparate and unrelated activities, and none of them really seem notable at all; tree house interior design included. A jack of all trades perhaps, but apparently not a master of any, at least judging by the shallow depth of coverage he's received. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 02:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only.
|
---|
Everybody can read that it's always your behavior that I've got in mind. I had to learn that you are not interested in fairness or the truth, or even the sake of this project. You believe in the force of contortions and lawyering and you acted the same way in other occasions for years. To give only a few examples: Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, Talk:Gotthard_Graubner This might give our readers an idea, why it is senseless to discuss with you, Rhode Island Red. You have simply no idea of notability, you are too illiterate for an adequate participation in important fields, you are too lazy to visit a library. With only three hours of reserch you try to destroy a work of months. That's what you don't want to hear, but that's why I believe, that nobody should try to discuss with you on the grounds of AGF in the future. And: Of course it's still important to discuss with the rest of the audience! N. b.: Even if I have criticized Keithbob, I still believe in his good faith. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)|}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think, everything is said and done now. Every neutral and openminded Wikipedian, who is prepared to take action solely for the sake of this phantastic project, has got a sufficient basis for an adequate decision now. The last thing I can offer is to replace the very old version with the new one in my sandbox. I will leave Germany for a couple of days on monday, and I am not shure, if I'll have WLAN overthere. Anyway, Thanks a lot for your patience. -- Hans-Jürgen Hübner ( talk) 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
|
The result was merge to Ever After High. The list's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced recreation of an article previously deleted following discussion Seems promotional Flat Out let's discuss it 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not Notable. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Delete. The news references seem to be run-of-the mill and do not confer Notability (although I don't read Norwegian very well). GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I have read through your helpful links and tried to update the page so that the links/references are also made directly in the text, trying to make the notability more clear. There are several links to german articles and pages, some Danish and also one in English. I have also made the page shorter and hopefully more to the point. What do you think now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedicteok ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Notability criteria for authors The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now included more information, more links and linked this page to other relevant pages on English Wiki. Am I drawing closer to this discussion beeing over? Benedicteok ( talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a summary article for a series of albums/EPs by Shinhwa, all of which are notable and have their own articles (and yes, the articles are in sad shape; they're on my to-do list). Shinhwa also has a discography article. Basically this article isn't needed and says nothing that isn't already said elsewhere. It also kind of implies a relationship between the albums/EPs that maybe doesn't really exist. As the first line of the overview states, they have no connection other than sharing a name. Shinyang-i ( talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of WP:ORIGINALSYN used here, no independent third party sources. Also fails WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We have reached a consensus that the information in the article is accurate, but notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG . 1. "Significant coverage": This topic has received significant coverage in the past. Please watch the video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4j7dmziOQ. This is a Top Billing episode. Top Billing is a television program that is broadcasted by SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation). SABC broadcasts 4 channels to the ENTIRE South African population (for free), as opposed to DSTV (Digital Satellite Television) which has multiple channels that are available ONLY on subscription. This topic was clearly mentioned on Top Billing. The person in the Top Billing interview is clearly identified by Top Billing as “South Africa’s Top Backstroke Swimmer” to the entire South African population (53 million people). The viewers of this program (Top Billing) currently have no way of verifying the accuracy of this country wide broadcast so it is necessary to have it on Wikipedia so that people (sponsors et al) can verify the information. 2. "Reliable": The sources that are referenced DO have editorial integrity that allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Reference 1: The source (SwimSA) is the ONLY official swimming federation in South Africa and all provincial federations submit their results to SwimSA. A SwimSA employee has told me that the information is 100% accurate and that the times have been verified by “The Provincial Officials Society, the Board, and by Swimming South Africa”. Reference 2: The source (FINA) describes itself as “FINA is the international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming.” They are the world’s major swimming organization and their published results would also be accurate. Reference 3: The source (The FINA Points Calculator) is based on the FINA Points Table. The application is available for download directly from the FINA website and is used by millions of swimmers worldwide. Thus ALL the sources referenced are reliable. 3. "Sources": The sources listed under references are primary sources ie. Raw data BUT there is a screenshot to illustrate how the information was calculated. The secondary source is thus the excel information that I have calculated. The Wikipedia notability guidelines state that the sources do NOT have to be available online. The information is verifiable because I have attached two screenshots to the article which serve as examples that can be used by viewers to easily verify the information if they want to. We have already reached consensus during this discussion that the information is indeed reliable. 4. "Independent of the subject": This work is considered independent because none of us are affiliated to the article’s subject. The work does not fall under advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or the subject’s website. 5. "Presumed": This means that an assumption was created that the article should be included as it provides a way to verify the claims made in the Top Billing episode. The Wikipedia article is based on reliable, published sources, and is expressed from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means that it is representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias. It is without bias because the calculations are mathematically verifiable and always yield the same unbiased result. The article does not violate the “what Wikipedia is not”, in particular the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is explained in more depth below (which addresses WP:IINFO). For the above reasons the topic DOES meet the general notability guideline ie. WP:GNG . The topic thus warrants its own article. I refer you to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information . The data does provide encyclopedic value because the data has been put in the context of verifiable calculations which has been based on the data referenced to independent sources. The article is not: 1. A Summary-only description of works. The data is expanded into a form that allows swimming times to be compared across events by means of FINA points. The FINA points are then compared to reach an accurate ranking of the Top backstrokers per event. 2. A lyrics database as it contains no reference to or information about songs. 3. An excessive listing of statistics. Most of the statistical calculations (in Excel) are not visible to the reader. The reader only sees the end result of the calculations. Some of the statistical calculations are visible as attached images (2 images) because this allows the reader to understand the article. The article does not contain long and sprawling lists of statistics. The displayed information is not confusing to readers and is readable. The visible statistics are put into context for a general reader by the initial paragraph. It is necessary to display the data in the current form because it would be less understandable and more complicated to readers if displayed in paragraph form. All the excess statistics (Excel calculations) have already been omitted and the necessary data is summarized concisely. 4. An Exhaustive log of software updates. The article does not deal with software updates. For the above reasons, this article satisfies the requirement that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” ie. It satisfies WP:IINFO . I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NLIST . The people in the list (individual items) contained within the article follow the Wikipedia content policy of Verifiability (the people are listed on the SwimSA and FINA websites that are used as references), No original research (the data used is based on the SwimSA and FINA databases. The times represent actual performances as measured by the swimming equipment.), Neutral point of view (The data is calculated in an objective and mathematical manner. The points are from the FINA points table. The sorting is done in Excel. The information is thus objective, neutral, and one will always end up with the same result.), plus the other content policies as well. Each item on the list is well referenced and the list as a whole represents a neutral point of view. The items (people) meet the requirements of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy because people reading or editing the list can check the references to see that the information comes from a reliable source. All items (people) are relevant to the topic and are represented by a good source. The list involves living persons. It complies with the Biographies of living persons policy. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTPURP . The list in the article is for Information purposes. It represents an information source. It is a structured list and is organized chronologically by season. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSTATS . This has already been described above for WP:IINFO. Thank you for your kindness and cooperation. Blueblood53 ( talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have already referred you to the Top Billing episode. That was a nationwide broadcast, yet there is no evidence to support their claim that the featured backstroker has ever been the top backstroker because he has ranked at number 2 at best. Here is another article: http://www.zwemza.com/?p=11846. This is from ZwemZA, an Independent Swim News Site (it says this at the top of their website). It says that “by the time he was 20 he was ranked as the world’s top 50m backstroker”, thus implying he was South Africa’s top backstroker too. These claims are accurate. swimswam.com describe themselves as “Swim news, swimming videos, college swimming and Olympic swimming coverage, everything for the swimmer and the swim fan.” In this article, Charl Crous is referred to as South Africa’s top backstroker http://swimswam.com/spains-costa-schmid-swims-personal-best-at-mare-nostrum/ . This is inaccurate. Another article in The Times: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/10/schoeman-halts-le-clos-victory-charge . They claim that Le Clos is the top backstroker in South Africa, but this is not the case because there are 6 backstroke events and the Top backstroker is found by comparing the best times across events by means of FINA points. Kind Regards. Blueblood53 ( talk) 12:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo per CSD G5. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Unotable yet to be released film Wgolf ( talk) 00:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Currently, the community is unable to find whether or not this 501c(3) is notable enough to merit inclusion here. The AFDs nominator also (although in a non-standard way) withdrew their nomination. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:20, 3 April 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}} . |
I turned down a CSD A7 and a few of us (@ Shirt58:, @ MelanieN:) have had a look, but of all the sources we've uncovered, there doesn't seem to be much other than mentions of the variety of "x, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors". I think we could still mention the organisation in passing in a few biographies of its members that happen to be notable for other means, but there doesn't seem to be much in reliable sources to actually make an article stick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand the points made but this organization is incredibly relevant and important to the film industry. Given how few women's voices there are in the industry and this is one of the only organization's doing anything about it I find it highly suspect that the only system for determining its importance and relevance is precise references to on other web articles. This is why this is so important & relevant - http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/dga-study-women-and-minority-directors-face-significant-hiring-disadvantage-at-entry-level-20150109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Just to pick a random other page on wiki that has been approved, apparently the video game Skull & Crossbones ( /info/en/?search=Skull_%26_Crossbones) is important & relevant but The Alliance of Women Directors is not? These judgement calls are neither neutral nor absent of perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather than a Speedy Deletion, why not take a week or so to try to improve the article? Carl Henderson ( talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Other points of relevance (sorry I don't know how to format on this)... http://www.networkisa.org/podcast.php?id=2466
How to Hire a Woman Director http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/guest-post-how-to-hire-a-woman-director-20150225
Study on Women in Film Confirms the Worst http://www.indiewire.com/article/sorry-ladies-study-on-women-in-film-and-television-confirms-the-worst-20150210
Women Directed Top Films http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/women-directed-17-of-the-top-250-grossing-films-of-2014-20150108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want.because it seem to overlook that important fact that guidelines, like policies, are established through consensus and are not opinion pieces like essays. Guidelines represent what the community at large has determined to be best practices that each editor should try and follow. Sure there are occasional exceptions, but "don't want to" is not one in my opinion. WP:CONLIMITED tells us that a "local consensus" (i.e., "a consensus achieved by a limited group of editors at a one place or time") does not take precedence over a "community consensus". Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The WP:GNG, WP:ORG and other notability guidelines have been determined through consensus and are widely accepted by the community as a whole. For sure, they may be changed over time, but this is something best achieved through proper discussion at their talk pages and not by simply ignoring them here because it helps us save this particular article. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment As the editor who started this discussion, I'd like to make a few points. I apologise to the regulars for going a little off-topic and long winded, but I'd like to reassure some of the visitors that I have sympathy for their viewpoints, some of which I agree with myself.
So what information am I looking for (and would make me change my mind and switch to !voting "keep" - which I have done in the past)? Well, ideally I'd like what I call (for some bizarre reason) a "money source" - an in-depth news article, preferably from a broadsheet newspaper such as the New York Times or LA Times, or maybe one of the major film magazines sold nationally (sorry, don't know what those are in the US, but the British equivalent would be Empire). Basically, something that allows me to write a full and in-depth article directly about the topic, its history and its purpose. ( : I see upthread that the Variety source has already gone some way towards this)
I can't get that from a magazine piece saying "so and so, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors, said..." - there's no information there to be able to write about the company. Have a look at Ika Hügel-Marshall (a good read even if I do say so myself), our "money source" there was an 5-6 page in-depth analysis of the article's subject archived on JSTOR, which was enough to write the guts of a basic article. Then when we got her autobiography (commercially published and edited by a third party, so can be considered reliable), we could expand the article even more, eventually obtaining good article status.
Anyway, I've rambled on for too long but hopefully that'll give you some ideas and reassure you that editor retention is a favourite subject of mine and nothing here is in any way personal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, thank you to those who have helped get this page in compliance. I am new to this and am definitely learning a ton. Not that this matters to the page but I think some of you would like to know that overall this has been a positive experience and I plan to continue editing and will hopefully improve, the only downside has been the trolling that I and other women have experienced on twitter over this issue. Seems pretty silly but whatevs, not really concerned about it but thought you should know it's been happening. Regarding the article, I've received considerable support about this page over the past few days and I expect non-AWD member wiki editors to contribute to continuer improving the page. Obviously I will not touch it any more. I didn't know I could't as a member but I do now. Jjenred5 ( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zackmann08 ( talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the general notability criterion or any of the more specialized criteria such as WP:BIO. Looking at the username, this appears to be an autobiography. The claims of importance are all problematic. He's supposed to be a singer-songwriter but there's no indication that he has ever released or even recorded so much as a single. It's claimed that he was on a Survivor-like reality TV series (and made an early exit) but his name does not appear in the article Treasure Island (show) and a search for "Herb Sherman + Treasure Island" comes up empty. He claims that he's part of a collective of Gospel musicians but there's no sign that this collective is itself notable. Finally, Sherman has fought in mixed martial arts but in a semi-professional promotion that is not notable. Pichpich ( talk) 18:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod of a unotable unreleased film Wgolf ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The Lead section is a dictionary definition. The Geometry section is better described by Serpentine curve. 'In Architecture' and 'In Topography and Geoecology' sections - in the main, contain blocks of text that happen to include the adjective 'serpentine' HolsworthyDave 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue - This isn't the place to discuss WP:merges - Those take place thataway → ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an ' ory' page, and it has some of the names. Suggest merge. Smarkflea ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)